Pros and cons of adaptations/abridged versions of classics

[Xahm]

Forgive me if this has been discussed recently.

 

I see a lot of people here who use children's versions of classics like Shakespeare's plays as early introductions to these works. I understand the desire to get kids into great works as early as possible, but at the same time, it strikes me as a little ...icky. I think my negative emotional reaction comes from two things: 1. An abridged, illustrated version of The Three Musketeers that made eight year old me hate adventure stories and anything by Dumas, and 2. Discussing A Midsummer Night's Dream in college with an acquaintance (who was homeschooled k-12) who responded "I know all about that. We read it in second grade," and then knew about as much of it as you'd expect from a second grader.

 

My kids are still really young and I'm loving building up our library, so I'd like to hear the voice of experience on this. What am I missing as far as the benefits of children's adaptations? And how do I avoid the pitfalls of either terrible adaptations or arrogance from my children if they feel they've mastered something advanced? (This second concern is both a tendency I've seen in academic homeschoolers in my area as well as a tendency that runs in my family, to be honest.)

 

If you avoid such adaptations or abridgments, I'd love to hear your take as well.

[MotherGoose]

I read them with my children. I like them because they let the child get an understanding of the storyline without the advanced language etc. I think it partly depends on the one you use. To avoid your homeschooled friend's problem, I think to avoid it mama has to make the children read harder versions as they age. My Dd read or was read to1st grade versions of ancient stuff 4 years ago, and I'm looking forward to her reading the older version in 5 th grade. I remember being handed the original odyssey, for example, in 7th grade, and being overwhelmed. (Public school). My daughter already will say,oh I love that story! And I hope, will be able to translate that love to a greater understanding. She's my Guinea pig in all this though. :)

[TrixieB]

I read them with my children. I like them because they let the child get an understanding of the storyline without the advanced language etc. I think it partly depends on the one you use. To avoid your homeschooled friend's problem, I think to avoid it mama has to make the children read harder versions as they age. My Dd read or was read to1st grade versions of ancient stuff 4 years ago, and I'm looking forward to her reading the older version in 5 th grade. I remember being handed the original odyssey, for example, in 7th grade, and being overwhelmed. (Public school). My daughter already will say,oh I love that story! And I hope, will be able to translate that love to a greater understanding. She's my Guinea pig in all this though. :)

 

My kids read (and/or I read to them) retellings of the Odyssey.  They each read the unabridged Odyssey in 9th grade, and they both enjoyed it.  Far from being overwhelmed, they thought it was an easy read -- because they were familiar with it.

 

That said, I don't think *every* classic needs to be introduced with a retelling at a younger age.  Say, Anne of Green Gables or Phantom of the Opera.

[regentrude]

I have used abridged /edited books very sparingly.

One major issue I have with edited classics for young reader is that they both simplify the story (sometimes making it barely resembling the original one) and dumb down the wording - so none of the author's beautiful original language. Which begs the question why one should read this book.

 

Sometimes abridged, but not edited otherwise, can be a great experience. I thoroughly enjoyed the abridged version of Moby Dick that skipped detailed whaling descriptions, but did not alter the original language otherwise - those can be great spring boards that might motivate a reader to read the book in its entirety.

 

I love Lion Garfield's Shakespeare stories - a good way to introduce children to the plays, especially in preparation for seeing a live play! Familiarity with the story goes  along way towards understanding the play, and it is also helpful when attempting to read the original play.

 

This said: at a certain age, my children loved the Great Illustrated Classics. I do not find them of much literary merit, but if they get a child to be excited about reading, they have a valuable place on a bookshelf.

 

ETA: I see a big difference between a retelling of a classic story like the Odyssey, the Arthurian legend, or the Nibelung Saga for young readers (many good authors have produced wonderful retellings in beautiful language) - and a simplified amputated version of, say , Great Expectations by Dickens.

Edited March 21, 2016 by regentrude

[Arcadia]

I have only read abridged novels, not adapted plays. I do enjoy plays adapted into musicals though.

