Are there many differences between the abridged and unabridged

Length, for one.

(sigh. should i post this. it's so fucking stupid and unhelpful. what am i doing. guy asked an honest question and you're giving him a smartass answer like a kid. you are a kid. grow up.)

>>9161155
One's abridged and the other one isn't.

>>9161155
There are differences, not sure if "many" though

>>9161176
>>9161182
Obviously. But is the cut content fundamental for the development of his ideas, to the point where the abridged version is incomplete, or does it merely remove unnecessary information and curiosities?

>>9161155
It's an easy read whichever way you choose to go, the una's about k pages, the ab half that. I read the ab as a kid but no longer possess it-- it read well, was maroon with gold lettering, paperback. I've read the full sense then (an old Allen and Unwin, 2vos) and, of course, preferred it. It's absorbing, fun, either way.

>>9161218
Do you expect /lit/ to have read the unabridged and abridged versions of this book and remembered enough of them to pass it on to you?

>>9161337
Look this guy even read it and cant remember shit. What the hell are you doing here? Look, just buy the damn thing and put it on your bookshelf. ok?

>>9161218
There is nothing unnecessary in The Decline of the West, and from reading the introduction of the abridged I would assume some of the cuts may have been out of a political/censuring nature. Even if that's not the case, it still is not a book that even needs abridgment, since it is concise and not really that long.

t. Someone who has read the unabridged

Nah, they're both bullshit.

>>9161581
Well, what I do remember is that the Maths were dropped, and that upon reading the full version I experienced a continuity of purpose altogether absent in the shorter. But that's pretty much it.