Banned Books discussion

I'm aware that abridging a book and banning a book are two different things, but my mind puts them right next to each other.

To me it seems that abridging a book is another way to keep someone from reading a book, or at least parts of it. One could argue abridging hurts more than banning. If it's banned, everybody reads it. If it's abridged, everybody reads the abridged copy instead of the original.

Does anyone else feel like more abridged books are creeping onto shelves, replacing originals?

For example, I've been looking for an unabridged copy of the Count of Monte Cristo in libraries and bookstores I go to for a while, but I've succumbed and I'm reading the abridged copy right now.

I feel like abridgment (not sure if that's a word) is hurting the literary world, and I was wondering if anyone agreed with me.

I 100% agree with you. I think it's a shame that people feel the need to edit and dissect an authors work of art. Why read part of the book, edited by someone who never knew the author when you could read the actual book full of the correct places, references and language style. A friend of mine just purchased a copy of Les Miserables from Chapters and it is in the same font and paper size as my book and is 3/4 the size. The difference...mine is unabridged hers is abridges. Abridgment is such a tragedy. As an aspiring author I find this appalling.

I also agree...Its kind of fraud calling the book by the same title, since once you change a book in the ways that they do, it's not at all the same book. Every part of a novel is essential to what it is. It's a lot less troubling for me if people just read cliff notes or something like that, at least then there isn't the image or fiction of them having read the actual work.

I went to Barnes and Noble and found a copy of the Count of Monte Cristo in a few minutes. I had no trouble.

Now a book that truly is banned through abridgment is S. Morgenstern's "the Princess Bride." Sadly, one cannot find a copy of this book in the unabridged form. Truly, William Goldman has made it seem like it never actually existed at all aside from his mention on the cover and introduction. Goldman has monopolized the market, it seems, for satire on European royalty. Luckily, Morgenstern's estate has kept the sequel, "Buttercup's Baby" safe from his censorship.

Sean: I'm pretty certain the the Barnes & Noble Classics (including The Counte Of Monte Cristo) are abridged. They just don't say so on the cover. It's on the title page.

Sometimes it reminds me of ads for alcohol, where they put the percentage of alcohol in tiny letters that blend in with the background. I have an abridged book that I didn't know was abridged until a friend pointed it out. It said "Abridged Copy" in the tiniest letters in a ghostly white color on the bottom edge of the cover and no where else. It's as if the book is ashamed and trying to hide the sad truth of its abridgment.

I don't think that Sean actually bought the B&N copy of The Count of Monte Cristo (which, you are right, is abridged). The copy he has listed on his profile is the Penguin Classics version, which seems to be an unabridged version...so that might have been the one he bought at B&N.

Modern Library also has the unabridged version of The Count of Monte Cristo in both hardcover and paperback. You'll know if you have the unabridged version if it heavy enough to break your toe. :-)

I know what you mean about the abridged B&N versions. I actually bought the B&N copy of The Count of Monte Cristo on impulse one day (they were having a classics sale) and didn't notice that it was abridged until I got home and saw the title page. Some of their classics are unabridged, but I will always be checking from here on out.

I wanted to point out that some authors actually give permission for abridgments (authors that are still alive, obviously), especially for audio books. This will be printed somewhere on the book/CD case/tape box, etc.

I also wanted to point out that there is a big difference between abridgment and censorship. Abridgment is simply a condensing of the text. Censorship is the removal or suppression of objectionable content.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about abridgments. I certainly don't have a problem with abridged versions of books for young children, like illustrated classics, etc. I know a lot of elderly people enjoy condensed books, too. I suppose they do have an audience among people who just want the story without all the extra details. I guess as long as the overall story and outcome aren't changed, I don't have any major problems with abridgments. Kind of like movie adaptations...if they stick to the original plot and ending (only taking out the details that don't pertain to the storyline), then I enjoy the movie...if they go in a completely different direction than the book or change the ending, then I typically don't enjoy the movie.