For novels, I don't think reading abridged ones followed by the unabridged versions does any harm. I might have been lucky in that my parents and the libraries has good abridged ones. My kids have read Rosemary Sutcliff's Odyssey and her other books. They have also read through Geraldine McCaughrean's books. They have browse through Homer's Odyssey and knows the difference in difficulty compared to other versions.

 

I don't put abridged books in my kids assigned reading lists but I see no point in stopping them from reading off the library shelves.

[Junie]

I have always been against using the abridged versions of books (Great Illustrated Classics, etc.)

 

However, I have started letting ds15 read some of them.  He reads them just before reading the original work.  Since he is my whole-to-parts learner, he says it is very helpful in understanding the novel in its original language.

[OneStepAtATime]

I have always been against using the abridged versions of books (Great Illustrated Classics, etc.)

 

However, I have started letting ds15 read some of them.  He reads them just before reading the original work.  Since he is my whole-to-parts learner, he says it is very helpful in understanding the novel in its original language.

Yeah, this is both of my kids.  They need the big picture, then they need the big picture broken down into tiny pieces, then they can knit the whole thing back together again and make amazing observations.  I have to start with the big picture first, though, or forgetaboutit...

 

Having them read an abridge version with simpler language first then makes the original work more accessible.  Otherwise it is just gobbledygook to them.  Of course they are both dyslexic so that plays a part, too...

[MotherGoose]

I agree that I don't use the abridged versions for everything, just the things that are truly too much for young children.

[JustEm]

It really depends on what it is and how it is adapted. For example, I love Bruce Coville's Shakespeare adaptations,especially the theatrical audiobool, because he doesn't dumb it down. He uses a narrator along with actual lines from the plays. My oldest three, ages 3, 5, and 7 all quote the actual lines from the play. They've acted put scenes and the oldest has even picked up Shakespeare references from other book and stories. We haven't been able to see any of the actual plays but when we do they'll know the stories and be able to follow along better. But I also read Shakespeare out loud when I'm reading it for my pleasure. I have no idea if they are listening but they can hear it in its full version too if they choose.

 

I skip abridged version of things that are dumbed down in the writing to the point that the beauty of the writing of the original is lost.

[Xahm]

I agree that I don't use the abridged versions for everything, just the things that are truly too much for young children.

I guess my question for that is, why not wait until it isn't too much for them? What people are saying about reading them just before the real version makes sense, or as preparation for actually seeing the play. I guess I'm asking you (general you and specific you), how do you decide which things are so valuable for children's understanding or cultural awareness that they need to be exposed to them before they are ready for the full thing? (I hope that comes off as a sincere question and not aggressive. My kids are climbing all over me at the moment and so I can't concentrate to edit.)

[Xahm]

It really depends on what it is and how it is adapted. For example, I love Bruce Coville's Shakespeare adaptations,especially the theatrical audiobool, because he doesn't dumb it down. He uses a narrator along with actual lines from the plays. My oldest three, ages 3, 5, and 7 all quote the actual lines from the play. They've acted put scenes and the oldest has even picked up Shakespeare references from other book and stories. We haven't been able to see any of the actual plays but when we do they'll know the stories and be able to follow along better. But I also read Shakespeare out loud when I'm reading it for my pleasure. I have no idea if they are listening but they can hear it in its full version too if they choose.

 

I skip abridged version of things that are dumbed down in the writing to the point that the beauty of the writing of the original is lost.

Can you or someone point me to a list of worthwhile adaptations? If I do decide to use them, I think I'll pitch the idea if the first three or four I try are complete duds.

[KrissiK]

I've done the Shakespeare for kids with my kids and I find that helpful for myself. I remember in high school getting so bogged down with the language I never truly understood the story. It was really frustrating. However, reading the kids version of Hamlet made me understand the plot so I can make it through the language. I had my kids read Rosemary Sutcliffe's retelling of the Illiad and the Odessey. Those were very well done. We also read Geraldine McCaughrean's Canterbury Tales and I think she also retold the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are some retelling of classics that are excellent and worthwhile. I think it's a little arrogant to put down all retellings and adaptations. My kids love Jim Weiss's CDs and those, for the most part, are retellings and adaptations.

