Abridged vs. Unabridged versions of the "classics"...

[Sue G in PA]

I asked this once before on the old board, I think. I've been reading a bunch of books recently that address this "issue" (Honey for a Child's Heart being one) and I was wondering about the "Hive's" opinion on letting children read abridged versions of classics. This is my opinion of late: I think it better to let them read the originals when they are ready than to read a watered-down, condensed version. If there was ever a book that I really wanted my dc to hear/read before they were ready to actually read it on their own...I think I would rather use it as a read-aloud and have discussion time re: unfamiliar vocab. words or phrases or content, KWIM? My dh and I discussed this and he felt much the same way. Gladys Hunt, author of Honey for a Child's Heart recommended only 1 or 2 books to be read as "abridged" and one was Little Pilgrim's Progress. So, I know how I feel about this now...how do you all feel? Just curious and for the record...I don't think there is a right or wrong answer! :D

[dragons in the flower bed]

how do you all feel? Just curious and for the record...I don't think there is a right or wrong answer! :D

 

I think it partly depends how the adaptation is done, and partly depends on your child.

 

My son was graduating from easy chapters when Grandma bought him a set of fifty junior illustrated classics. I compared a few first chapters side by side with originals when she was considering them. I was surprised to see that a lot of the vocabulary, and all of the story, was still there. Mostly it was sentence structure that was simplified. The set included several Jules Verne titles, and I figured that for my science fiction buff it would either be that or Animorphs. The adaptations won.

 

I'm glad, too, because I have seen several benefits. First, his vocabulary level has shot through the roof. Secondly, he has no patience for modern fluff and feelings stories; he wants real adventure, real moral struggles. Third, his play is filled with references from these classic books. Because he was introduced to these tales at age six, he will spend the majority of his childhood pretending to be Sherlock Holmes and Tom Sawyer, or imagining himself on voyages with Gulliver or Ahab. Fourth, he's eager to compare the stories he loves with the originals in the hopes of finding out more about the characters he adores. He has asked me to replace the whole set with "the full versions."

 

So, I remain mixed in my feelings. I would not replace the originals with them. If your kiddo is likely to not read the originals because he read the adaptations, then keep the adaptations away! But if you have a small, voracious reader who needs practice with big, amazing stories, I don't see the harm in handing them a good adaptation -- after you have exhausted EB White and whatnot.

[Leila]

Well, in my case when he was 6 yrs old , I let my son read the abridge version of any classic that I want him to read. I just want him to be exposed to the story, not to question or test him. When he is old enough then I would let him read the unabridged ones. But in our read aloud books, I try to read the unabridged ones and just do explanations of the words he doesn't understand. I want him to read the classics but I know he is not ready yet to comprehend the whole story. He is 8 now. But by giving him the shorten version of the book, he gets exposed and would want to read more.

 

Leila

[Lovedtodeath]

Rose, can you give specific info on your set? I LOVE Jules Verne, and that set sounds great for our family. :D

[Sue G in PA]

So, I remain mixed in my feelings. I would not replace the originals with them. If your kiddo is likely to not read the originals because he read the adaptations, then keep the adaptations away! But if you have a small, voracious reader who needs practice with big, amazing stories, I don't see the harm in handing them a good adaptation -- after you have exhausted EB White and whatnot.

 

:iagree: Funny, this is almost exactly how I explained it to my dh! My dd11 had a bookshelf full of the Great Illustrated Classics (a dozen or more) given to her by relatives over the years. She's read all of them..some more than once. She is a voracious reader. As she got older, she read the full, unabridged versions of many of them and will read the other unabridged versions as well. She's the kind of kid who will read a book 8 times just b/c she liked it! Now, my ds's...they are a different story. It's like pulling teeth to get them to read ANYTHING and so to have them read the abridged version would be about it. They would NOT want to read it again later..."what's the point, mom...I already read that!". So, I see your point in that and tend to agree.

