Is there any book where an abridged version is objectively superior

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
2016-07-29 00:17:52 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: 1469151955417.jpg (115KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x800px

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:17:52 Post No. [Report]

Is there any book where an abridged version is objectively superior to the unabridged version?

I never would go out of my way to read an abridged book, but just curious to see what the consensus is.

Pic unrelated obviously.

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:24:00 Post No.8333009
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:24:00 Post No.8333009 [Report]

>>8332989
>Is there any book where an abridged version is objectively superior to the unabridged version?

No.

You could perhaps argue that modern translations of older classics do abridge them to some extent. I have an 1887 translation of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, as well as a 2005 one, and they're like two different books with the modern version obviously a lot more suited to modern palates.

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:27:08 Post No.8333015
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:27:08 Post No.8333015 [Report]

Moby Dick. Unless you want to read dry encyclopediac entries about whales for ">muh rich context"

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:41:33 Post No.8333067
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-29 00:41:33 Post No.8333067 [Report]

>>8332989
Tale of Genji

Is there any book where an abridged version is objectively superior

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible. Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/