To read or not to read …
Sometimes the classics just seem too hard to follow. How many times have you started a novel from another time, and found it difficult to understand the poetic language and the often very descriptive passages therein? Many 19th and 20th century authors, such as Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Henry James, may challenge our staying power with the density of their writing. Is there an easier way?
In an article in the Age recently, writer Chris Middendorp discussed the use of abridged versions of the classics as a way to overcome the sheer volume often found in classic literature. He spoke of how Britain’s Orion Publishing Group has republished some classic novels and was reducing their volume by as much as 40 per cent. “This is an act of cultural vandalism” he stated. See the article June 10, 2007: The unkindest cut is Dickens minus 40%
Daniel Pennac (mentioned in the previous post), believes the reader should have the right to skip occasional sections of the text, if they fiind them too wordy, or if they are not interested in their descriptive nature. Later, he argues, the reader could always come back to revisit the missing parts. However, if a publisher has already taken out these parts, how would it be possible to revisit them?
Indeed, are they only removing the parts every reader would choose to skim over?Still others argue that at least abidged versions give the reader an introduction to an author, and they may choose to pursue the full text later on. Orion’s publisher also stated in the Age article that “We realised that life is too short to read all the books you want to and we never were going to read these ones.”
Don’t people read long books anymore? Yes they do - just ask Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Terry Pratchett and Jodi Picoult. And it’s not just older readers who are willing to tackle them. So… Which do you feel is the right way to treat the classics (or any long book)? Do we need to cut them down to bite-sized chunks for time-poor readers? Is it better to have some exposure to Dickens, Austen, Tolstoy and Shelley in an abridged version than not at all? Can we do justice to War and Peace in 350 pages, with illustrations of course?Or must they stay true to the form in which they were first written?
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
June 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Linda, I hate abridged books. I have twice read them unwittingly - once when I was 12 and bought Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice for about 20 cents each (okay, it was a long time ago) with birthday money. When I read the real Jane Eyre at school in Year 10 I realised how I had been cheated.
The second time was just a year or so ago when I read an Alex Miller novel - on tape - which was not labelled as abridged. No wonder the story seemed not quite right.
I’d rather dislike a book on it’s “merits” than like it in an inauthentic form. If I want to skip bits in a novel I’d rather choose the bits. I have done this from time to time, particularly battle scenes which I tend to get lost in. And there is a certain infamous D. H. Lawrence novel which deserves to have large tracts torn out for being boring and opinionated (and not related to the plot)- but not from library copies, of course!
June 17th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Hi Marita
While I agree with you, did you read ‘the real Jane Eyre’ because of your original exposure as an abridged version? Perhaps some readers will take that step?
June 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I read Jane Eyre for school, but probably (the memory is stretched) sought out the real Pride and Prejudice, as I twigged it was in the same abridged series. So that is a point.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Linda, I like what you and the year sevens have done with the blogs. I found you through your reviews of the CBC books. Good to see the children are interested in writing too - FYI check out wordbox which has heaps of writing opportunities and reading activities for young Australians - have fun!