Any thoughts? This is an interesting topic. :-)

I don't agree with any kind of altering of an authors work, whether it is with permission or not. I like to read the novel as it was intended to be read.

That said, I can see why they do it with audiobooks - I guess it would cost much more to buy some of the novels on audio if they were unabridged.

I can think of one author who has been censored, yet they wrote 'abridged' and thats Enid Blyton. So many of her books have been edited to become politically correct... (i.e changing the names of some characters and removal of others - golliwogs for instance) and this infuraites me. When she wrote those books she didn't write them with the intention of offending anyone, so why should they be edited??

I agree with Kirsty, I review the books carefuly before buying them to make sure I will get them "in their full glory". And I believe there should be a requierement for printing companies to make the fact that a book is abridged easily found in a book, sometimes it takes detective work to figure it out!

When I was a child, my parents found this series of abridged, illustrated classics for me to read. I had several dozen of them and had read them all by the time I finished elementary school. For me, it was my introduction to real literature. Reading those as a child is what made me want to read the "real" versions as I got older. We're talking Dickens, Twain, Shakespeare, the whole gamut of literature.

Now, I'm totally against abridging books marketed to adults. The utter ridiculousness of that is inexpressable. But those children's versions were pretty cool as far as I think.

I am SO frustrated when I try to find an unabridged book...another thing that bothers me is when I try to find a book written before the movie is made, but the only copy of the book I can find is one that screams "NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE!" and instead of the original cover there are pictures of the movie stars on it. I hate that.

I agree with you. A book is a piece of art. You don't blot on certain things on a painting just because you don't feel it suits you or you find it offensive. Same goes with books-someone put their heart into writing it and you are going to take some of it away? WRONG!

Lorena is absolutely right. And yes, unfortunately many publishers of "classics" feel the need to edit some titles to make them more palatable - or at least shorter. If you're going to pick up things in the Barnes & Noble editions (which I'm not knocking at all), just make sure they say "unabridged"..

I thought that S. Morgenstern was made up... and therefore his estate was made up...

Abridging books is one of my pet peeves. You guys are right. It does take detective work to make sure you're reading an unabridged copy of a work. It took me awhile to find an unabridged copy of Les Miserables.

It also bothers me when they have children's versions as classical literature, without noting that the book is an adaptation of the original on the front.

I even have an old copy of Little Women which is, apparently, a novel adaptation of the '33 movie. Does that make sense when there's already a novel?

This is an excellent question. Is there a resource out there so I can even know which books have been abridged?

I wonder too about books going out of print ( older Richard Scary books are all I can think of right now.)

from wikipedia (because I was fooled):
Simon Morgenstern is both a pseudonym and a narrative device invented by Goldman to add another layer to his novel The Princess Bride. He presents his novel as being an abridged version of a work by the fictional Morgenstern, an author from the equally fictional country of Florin.

I agree that abridging the book is just as bad as banning the book.

Abridged versions are never the same as the original. Even worst, being that people don't actually read the book in its pure form. Being banned is a glory :D
I guess that's what they do with movies and stuff as well-> cutting and censoring scenes.

It's like the abridgers (for lack of a better word) undersestimate how many people would love to read the whole book. They think they're doing us a favor by shortening the books, so we can still enjoy them, without having to read as much.

I take it somewhat as an insult because, I mean, hey, I love to read, and I can read. I feel like abridging books, besides going against an author's rights (which I'm not sure it does techinally, but in my mind it totally does...) it makes me feel like they think we're illiterate or something. Or, you know, just plain stupid.

I apologoze. That was a bit of a rant...

Goodday, all!

I guess I'd have to mildly dissent with... well, almost everyone on this thread, with the exception of Charity. Abridged versions of public domain classics can be an important tool, especially if you are an instructor interested in teaching multiple books over the course of a semester.

It may make sense for students to acquire an abridged Robinson Crusoe they can read cover to cover in a shorter amount of time, so that they could move onto Moll Flanders the week after. A skilled editor of an abridged edition will keep the essence of the original intact, and provide notation in the preface about their editing methodology.

