Jey’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
I have to disagree. The abridged leaves out plots that make the novel much more interesting whether you're in high school or an adult. You can find the unabridged and the best translation (they do vary) on Amazon.
I wholeheartedly agree that the unabridged is better, but when I was in middle school and we were being introduced to the classics, it made more sense to read the abridged first. I do know many people who would have been daunted to read the unabridged while starting out, but after they read the abridged, they were intrigued enough to pursue the full version. :)
Jey wrote: "I wholeheartedly agree that the unabridged is better, but when I was in middle school and we were being introduced to the classics, it made more sense to read the abridged first. I do know many peo..."In middle school maybe although a middle schooler might simply be too young for the novel anyway. I think there are attempts to introduce some classics too young.
Yes, that happens sometimes. I've never understood introduction of Anne Frank's diary at a young age. But Little Women, Silas Marner, and the other classics were pretty fun to read. :D
I agree that some are right, but I've seen Catcher in the Rye, for example, introduced much too young. I assume because it has a young protagonist, but it was written for adults and most of the references fly right over kids heads. I think that if kids aren't up to the length and the themes in Count of Monte Cristo it is probably better to wait until they're older and can really appreciate it. Introducing some of these books too young just turns kids off to them.
Woah. Catcher in the Rye? Have to agree with you there. It would have totally turned me off reading the classics. :D
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
J.R.
(new)
Jun 16, 2013 06:02PM
I have to disagree. The abridged leaves out plots that make the novel much more interesting whether you're in high school or an adult. You can find the unabridged and the best translation (they do vary) on Amazon.
reply
|
flag
I wholeheartedly agree that the unabridged is better, but when I was in middle school and we were being introduced to the classics, it made more sense to read the abridged first. I do know many people who would have been daunted to read the unabridged while starting out, but after they read the abridged, they were intrigued enough to pursue the full version. :)
Jey wrote: "I wholeheartedly agree that the unabridged is better, but when I was in middle school and we were being introduced to the classics, it made more sense to read the abridged first. I do know many peo..."In middle school maybe although a middle schooler might simply be too young for the novel anyway. I think there are attempts to introduce some classics too young.
Yes, that happens sometimes. I've never understood introduction of Anne Frank's diary at a young age. But Little Women, Silas Marner, and the other classics were pretty fun to read. :D
I agree that some are right, but I've seen Catcher in the Rye, for example, introduced much too young. I assume because it has a young protagonist, but it was written for adults and most of the references fly right over kids heads. I think that if kids aren't up to the length and the themes in Count of Monte Cristo it is probably better to wait until they're older and can really appreciate it. Introducing some of these books too young just turns kids off to them.
Woah. Catcher in the Rye? Have to agree with you there. It would have totally turned me off reading the classics. :D
