Les Misérables
discussion
Abridged vs Unabridged
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Tall
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 01, 2013 09:13AM
I never read abridged books. I figure that the authors are trying to tell us something and if we don't read all the words, then we are cheating ourselves. I, too SLOGGED all the way through an unabridged copy of this, and although it took some time to get through (what with all the footnotes), I am glad I did. It was truly a commitment, but the historical context was important to the telling of the tale itself.
reply
|
flag
Beverly wrote: "Applause."Thanks, Beverly. :)
so I took the "how do you eat an elephant?" paradigm (just one bite at a time).
Sometimes it helps to marinate it a little too. ;)
Read the abridged. If you're that curious and have the time, borrow an unabridged from the library or do a free download, and try the first 50 pages, before committing to all 1500+ pages.
Yes, that's a good idea for someone to try it out first. If I ever read LM again, I would just skip over the tedious parts. Which is a good chunk of the book! LOL.
I always gasped when I'd get to a chapter, wanting to see what would happen next, and it would start out, "But first, a few words about. . ." or along those lines. I knew I'd be in for another long history lesson. But I have to admit that I did learn a good deal about the forces at work in France at that time, and how the society was divided -- royalists vs. social reformers. Interesting stuff, just a LOT of it.
Tall wrote: "I knew I'd be in for another long history lesson. But I have to admit that I did learn a good deal about the forces at work in France at that time, and how the society was divided -- royalists vs. social reformers. Interesting stuff, just a LOT of it."I guess what it all boils down to is...how much would you really miss if you skipped all that stuff? (And FWIW, I didn't find a lot of the filler particularly interesting, especially the chapter on Waterloo.) For instance, instead of reading 30 pages about French monarchs, you could be spending time chatting with a loved one, going for a walk and enjoying nature, or reading about something that *really* interests you. In the end, I think a lot of us are afflicted with FOMO--fear of missing out. Anyway, psychologist Barry Schwartz advises folks in general not to worry about what they may be missing out on, and I think he's right.
Also, one could think of a book as being like a recipe. Let's say you have a recipe for authentic cassoulet that requires 7 hours from start to finish. Now let's say you have another recipe for cassoulet that requires only 2 1/2 hours from start to finish. It may not be strictly authentic, but it tastes almost as good, and most folks couldn't even tell the difference. Not only that, it would free up a lot of time for you to do other things. So, in the end, which is probably the smarter pick? :)
I feel as if you have never read the book, you should definitely experience the unabridged version. It does get dull at points but it is one of the best character development stories I have ever read.
A.R. wrote: "I feel as if you have never read the book, you should definitely experience the unabridged version. It does get dull at points but it is one of the best character development stories I have ever r..."The thing is, a lot of the "filler" doesn't develop the characters in the slightest. How does the part about Waterloo, except the last chapter, advance anything about the characters? And talking about other detailed matters that would have been of interest only to readers who lived way back then doesn't help either. If Hugo was getting paid per word, then he was padding the novel for monetary reasons, not for art's sake. ;)
Again, it's a matter of personal preference. If you find what you call the "filler" boring, then indeed, read an abridged version. I disagree that all the history was just for monetary reasons -- Hugo was better than that, and you have to remember the times -- but yes, it did stop the narrative flow of the main story. I was prepared for it, knowing I was diving into a massive tome. So I read it. Also, I don't want other people deciding what is inessential and what is not. So it's my preference to NOT read abridged books. Also, reading is never my idea of a waste of time.
Mike wrote: "A.R. wrote: "I feel as if you have never read the book, you should definitely experience the unabridged version. It does get dull at points but it is one of the best character development stories ..."I do agree with you to a point; yes the Waterloo chapter was I can only assume written for the time, however the end of the chapter has a good revelation of Thenardier's grasp on Marius. And yes there are parts that do drag, but over all, I think it is a good read.
To not read the entire unabridged version of Les Miserables is to miss one of the greatest books ever written. The abridged version is a dagger in the heart of the book.