The reader can decide whether this version suits their purposes, and really, doesn't the reader's decision matter more at that stage than the centuries dead author whose work has long since passed into the domain of the public?

This said, I would not be pleased to see a book seller hawk an abridged book masquerading as the original through omitted or vague cover information.

For a minute I contemplated saying "I wish I had read an abridged version of Anna Karenina....REALLY abridged."

But why bother? I just didn't like the way the book was written, and if that's the way Tolstoy wrote it, then I just don't like the book.

That being said, how could I discuss Anna Karenina with someone who did read a really cut down version? They wouldn't understand any of the reasons that I disliked it.
It's kinda like saying you loved a certain work, but you only read the cliff's notes.
Okay, not that bad maybe, but still...

Similarly, I didn't care for To Kill a Mockingbird. Or, I like the movie better. There's too much extraneous in the novel, in my opinion. There are much better novels out there about racial discrimation.

HOWEVER, I recognize that this is *my* opinion. I know that most people have a very different opinion.

Most Shakespeare plays are very cut or abridged when we see them onstage or on film. Gibson's, Hawke's and Olivier's Hamlets on film were very different than Branagh's. Branagh did not cut his Hamlet at all. He was nominated (won?) an Academy award for adapting Shakespeare-- that he changed not at all.

There are good reasons to cut a piece of literature as people have said here: for children, for people who like their fiction abridged, for the "book on tape," for film.

Abridging isn't anything like banning, IMO.

Julia, Sorry if this is a side note, but I was wondering what your preferences were for novels about racial discrimination. Herper Lee is just one little option in a whole sea, so who do you like?

Julia, I confess it's often the extraneous in a book that I like. I think a lot of 'censorship' is currently carried out by publishers. Why sahould every tiny detail tie into a big single narrative arc? Life isn't like that. Anyway, it's often the minor stuff that brings a book to life.

Jennie,

Last year I was pleased to see that the library system for the school I was teaching 9th graders had Octavia E. Butler's _Kindred_. It's a novel about slavery in the American South with a hero/ protagonist from 1976. So she, like my students, doesn't have any clue what to expect. Dana, the sometimes hero is also black, unlike Scout and her family. Her husband is white-- something the slaves cannot believe. Some of them can believe that she is a time traveler, but none of them can imagine that there will be a time when whites and blacks can marry. It's an amazing book by an amazing writer-- who won a Mac Arthur genius grant-- and died a few years ago.

I also like Monster by Walter Dean Myers, Whale Talk by Chris Crutcher and Flight &/ or the Absolutely True Adventures of a Part- Time Indian by Sherman Alexie, Night by Elie Wiesel, "Mountains of Mourning"- not about racial discrimination but physical disability and discrimination by Lois McMaster Bujold.

Diane, I was having a similar conversation elsewhere and taking the opposite side about the historical fiction Outlander by Diana Gabaldon and all its sequels. There, I really like the detail because I know very little about that time and place. *And I want to know about that detail.* Gabaldon has complained bitterly about her abridged audiobooks. If I remember correctly, it's something like 30% of the book makes it into the abridged version. About To Kill a Mockingbird, I read that as a book to teach -- for high school students who are poor and disinterested readers. I recall that there is a long scene about a neighbor of the Finches being addicted to laudunum, kicking the addiction and dying clean. It added nothing to the story, for me.

I never liked abridgements myself. My opinion is if somenone is not ready to read the whole book then they are not ready to read the book. I had series of condensed books as a child but, they didn't lead me into the classics. Instead they spoiled some great books because I already knew what was going to happen. I would have perfer to read the orginal and not know what was going to happen.

As for Count of Monte Cristo the Penguin classic version is the best one I have read so far. It had a few important pages that were missing from another "unabriged" version I read. The one Stephine probably picked up was the Barnes & Noble one because it is not clear that it is abridged version. (Sometimes people post a different copy of the book they read. I did) I made the same mistake of picking up the Barnes & Noble version. Though the best rule of thumb with translated works is that if you really like it you should read more than one version. That is how I found the Penguin classic.