[Reya]

I won't assign them. I prefer to have the most authentic experience possible--with as little watering down as possible. So much of the value in a work of literature is in its language; the greater the distortion, the more of the value of the original is lost. This means unabridged always and in the original language when possible. I don't think children are naturally "scared" of classics and must be acclimatized to them through multiple exposures. In fact, I'm cautious of making the real thing seem boring when they get around to it by spoiling the surprise.

 

My exceptions to this rule are A) things that I know I'm never going to assign in the original, B) things that don't have LITERARY value, or C) the Bible. I would never take away a simplified version that the kids wanted to read, though! (There is a difference between a piece that is "great" because of its literary value versus its historical value or scientific content. I'm a lot looser on the latter! I'd never argue for the really, really great value of Herodotus or Euclid in Greek, for example!)

 

There's a finite amount of time for reading in the lower grades and a great number of excellent books that are written for children that have every bit as much literary value as adult books. I prefer to have the children read those than a simplified classic.

[AngelaC]

While I love the idea of ONLY reading the unabridged version, it is nearly impossible to expect a young reader to read some of the great books. However, it seems a shame not to let them "read" some of the great stories for themselves. Even if they are adaptations.

 

What I have found is that when my young reader reads an adaptation they have a pretty good idea of what the book is about. This fits in nicely with the grammar stage. The "what".

 

Then when they are expected to read the unabridged version, they are not intimidated and I find they "get" the story.

 

This year we are studying Ancients. My 13ds read The Odyssey. He had absolutely no problems reading it. I believe in part, it was because when he was eight years old we studied Ancients and he read a children's adaptation. He looked forward to reading the real story.

 

In fact, I have been known to read a child's version or two of Shakespeare . . . THEN read the play! I found when I understood the gist of the story, I could fumble through the unabridged version and understand what was going on.

[LizzyBee]

I let my kids read abridged versions of many classics when they are young. There will never be enough time to read all of the classics, but by reading abridged versions, at least they will know the gist of the story. In some cases, they enjoyed the abridged version so much that they read the originals. And they have always found the originals to be more interesting even though the reading is harder.

[Mom2legomaniacs]

I let my kids read abridged versions of many classics when they are young. There will never be enough time to read all of the classics, but by reading abridged versions, at least they will know the gist of the story. In some cases, they enjoyed the abridged version so much that they read the originals. And they have always found the originals to be more interesting even though the reading is harder.

 

Mine have been reading them and love them. I see no reason to stop them. Mine know that these are versions for younger children and that the "real" ones can be read when the are a bit older. They are excited about reading the longer versions when the time comes. Through these, they have been exposed to the stories and are very much anticipating reading the whole thing later on. I don't know if they would have that much excitement for the stories to come had they started with the more difficult versions.

[Catherine]

What has changed my mind is attempting to read Homer myself, unprepared. I couldn't do it-or maybe I should say, I could read the words, but didn't understand much of the subtlety. It wasn't until I read a biography of Homer, and several abridgements written for kids, and a bunch of books of Greek myths, that I really fully understood, and enjoyed, the original Iliad and Oddessey. What I have observed with my own kids is exactly what SWB predicted in TWTM-their interest is sparked by reading an abridgement, and they can tackle the original. My ds is asking to read the original of Around the World in 80 Days, after reading an abridgement. So, I am totally in favor of them.

[Laura Corin]

I assign simplified versions of myths/traditional stories, Shakespeare and just one or two other books. Myths because they exist in so many versions anyway, they are woven into the fabric of cultures. Shakespeare because familiarity with the stories helps a lot when seeing the real thing down the road. One or two other books.... where the general shape of the tale may be more important than the language. With fear and trepidation I mention Pilgrim's Progress and Don Quixote.

 

For other books, I just wait until the child is able to read them in the original. And in the mean time, there is a lot of great, classic children's literature to read.

 

Laura

[dragons in the flower bed]

Rose, can you give specific info on your set? I LOVE Jules Verne, and that set sounds great for our family. :D

 

It's Modern Publishing's Treasury of Illustrated Classics. The sci-fi titles and Verne titles included are Journey to the Center of the Earth, Around the World in 80 Days, The Time Machine, and 20000 Leagues Under the Sea. We also have Great Illustrated Classics versions of War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man.