Tall wrote: "Again, it's a matter of personal preference. If you find what you call the "filler" boring, then indeed, read an abridged version. I disagree that all the history was just for monetary reasons -- H..."Never a waste of time. I agree that if I as a reader wish to skip a certain part of a book that is my decision, no one else's.
Francis wrote: "Absolutely the unabridged version. I have read Les Miserables four times and each time it is an experience. Has to be one of the greatest stories ever written."Yes
I'm almost done with the abridged version - I think this one was abridged or somehow shortened by James K. Robinson. Quite disappointed coz' it didn't give much justice to the barricade boys - yes, part of the fandom. Haha. So now I'm wondering if the character of Grantiere did ever exist in the book?Or was it just from the play?@.@ Enlighten me Thanks!
Greetings, I have only read the unabridged version. I would be concerned with any abridged version you'd be missing some important information! :) I strongly recommned the unabridged version. It's a beautiful book.
Jeneil wrote: "I'm almost done with the abridged version - I think this one was abridged or somehow shortened by James K. Robinson. Quite disappointed coz' it didn't give much justice to the barricade boys - yes,..."GRANTAIRE is real in the book and better developed than in the stage production. Opinions on his relationship with Enjolras vary.
Tall wrote: "Again, it's a matter of personal preference."Pretty much.
I disagree that all the history was just for monetary reasons -- Hugo was better than that, and you have to remember the times -- but yes, it did stop the narrative flow of the main story. "
I didn't say that all of the history was for monetary reasons--I just suggested that we can't automatically conclude that everything in the novel is for art's sake. I suspect that it is not. I mean, why wouldn't there have been some padding?
Yes, in the end, it's personal preference. I just have a problem when folks say, "If you don't read the unabridged, you're getting gypped!"
That's merely an opinion. If a person likes all the detail, that's great. I personally think much of it is extraneous. So, we all have to use our time on what we enjoy most.
That's why I said that it's a matter of personal preference. I personally feel that a writer has something to say and that if I don't want to read all of it, that's my business, but I'm ignoring what he was trying to say. And I personally don't like someone else deciding what is important and what is padding. I want to judge for myself. Again, personal preference.
Tall wrote: "That's why I said that it's a matter of personal preference. I personally feel that a writer has something to say and that if I don't want to read all of it, that's my business, but I'm ignoring wh..."OK, that makes sense. :)
Incidentally, Norman Denny (the translator of one version of LM) had strong opinions about the matter. He has some pretty biting criticism for Hugo in the introduction to his version. He points out what he considered a bunch of problems in LM. If you're interested, I could type up a few things he had to say. I think he hit the nail on the head with most of his observations.
Anyway, I'm glad we live in a world where we each have free choice to read LM as we like. :)
It certainly needs some proper editing! Those asides on waterloo, sewers and nuns are just authorial indulgence. OK Hugo worked hard on these topics, but any decent editor would have made him leave them. They only hold up the action, and are very tedious. I gave up on the full version of "Monte Cristo", though the first 200 pages were superb. I may re-read these baggy monsters, but I'll be looking for abridged versions.
I've only read the unabridged version and it is fantastic. There were some chapters/instalments that I skipped and didn't really tie in with the story but I thoroughly enjoyed it.I will read it again one day but am interested in finding the best abridged version also.
I just finished reading Norman Denny's translation (Penguin), and thought it was superb, as is his introduction. The introduction is short and worth reading before you start the novel (It doesn't give the plot away.) One of his criticisms is about the lengthy asides on Waterloo, sewers, and nuns; which cover hundreds of pages. He consigned some of the nun material to an appendix, but I think he could have consigned much more to other appendices (or to a second, optional volume!) But it's worth putting up with the sermons & historical asides; it becomes a scintillating page turner when Hugo remembers that he's writing a novel.
UN-abridged. DEFINITELY!!I soaked it all in like a sponge, i never wanted it to end.