As for To Kill a Mockingbird I have to agree I liked the movie better. However I am glad to have read the full version. As for the neighbor overcoming the laudunum addiction it was to give the boy a lesson in not judging people till all the facts were in. Perhaps, overkill but, I did enjoy the scene.

yeah, i've found that abridging novel only retracts from the message that the author was trying to convey. I usually go to half.com and order the books from there. They will let you know whether or not the copy is abridged, and it is also 50% less than Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Abridging the book just makes the reader miss so much. It's sad how many publishers will publish abridged novels.

Well, someone decides what to leave out of a book for the abridged version, and I don't like someone deciding in any form or fashion what I need to read. I don't read abridged books or listen to abridged audio productions. I am an adult and want the control of what I read and what I don't.

Now, having said that, I do admit that using abridged versions of some stories might be beneficial with younger children, to introduce great books to them and hope that, like Kat, it will encourage them to read the full stories when they are older.

I think there's a fine line between abridging and censoring. There are plenty childrens books out there without resorting to edits of adult books, if it needs to be abridged for children then maybe they aren't ready to read it. Some books take a bit of effort to read and distilling them down changes the whole experience gained from reading them. I think that when a child is ready to read something they'll read it, as I said there is plenty out there, why give children a watered down Moby Dick to read when you have Roald Dahl to keep them enthralled. I think that a book should be read in its entirety or you should find something else to read. If you haven't the time to read something, why bother with an abridgement...just go for the Cliff Notes. Just my opinion.
Having said that, if the only version of a book available to you is the abridgment what can you do?

If it is going to be abridged why not just ban it, its less morally corrupt.You think you read what the author set out for you and especially in the case of dead writers you have read a expurgated version. Its dishonest. Why not jusrt read readers digest condense.

Hello all.. I'm new to this group, so I thought I would just jump on in. So, without further ado...

I cannot stand abridged books.

The whole concept does a disservice to authors as well as readers. Not only does it imply that the author's work was sub-par and that to be a better book it had to be rewritten, but it also implies that readers aren't able to fully grasp the entire unmolested work, and must be spoon-fed a kinder, gentler, and of course, shorter version.

I had problems finding an unabridged copy of The Count of Monte Cristo, too. I bought a copy at a book sale for $1, got it home, and realized that it was abridged. No, not just abridged, MURDERED. I think that the book was something like 300 pages long. (This was partially my fault for being ignorant -at the time- to the actual length that the book should be: about 1100 pages depending on the edition.) That's not a book, that's a summary. That's a school book report!

I then returned it, and bought the B&N Classic version, which is abridged, although less so, at roughly 600 pages. Finally I bought the only unabridged copy I was able to find (months ago anyway) on Ebay. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but when I do, I know that I will enjoy it all the more for being exactly what the Dumas wrote.

I figure, there is no point in reading abridged books. For the full experience, take the time to read what the author intended to be read, not what some editor thinks you are capable of.

-end rant-

Nice to meet everyone, and I really look forward to some interesting conversations in this group! :)

Acutally the full version of The Count of Monte Cristo is closer to 1500 pages. I loved so far the Robin Buss translation who took in the consideration an important difference between English and French. French has a formal and informal version of you. I never could figuare out what people cut in the shorter versions because almost everything is crucial to the main story.
If you big on Dumas you should check out the Dumas Pere group. It is also a very active group on everything Dumas. It can also help in finding good translations.
I think B&N does a real diservice with their version of The Count of Monte Cristo becasue it is not clear that is an abridgement. I fell into that trap too.

If you're still looking for a good copy of "The Count of Monte Cristo" then I suggest:
The Count of Monte Cristo (Oxford World's Classics)
by Alexandre Dumas
published June 25th 1998 (first published 1844) by Oxford University Press, USA
Paperback, 1168 pages
isbn0192833952 (isbn13: 9780192833952)

I've only read "The Three Musketeers" from this publisher's series, but it was excellent so I see no reason the rest of the works by them should not be. Good luck.

