Simplified, abridged, condensed and original
I remember reading Oliver Twist in Longman and then in Macmillan.
Honestly I have never read original Oliver Twist - will this confession
make me look stripped? In fact I didn't read the original on purpose
because I had read the simplified version twice already. And it didn't
quite impress me. Dickens has written more impressive novels. 'David
Copperfield' is one.
If you compare Longman and Macmillan, I think you have no reason to
get rid of Longman. I used to love its glossy pages with occasional
illustrations. It smelled great too. I still have one Longman book left;
'Lorna Doone'. I still thumb through its pages, though I cannot exactly
remember what it was about, as I don't like its writing style. Not that
it's wrong or anything, but it's too smallish.
Longman has a series of levels, but Macmillan is anyway more
advanced. There were other books like Ladybirds too added to the
collection of simplified series,
 though
Longman continues to impress me even after a good lapse of time. If
someone is to learn ropes of English, I think Longman is a very good
interesting series to follow through.
I slowly drifted off to past when I read Nicholas Sparks' 'The
Wedding', sequel to 'The Notebook'. I have read four of his novels so
far. But I read 'The Notebook' in a condensed form, published by
Reader's Digest. I read three of his novels: 'Three Weeks with My
Brother', 'Message in a Bottle' and 'The Wedding' in a row, and fell in
love with his sweet writing style. But things were different with 'The
Notebook'.
I was staring at sentences of both the original and condensed. Then I
came to understand 'condensed' means narrowing down the usual height and
width, which is good, but makes reading a bore sometimes. White space
means a lot when you read a novel. It doesn't affect the style though, I
thought.
But it affects, I realized a little later. Both Ken Follett and
Nicholas Sparks do wonders with paragraph breaks. Some paragraphs are
only one powerful line. This paragraph break is ignored in the condensed
form. Reader's Digest condensed series is like a five-in-one DVD movie.
Every condensed book has four novels, which would have otherwise cost
around Rs. 3600.
I see both pros and cons in reading abridged and complete works,
though I personally prefer the second option. Reading an abridged
version saves your time and gives you the plot on a plate. But when we
read the likes of Follett and Sparks we naturally have to understand
plot twist is not the only thing.
It's a gift waiting to be unwrapped. What if you find only shards of
some original gift in it? Won't you be disappointed? I will be so,
definitely. It fails to interlace the thoughts of the original. So it
makes the mutual relationship between the original's author and the
reader continents apart, which should be otherwise.
When you buy a classic, you should be on lookout for the place where
they mention it is 'unabridged and complete'. I have a painful
experience some years ago, when I wanted to buy 'Pride and Prejudice'
for a course. I found my friend's book bulkier than mine, and contents
different when he read out. Then I gathered mine was abridged. The book
cost me dearly, and I had to buy another. No trade-off was possible
either - poor me! Shakespeare's plays are all summarized, simplified,
abridged and condensed. But there you get only the story. Shakespeare's
plot twists are not so important in some instances. He has his sources
of plot, and most of the time plot would be very much similar to the
source. His talents come out when he fleshes out the plot. You miss it
when you read them simplified, abridged and condensed. Shakespeare is a
theatre man and a poet more than a storyteller.
Anyway I think abridging is a hard job. Even harder than translation.
You should watch out for important elements and should not miss a single
important thing too. It must be a guide for a child to be influenced to
read the original.
Reading an original is a big affair for a child. But still I wonder
if simplified books mute the perfection of child's perception.
Something for you to talk over breakfast.
[email protected] |