The first one I read was the Hapgood translation, which is free online as an ebook. After I finish War and Peace (Pevear/Volokhonsky translation) I plan to start reading the Denny (but have my reservations as he's unceremoniously edited the original text!) or the Donougher. And after that I've got the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of Anna Karenina and another War and Peace lined up as well.
I never read the abridged. I don't like missing anything.
I've only read the unabridged and it's really good. My opinion is, if it wasn't supposed to be in the book, the author would have left it out to begin with.
Found a guy who has read many versions of Les Mis and abridged his own version so he can enjoy every single time without having to skip the bits manually.http://lesmiserablesabridged.blogspot...
I would recommend to anyone who wants to read this masterpiece at least attempt the unabridged version. I read the unabridged version just once, but it was the most rewarding reading experience I've had as an adult reader. I took my time with it and was patient, even looking up battle maps of the Waterloo. I was amazed at how well Hugo's description of the battle helped me understand the map and vice versa. If you aren't' into that stuff I wouldn't begrudge a reader skipping to the more eloquent portions of the book but for me it will always be the unabridged version.
The version that I'm currently reading is the 1950 edition by Arcadia House. The book is in 3 volumes of about 500 pages each, so I'm assuming that it's the unabridged version... however like most books from that time period, publishing and printing details have been kept to a minimum. Does anyone have any idea about this?Also, have unabridged translations of the book changed significantly over the years? The language in the version that I'm reading is quite dated, but I would rather read this than a modern abridged version.
Unabridged-Glad I read it, but SO MANY TANGENTS ((bangs head against wall)
Will wrote: "Thanks for the reply. I've been told the unabridged has lots of tedious tangents, but I guess I'll check it out."Those supposedly tedious tangents all one to understand the era and setting of the story. I found these to be quite interesting. I've only read the unabridged version, but somehow I always feel like I would be cheated if I rea the abridged version of any book.
The *only* reason I got through the unabridged was knowing the musical. Otherwise I probably would have stopped within a few pages, but I was determined to slog through it.
Selena, early on in the novel when Valjean meets the Bishop for the first time is a truly powerful bit of writing. Absolutely brilliant.
I read the unabridged because well u don't miss any story and you get extra goodies even if they are long. They all make the story make sense.
The unabridged was long enough on its own.
UNABRIDGED. I know Victor Hugo rants a lot, but look on the bright side; you will be educated on the battle of Waterloo, and the French sewers system. :)Also, I love the character introductions for les Amis in the unabridged version, and the abridged version ruined them for me. I really hated the abridged version.
I loved all 1463 pages of the signet classics edition, even though they messed up a lot of my favorite quotes. At the moment, I am seeking an unabridged translation that doesn't mess up my favorite quotes, and the original French edition.
In the full version, the author rambles on and on about completely random stuff and uses the book like his diary. You won't miss out much by reading the abridged version.
Valerie wrote: "Books should always be written the way they were meant to be, even if there are quotes in latin, french etc. without translations. If you want a simpler text just watch the movie."your opinion then is someone who wants to read the iliad should either learn greek or watch the crappy brad pit movie?
I'm planning to read an unabridged version because I have a long attention span and in general would rather read something close to what the author originally wrote. However, other readers have different reading habits and life priorities. Hugo's non-plot-related chapters are not inherently worthwhile for all readers. Publishers, realizing this, are offering editions with some material streamlined or cut. As far as I can tell, the abridged versions all use one of the old, public-domain English translations. Thus, the more recent unabridged versions may actually be easier to read from the standpoint of the style of English.
For more information on the six or eight different English translations and numerous abridged and unabridged editions of Les Miserables, visit We Love Translations: World Literature in English:
https://welovetranslations.com/2021/0...
I am reading the unabridged version and a lot of things are definitely confusing. But having a reading guide to look at helps in understanding some chapters I struggle with understanding meaning and other things.