Joseph, that is the edition that I have... I am disappointed that it is still not completely unabridged.

I did some further research and found that B&N does have a "complete and unabridged" Penguin Classic edition (ISBN 0140449264) which is translated by Robin Buss (I think this is the one you referred to, Pandora), which I will probably pick up after the holidays when I actually have money again. Or, better yet, I may ask for it for X-mas. ;)

Yes, that is the one. You in for a treat. So, far it is the most complete version I have found. Robin Buss also translated The Women's War which I liked almost as much as I liked The Count.

Thanks for the information!

I'm really not sure what all this fuss is about. Abridged books exist for a certain audience, not an audience that wants its books censored, just an audience that prefers speed to accuracy. If that doesn't include you, read the fine print whenever you pick up a classic (it usually isn't that fine). In actuality, some books are preferably read in an abridged form. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone?

Also, I can see why The Count of Monte Cristo is so frequently abridged. It's an action novel from a time when people could spend 1300 pages on an action novel. And it doesn't really have the depth that would cause a modern reader to find every word indispensible. Les Miserables is in the same boat. The longer works of Dickens as well.

Because people try to pass it off that they read a book when what they read is an abridgement. To my mind that is like pretending you are a reader by reading the NY Times Book Review. Which someone did. If the author took the time to write that many words I think as a reader I should try to read them all. If the book is too long pick a shorter work.

About the Barnes and Nolbe abridgement did you check it out? It is on display with a bunch of other shorter classics that are not abridged and no where on the cover does it say it is abridged. Since I am not the only who fell for this gimmick I think they are being dishonest.

As for The Count of Monte Cristo have you read the full version? I did (over and over again) and was at a loss to figure out what you cut. All the plot elements were directly linked to Edmond Dantes' story except the Bandit's youth and that was only a chapter.

As for Les Miserables Victor Hugo wanted that to be his grand work about society. The digressions are central to what Victor Hugo wanted to say. Most of which is very pointed and enjoyable to read.

The other major problem is that abridged novels can cut too much. Such as one les Miserables abridgement cut the whole Waterloo part forgetting that part ends with two characters in the story and an important incident that happens between them.

As a teacher, I think abridgment can be useful for introducing students to works that are either too long to cover in full or are too long for the students' stamina. In 8th grade, I read an abridged version of Great Expectations, I loved it and don't fault my teacher one bit for not having us read unabridged version.

However, I do think that the vast majority of the time we should read texts as the authors intended them. I only feel that abridgment is equal to banning when it is very difficult to find an unabridged version of the text. When both are readily available, I feel it is then a matter of personal choice, such as choosing to watch the extended versions of Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, or sticking with the versions released in theaters.

During our College Preparation courses (Bachillerato) which are roughly a combination of Middle School and High School in the US, our Language Arts teacher used to give us abridge books to read during the school year to cover as many authors from different parts of the world and different period of times as possible, we then had discussions about what we read, he then would tell us to choose one book and read it in its unabridged/uncut version and present a full report on the differences when we came back from Chirstmas/Easter/Summer vacation.

I loved his system because it really exposed us to a variety of works that would have been impossible to achieve in any other way and at the same time he made us read something in its full intended version giving us the opportunity to explore the author's true point of view.

Today I will not buy an abrigded book because I just feel cheated as to what the author intended to deliver, in my experience 10 people can read the same book and take away 10 different perspectives on it, I just don't want someone else's point of view on something, I want the author's.

So, I don't have a problem with abridged books in general, but since they are not for me, I do have a problem with publishing companies that hide the fact that books are not "complete" it takes detective work sometimes to discover that simple fact, now some books don't use the word "abridged" anymore but say things like "the wonderful story told by..." in very little letters at the bottom introducing the "editor" ... just very confusing and frustrating at times.

I joined the group recently and saw the discussions about the Count of Monte Cristo, which I had JUST started reading -- and it's the Barnes and Noble abridged version that doesn't say it's abridged on the front cover. I feel duped. Sigh. I'm still reading it, but still. They should have that disclaimer on the cover!