 

I just snuck in to Verdi's (my 7yo's) room to see if there were any other sci-fi classics from the set in there, and found him asleep with books in the bed with him, as always. I realized the titles there were amazingly relevant to our conversation. Besides his cat, he was snuggled up with Great Illustrated Classics War of the Worlds, Stephen Hawking's new kids book, the Illustrated Classics version of Oliver Twist, and the Roger Lancelyn Green's Robin Hood published by Dover and unabridged. How perfect is that? He came to love Robin Hood so much through the Illustrated Classics version that I just bought the full edition, and he's been toting it around with him everywhere.

[Heather in Neverland]

When I was little my mom gave ME a set of the Great Illustrated Classics. I couldn't get enough of them! I read them over and over. When I was older I couldn't wait to read the originals and now I love those books as well. I saved that set for my kids and now they are reading them. I say get them interested as early as possible.

[nmoira]

 

I assign simplified versions of myths/traditional stories, Shakespeare and just one or two other books. Myths because they exist in so many versions anyway, they are woven into the fabric of cultures. Shakespeare because familiarity with the stories helps a lot when seeing the real thing down the road.

This is what we do as well. I just cannot bring myself to introduce most abridged classics into the household. There's a wealth of children's literature out there; what's the hurry to introduce works the child will be able to read perfectly well on their own (and be mature enough) in a few years' time?

[Mom2legomaniacs]

This is what we do as well. I just cannot bring myself to introduce most abridged classics into the household. There's a wealth of children's literature out there; what's the hurry to introduce works the child will be able to read perfectly well on their own (and be mature enough) in a few years' time?

 

Yes, there are lots of good things out there to read. I just want to say that these are all books my kids have picked out themselves from the used bookstore we frequent. I tell them to look through and find what sounds good in certain areas, and those are the ones they have picked! I am not rushing them into them, but letting them select what kinds of stories they wish to read. And one of mine is really picky about what he reads. I am glad he likes these stories. I know he will go on and read the other versions someday. I have tried to have him read lots of other sources of children's literature without great success for his liking any of them. These are enjoyable to him. That's a good thing for me!

[prairiegirl]

I let my kids read abridged copies. In our house, we read the same book over and over again, so the unabridged version will be read many times over, so I am not too worried about reading the abridged.

[nutmeg]

This is what we do as well. I just cannot bring myself to introduce most abridged classics into the household. There's a wealth of children's literature out there; what's the hurry to introduce works the child will be able to read perfectly well on their own (and be mature enough) in a few years' time?

:iagree: The only abridged/adapted works here are Shakespeare (Nesbit, Garfield, Lamb, etc).

 

We also read the book before we see the movie. :lurk5:

[TN Mama]

I *just picked up a copy of Anne of Green Gables at McKay last week and dd 7 devoured it in 3+ hours. I have no doubt we will read the full, unabridged version when she's a little older, but for now I am ok with this abridged version.

[Narrow Gate Academy]

I've always had mixed feeling about this. We have had a few of the Illustrated Classics here for a couple of years. I have found for my girls at least that enjoying the abridged versions sometimes means that they would rather not read the unabridged versions. So we're getting rid of most of our abriged ones and sticking to good children's literature instead. The exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head would be Little Pilgrims Progress, the Egermeier and Vos Bible storybooks, and some simplified versions of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, and works of Shakespeare.

 

HTH

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I let them read a few Illustrated Classics. They quickly tired of them, and were ready to move on. There are so many "classics"; even after reading several abridged versions, there are many wonderful books to choose from.

[Pine Ledge Academy]

I might end up letting us all listen to them on cd. We did this for Johnny Tremain, it was a bit over their heads to read themselves now, but someday they will. i remember reading abridged versions as a child, like Tale of Two Cities, I got the idea, but not all the good writing, and it was harder to go back and read the whole thing when I already knew the story line.