[Bluegoat]

With Shakespeare I have used retellings almost exclusively as preparation for taking children to see performances. 

 

My general feeling is to have kids wait to read the book until they can actually read it.

 

On the other hand - a great story is a great story, and great stories have always been taken by other authors and remade for their own purposes.  This is most obvious with retellings of traditional kinds of stories, the sort that you might hear around a campfire.  Often we don't really think of these as having particular authors.

 

But I think other stories can be adapted in this way and be worthwhile literary works in their own right.

 

I don't really feel the same way about abridging.

[Junie]

I have always been against using the abridged versions of books (Great Illustrated Classics, etc.)

 

However, I have started letting ds15 read some of them.  He reads them just before reading the original work.  Since he is my whole-to-parts learner, he says it is very helpful in understanding the novel in its original language.

 

I did remember one notable exception: The Bible.  We have several children's versions.

[JustEm]

OP, I can't point you in the direction of a list because I haven't looked into it aside for Shakespeare. Other adaptions I haven't given much thought about because there is so much great reading that I feel they are ready for now that I don't see a reason for doing abridged version yet. I may choose it someday for somethings but o haven't decided yet.

[MotherGoose]

I guess my question for that is, why not wait until it isn't too much for them? What people are saying about reading them just before the real version makes sense, or as preparation for actually seeing the play. I guess I'm asking you (general you and specific you), how do you decide which things are so valuable for children's understanding or cultural awareness that they need to be exposed to them before they are ready for the full thing? (I hope that comes off as a sincere question and not aggressive. My kids are climbing all over me at the moment and so I can't concentrate to edit.)

Well I originally did it because The Well Trained Mind said to :). Then I found some lovely stories, like the Children's Homer, and some lovely Shakespeare picture books, and saw how much fun they were, and we just enjoyed them! They are just fun stories. I don't think either way is wrong, and my main experience is with my feelings about the odyssey as a 7th grader. If you look in the sotw activity guide for year one, there are some great picture books and other adaptations, that are much better than the Great illustrated classics. I think if they are just good stories, and the adaptations are good, then it's worth it.

[rzberrymom]

Probably depends on the kid. I read oodles of abridged classics to my oldest when she was little, and then she refused to read the originals when she got older because she already knew the story!?!?

 

If I could do it all over, I probably would skip the abridged stuff. Although, I would absolutely do it again with Shakespeare since she really wouldn't have been able to appreciate it for quite a while otherwise.

[KrissiK]

Probably depends on the kid. I read oodles of abridged classics to my oldest when she was little, and then she refused to read the originals when she got older because she already knew the story!?!?

.

That's too bad! A good story could be read over and over again, I think. When I was a kid I read so many of the same books over and over because I loved them! My kids never tire of listening to the same Jim Weiss CDs either, for the same reason. Edited March 22, 2016 by KrissiK

[MistyMountain]

My kids have read abridged versions themselves. My oldest read a few Great Illustrated Classics. They served a purpose in that she got them in a format she could access and it had nice big print and pictures so it was easy for her to read when she started chapter books. They are not the same quality as the classic itself but it was better then some of the stuff out there at that reading level. My ds recently saw a classic he wanted to read that was abridged. I told him if he wanted he could read that and he could also listen to the unabridged version on audio. He ended up liking the original much better then the poorly adapted version he read aloud. Some kids like their reading favorite stories over and so reading an abridged version the first time would not matter.

Edited March 22, 2016 by MistyMountain

[TriciaT]

I let my daughter read great illustrated classics. I didn't know so many people don't like them! I let her because there are some classic stories that go along so well with what we are studying in history, but at this age a simple introduction will be plenty. (Especially since she prefers independent reading, and I also can't read every great book aloud to her.)

She'll get to read the full versions soon, and they will be like old friends. And she'll have a greater appreciation for the original author's voice by then.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited March 22, 2016 by TriciaT

[eternalsummer]

I guess my question for that is, why not wait until it isn't too much for them? What people are saying about reading them just before the real version makes sense, or as preparation for actually seeing the play. I guess I'm asking you (general you and specific you), how do you decide which things are so valuable for children's understanding or cultural awareness that they need to be exposed to them before they are ready for the full thing? (I hope that comes off as a sincere question and not aggressive. My kids are climbing all over me at the moment and so I can't concentrate to edit.)

