Opinions please -- unabridged or abridged

[TracyP]

I am looking at booklists as I plan next year and debating this in my head. I have had the opinion that reading an abridged version of a novel first is a good starting point. Later, they can read the original. As I was searching around today I saw an abridged version of Black Beauty assigned for the reading level I was looking for. My dd read BB a couple months ago and LOVED it. She read it at least 3 times while we had it from the library. This made me wonder. If she read the abridged version now, obviously she would think it too simple and missing large chunks of the story. But, if she had read the abridged version first would she find the original cumbersome? Would she have loved BB (the original) as much if that wasn't her first experience with the book?

 

Thoughts?

[meggie]

I think it depends on the original novel. Something like Moby Dick, I doubt I'd ever read myself or have my children read, unless they really wanted to. But an abridged version probably would be better.

 

It also depends on the age of your child. Don't try to have them read something out of their comprehension level. Stick with classics meant for littles while they're little and then try some of the more advanced ones as they age. If they struggle with one, don't be afraid to put it aside for awhile until they mature or try it as a read aloud. I don't know why, but it's easier to comprehend when it's read out loud to you.

 

And in my opinion, abridged versions will make it harder to read the original. I read the abridged version of Little Women a thousand times over, but could never make it through the actual book. Only on rare occasion (like Moby Dick) would I choose to read an abridged copy. They'll either read it themself or I'll read it to them. In my opinion, classics are classics for a reason and abridged versions are not. They take a lot of good stuff out, usually a beautiful language and make it a little too easy to read, so the child doesn't have to concentrate or think as hard.

[happypamama]

I generally veer toward unabridged versions. I would rather wait until they're old enough to appreciate it, or do it as a family read-aloud, than use a watered-down version. Sometimes abridged versions are good, and sometimes they leave out a lot of the rich language that makes the original good. But I think it will depend on the abridged version, too.

[Daisy]

Books that were written to children we do not read in abridged format. For example, Treasure Island, Heidi, Alice in Wonderland, A Little Princess, Black Beauty, Peter Pan, etc. I just wait until they can read the book or we read it aloud.

 

Longer, more complicated works, I let them read abridged. For example, King Arthur (they read the Pyle version), Ivanhoe, Moby Dick, Oliver, Pride and Prejudice, The Three Musketeers are all books we've allowed them to read abridged.

 

By the time they can read those works, they'll have a vague sense of the plot from the abridged versions but won't be so familiar with it that it will be boring.

[Haiku]

I view abridgments as vehicles for introducing my children to something that would be far beyond their reach in the original version, not as ends in their own right. We read an abridged version of the Odyssey. Now my kids know the story, even though they wouldn't be ready to read the original for many years. My well-meaning sister gave my dd an abridged version of Anne of Green Gables, which I promptly hid. My dd wasn't ready to read the original to herself at 7, but now at 9 she'd be fine with it. No reason at all for an abridgment.

 

Tara

[twoxcell]

I personally think it is best to wait until they can read the originals. There are plenty of great childrens books to be read. You can also use classics as read alouds. I read my kids Black Beauty when they were 6 and 4, and they loved it.

[2cents]

I personally think it is best to wait until they can read the originals. There are plenty of great childrens books to be read. You can also use classics as read alouds. I read my kids Black Beauty when they were 6 and 4, and they loved it.

 

:iagree:

[Laura Corin]

I decided not to got with abridged/rewritten tales, except for items where knowing the stories was culturally important. So the boys read children's versions of the Bible, Greek myths, King Arthur, Robin Hood, various other cultural stories. We also used abridged versions of Shakespeare as introductions to the plays, before immediately seeing the full plays.

 

I decided, as has happened to the children of one poster on these boards, that there was a risk that the child who had read an abridged version would have the edge taken off the experience and wouldn't be interested in tackling the full-length work.

 

Laura

[Skadi]

Unabridged. I think kids have an easier time understanding the more difficult novels if the parents do them as read-alouds or get them on audiobook. :)

[texasmama]

I generally veer toward unabridged versions. I would rather wait until they're old enough to appreciate it, or do it as a family read-aloud, than use a watered-down version. Sometimes abridged versions are good, and sometimes they leave out a lot of the rich language that makes the original good. But I think it will depend on the abridged version, too.

 

:iagree:This is my philosophy, as well.

[nmoira]

I decided not to got with abridged/rewritten tales, except for items where knowing the stories was culturally important. So the boys read children's versions of the Bible, Greek myths, King Arthur, Robin Hood, various other cultural stories. We also used abridged versions of Shakespeare as introductions to the plays, before immediately seeing the full plays.

 

I decided, as has happened to the children of one poster on these boards, that there was a risk that the child who had read an abridged version would have the edge taken off the experience and wouldn't be interested in tackling the full-length work.

 

This.

 

I've developed a facial tic that manifests itself when I read about people preparing their children for classics by reading abridged, bowdlerized, or retold versions of classic works rather than rich, age appropriate literature. :tongue_smilie: Why would I want to rob my children of the chance to experience a great work for the first time in its entirety, especially by ruining major plot developments through spoon feeding abridged or retold works? If a "classic" book can't stand on its own, given an education sufficient to understand its language and historical context, it doesn't deserve to be a classic.

[Karen in CO]

I decided not to got with abridged/rewritten tales, except for items where knowing the stories was culturally important. So the boys read children's versions of the Bible, Greek myths, King Arthur, Robin Hood, various other cultural stories. We also used abridged versions of Shakespeare as introductions to the plays, before immediately seeing the full plays.

 

I decided, as has happened to the children of one poster on these boards, that there was a risk that the child who had read an abridged version would have the edge taken off the experience and wouldn't be interested in tackling the full-length work.

 

Laura

 

This.

 

 

As an adult, I am thrilled that I read Moby Dick without ever even knowing the ending. It would have ruined the book to have read it abridged first. However, reading versions of Shakespeare play before reading or seeing a full-length version only enhanced it for me. There is no harm in waiting until someone is old enough to enjoy the real thing, and there are plenty of terrific books at lower levels to entertain them while you wait.

 

Imagine reading an abridged version of your favorite novel to prepare yourself for the novel. Ridiculous and ruinous.

[melmichigan]

This.

 

I've developed a facial tic that manifests itself when I read about people preparing their children for classics by reading abridged, bowdlerized, or retold versions of classic works rather than rich, age appropriate literature. :tongue_smilie: Why would I want to rob my children of the chance to experience a great work for the first time in its entirety, especially by ruining major plot developments through spoon feeding abridged or retold works? If a "classic" book can't stand on its own, given an education sufficient to understand its language and historical context, it doesn't deserve to be a classic.

 

:iagree: I have substituted unabridged versions whenever abridged are recommended or delayed the introduction of the book until my DC can appreciate and understand the work. I was amazed when I ordered books last month at "high school" programs using abridged versions of classics at that level. :confused:

[brownie]

We use some abridged to correlate with history (Odyssey and Shakespeare). We've used some for book club...not entirely my choice but we use books that provide valuable virtue lessons whether full or abridged. One thing I would add is to carefully read the abridged form to see if it is any good and reflects the original. Some are done quite nicely...others are just terrible.

 

Brownie