The Sword and Laser discussion

I've recently started going through the Discworld audiobooks on audible and noticed that every title has an abridged (~4hrs) and an unabridged (~8hrs) version. I simply don't get why anyone would listen to the abridged version of anything though when surely you're missing a good half of the story. Can anyone shed any light on whether they do actually listen to them or why on earth they're produced if not?

probably for older books, before the internets (and CDs), long books would be like 25 cassette tapes (or how ever many records before that???) The retail boxes for those could get pretty big.

My Grandfather used to listen to abridged books on tape back in the 80s and 90s when he had a long commute to work. Apart from him, I've never met anyone who listened/liked abridged audio..

Yeah with the rise of the Internet when the average person's phone can hold multiple audio books I think it's time to retire the old format.

People used to read a ton of abridged books too. You wanted to be able to say you've read a thing, and chat about it, not necessarily want to actually experience the book and enjoy it to its fullest.

Wasn't that the whole premise of Reader's Digest or something? Abridged versions of books? Does anyone read Readers Digest anymore?

I'd gladly read/listen to abridged versions of books by any of the classic Russians or Victorians. I've abandoned several of those because I get bored.

I listened to the abridged Moby Dick. Now I love everything about Moby Dick, but the abridged audio really condensed the great parts and junked all the whale stuff.

Stephen wrote: "I listened to the abridged Moby Dick. Now I love everything about Moby Dick, but the abridged audio really condensed the great parts and junked all the whale stuff."

"I loved Moby Dick, except for all the parts about the whale." :)

Oh, all the cetology nonsense is he best part! That's too sad.

The storage constraints of tapes definitely make sense. I suppose i'm so used to the phones and stuff we have now that i'd forgotten about it. And I only really caught the end of cassettes anyway.

I kinda get it for the denser classics too but Discworld? Come on, they're half as long as most books anyway. In 4 hours you've barely started the thing and it's over.

Sky wrote: ""I loved Moby Dick, except for all the parts about the whale." :) "

It's funny, I thought about this as I read 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. After a while I just skimmed the ocean description parts. Up until the trip to Atlantis I found them interesting enough, but then they got long and onerous. Probably people at the time loved them since these "travel" books took them to places they could never go. Anyway, I self-abridged some of Verne. :)

Then again there are a lot of books out there that could be seriously improved by being abridged :)

John (Taloni) wrote: "Probably people at the time loved them since these "travel" books took them to places they could never go. "

I was reading The Count of Monte Cristo (a full, unabridged, "newly" translated edition). There is a crapload of stuff going on in Rome that DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER. But it was basically a nice little travelogue for his readers. You also get some weird repetition because of the serialization process (Dumas and Dickens both "suffer" from this).

AndrewP wrote: "Then again there are a lot of books out there that could be seriously improved by being abridged :)"

So true, so true.