 

I think that in general things that are part of our cultural knowledge are fine for adaptations.  So we're not religious but I'm happy to let the kids read abridged versions of bible stories, or stories of the saints. Greek mythology (including I suppose the Odyssey), European myths and legends (Arthur, as mentioned above, and Robin Hood), etc - not sure about Shakespeare, though.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have sometimes used them.  Some are well done, but some are pretty lousy.  Either way, I don't have any sort of objection to them.  It is usually a good way to get the gist of a story.  Often times it peaked interest in reading the real version.

 

 

[Xahm]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I know a lot of it will depend on what my children like as they get older, but I'm afraid you haven't sold me on the Great Illustrated Classics kinds of adaptations/abridgments for children. Frankly, I don't want my kids to divorce good story from good writing unnecessarily.  There's a lot of junk out there for children, and for adults, but when I see the lists of wonderful books people recommend for children, I think I'll have plenty of great stories with good writing to keep them in books. That doesn't mean I will snatch an adaptation out of their hands at the library, but I probably won't put it there.

 

It struck me while reading the comments that I have far less problem with adaptations of books written in other languages, particularly dead languages. The Children's Homer is on our shelf right now. I guess my thought is that since I can't read it in the original language, it's okay if the language is changed even more to help my children understand it. That may be hypocritical of me; I don't know.

 

Oh, and reading a synopsis of Shakespeare's plays (or similar) right before watching this is a great idea I'm filing away for later! Thank you.

[Coco_Clark]

I use retellings when some of the following is true:

 

The retelling is arguably itself great children's literature (ie Lambs Tales)

 

The classic is SO classic that knowing the basic framework of the story aids in understanding other works or should be common knowledge (ie The Odyssey)

 

I am moving directly from children's version to the true version so kids can enjoy language without character/storyline confusion (again...Shakespeare! But also Dickens).

 

I avoid the pitfall of terrible adaptations by reading them. I can tell if they are terrible. I also look at reviews.

 

I avoid the pitfall of a child that believes having read a children's adaptation of Midsummer makes them an expert on the play with the same scorn I'd give someone who says having read Percy Jackson means they are an expert on Greek mythology. *shrug* These are starting points. And good ones! And my kids know that.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Coco_Clark

[Dmmetler]

I don't generally assign them, but when my DD was at the "early chapter book" stage and was bogged down in so many books having school settings, she found the Wishbone series of TV tie in books, which involved the dog retelling scenes from classic fiction, and relating them to situations in the kids' lives. She loved them. Part of it was that the books actually used snippets of the original (or translated, in some cases) text (with the dog narrator definining as needed) and she loved the language, but part of it was that she loved that connection between the book and the contemporary (well, late 1980's/early 1990's) world, They gave her something that other similar level books didn't.

 

From what I've seen it hasn't spoiled her experience of the same books later on in her life. Rather, it's more like meeting a person that she's heard a lot about in person.

[HS Mom in NC]

Some abridgements have their place with younger kids but they're not a substitute for the real deal when developmentally appropriate. They also make good readers for people who want a kid to read easier material that isn't complete and total twaddle as they build up fluency with independent reading.

 

I say some because books like Call of the Wild are all about what the dog is thinking.  The abridgement I saw for kids is very plot driven, so it's almost a different book in a way.  The abridgement for books with unfamiliar language like Shakespeare can be useful to familiarize a younger kid with the main plot lines and characters with quality writing, but not Shakespearean writing. The same thing with a quality abridgment of Chaucer.  When they're older they'll already be familiar with the plot and characters so they can focus their attention on the language and the more abstract ideas and themes.  So, yet again  it's not an all or nothing type issue.

[HS Mom in NC]

Probably depends on the kid. I read oodles of abridged classics to my oldest when she was little, and then she refused to read the originals when she got older because she already knew the story!?!?