Do yourself a favor get the Robin Buss translation.:)
Now it is three of us who have fooled by Barnes and Noble.

I've considered writing to B&N about that, but not sure where/how to do it. It's just wrong. I don't mind buying abridged if I KNOW it's abridged. I keep wondering while I'm reading, "what am I missing?"

I would re-read The Count of Monte Cristo abridged verison. I just finished it and would read it again. However, I rarely ever re-read a book because there are so many books in the world waiting to be read.

I used to think that way too. Now though I have found books that I like to reread because the journey is so good and the endings are so perfect that I just have to go around again and again. I have reread The Count unabridged about four times maybe more. Love that book and there so much details it does take a couple of read throughs to get it all. Besides, if I haven't picked it up again I wouldn't have find the great Robin Buss translation.

I've got a confession...I've read an abridgement...and I am about to read another.
I try and avoid them, with great success apart from these instances.
I read The Golden Bough A Study in Magic and Religion rather than the 12 (or so) volume work that I've never seen in the wild. But I've yet to meet anyone who's read the unabridged version.
And I'm about to start Le Morte D'Arthur The Winchester Manuscript, I read the Caxton version ages ago and hear this is an abridgement as well as being from another source manuscript. Still, I want to read it to compare and to refresh my aging brain before diving into Malory The Life and Times of King Arthur's Chronicler.
2 abridgements...I feel ashamed...OK, not really.
Anyway folks, as PK has said above, get the Robin Buss translation and wallow in the full Gordian Knot stylee plot of The Count of Monte Cristo. It is a joy.

Barbarossa with the amount you read no need to feel ashamed. Besides, there is world of difference between an abridgement done by the author (The Golden Bough) and one done by some editor centuries after the author's death. As with Le Morte D'Arthur you are reading different versions of the story.

What is the problem is when abridgement are used instead of reading the original works. If a work is too long pick another. There are many great autors with shorter works. It is possible to read Of Mice and Men rather than try to read a shorten version of East of Eden.

There is also the issue of being fair to the author. Books are a creative vision. To really understand it you have to experience it as the author/artist made it. To me abridgement is like seeing a one hour Gone With The Wind. What in the world are they going to cut? Even worse this is not the picture the director made.

There is also the issue did the abridger know what they were doing. Some abridgements can be terrible jobs. Worse are the abridgements that hide the fact like the infamous Barnes & Noble version of The Count of Monte Cristo.

I'm a bit torn when it comes to the issue of abridgements. Personally I prefer to read the original version of a book no matter how much of a struggle it is for me to read it or how long it takes. However on the flip side of that it can be a way for less able/determined readers to get access to the classic literature that so many people talk about and that have greatly influenced our lives. And I think this can be applied to adults as well as kids as there are many adults who sadly have not had the opportunity to develop the reading skills sometimes needed to get through, understand and appreciate many of the books that get abridged. On a further note I have read abridged versions of books then as my reading ability has improved I've read the originals and found that having read the abridged versions helped me understand the original better.

My only demand/concern/worry is that the abridged versions take over and we lose the original. This is when abridgement becomes an issue, when it takes over from the original and when it isn't made clear that it is abridged.

I am generally against abridged versions, but only because I prefer not to read them. The only occasion that i have approved of a shortened version was for use in an anthology or when being taught. Sometimes it is appropriate to introduce a style or genre with a dumbed down version. (although, i will readily admit that it is disrespectful towards the author, and I wouldn't appreciate if i had written the book)

If I wrote a complicated adult book and someone wanted to dumb it down by abridging it for teaching to kids, I'd be fine with it as long as it was made clear to the kids that it was an abridged version. (Like that would ever happen. :) ) I think that Shakespeare for kids is wonderful because the language is so challenging that youngsters might miss out entirely on his work when the poetry of the words is only part of the beauty. If they learn to love the stories they might be more willing to pick them up the full versions later when they are ready.