 

 

My kids didn't/don't  get to choose to not read the original later. That's how I roll as a homeschool mom. School isn't optional here and I decide what we cover and when. Not every kid is going to like each assignment.  I'm OK with that and my kids are voracious readers in spite of it.

 

[chaya]

personally, I cant stand adapted/abridged books. My older son was completely turned off to Ray Bradbury after reading the Great Illustrated Classics version of the Invisible Man when he was 9 or 10.

But, my mil saved my dh's copy of Call of the Wild adapted by Olive Price and my younger kids love love love that book. I must've read it to them a million times, the language is beautiful, lots of the original language is preserved, the story line is true to the original as is the general vibe and flow of the book. I just read the original to my 8 yo and he was able to stay with it because he already knew the story and was familiar with the language, descriptions, etc.

so if its well done, adapted/abridged versions of classics have their place.

 

[matrips]

We've used many of them with good success. The kids know they are 'kid' versions and we have gone over what the abridged or adapted means, and how to identify such a book. They now make a conscious effort to read, and collect, the original versions, and I think it helps so much to have a general knowledge and excitement about a story. I believe it gets them through the language and understand the book better.

[Earthmerlin]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I know a lot of it will depend on what my children like as they get older, but I'm afraid you haven't sold me on the Great Illustrated Classics kinds of adaptations/abridgments for children. Frankly, I don't want my kids to divorce good story from good writing unnecessarily. There's a lot of junk out there for children, and for adults, but when I see the lists of wonderful books people recommend for children, I think I'll have plenty of great stories with good writing to keep them in books. That doesn't mean I will snatch an adaptation out of their hands at the library, but I probably won't put it there.

 

It struck me while reading the comments that I have far less problem with adaptations of books written in other languages, particularly dead languages. The Children's Homer is on our shelf right now. I guess my thought is that since I can't read it in the original language, it's okay if the language is changed even more to help my children understand it. That may be hypocritical of me; I don't know.

 

Oh, and reading a synopsis of Shakespeare's plays (or similar) right before watching this is a great idea I'm filing away for later! Thank you.

That's so funny because I do the same with re-tellings of stories in French--3 Musketeers, for example. I feel like my 6 year old gets more bang for her buck that way--additional language exposure & an accessible cultural story.

 

She's an adventure story lover so I try to fuel her imagination. I don't see the harm in reading re-tellings. For example, my husband tried to read The Call Of the Wild because he personally loves that book & wanted to have a bonding read-aloud experience with his daughter. It was a failure because she couldn't understand it--there was way too much to explain, which rendered the story unenjoyable. He found a decent re-telling, they're back on track, & have another uniquely daddy-daughter experience.

 

As others have said, it depends on the quality of adapted versions. We are bibliophiles, my daughter & I, & go through insane amounts of books. I also need to balance them with 3 languages. I sparingly choose re-tellings when I know she'll love the story but is still too young to reasonably grasp the language. My idea is this--her 1st exposure is an enjoyable, playful one that fuels her imagination & passion. Subsequent readings of original works will come later & will build upon her fondness of the story line. I want to expose her to classics while she's naturally curious & in love with the world, as only a 6 year can be. These stories fuel her pretend play & give her cultural references she wouldn't otherwise have. For us, it's a journey that'll mark her travel through childhood.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Earthmerlin

[Haiku]

Reading adaptations when the kids are young paves the way for reading the originals when the kids are older. It's worked here. Reading an adaptation in second grade and calling it done is a user error. ;)

[lllll]

nm

Edited April 20, 2016 by _ ?^..

[Haiku]

Which begs the question why one should read this book.

 

For me, knowing ahead of time what to expect makes the original more accessible. For example, I was trying to read North's translation of Plutarch, and I was completely stumped. So I started reading the corresponding life in Kauffman's Our Young Folks' Plutarch first, and then I was able to understand North's much better (although I eventually gave up on North--it's not a good translation--and found a better one).

 

The kids have read many children's versions of The Odyssey, so when they read a good translation of the original, the language won't be as intimidating.

[Haiku]

Oh, and every Christmas Eve I read an abridged version of A Christmas Carol to the family. It's one of the highlights of our family celebration. I can read it 45 minutes rather than 2+ hours.