>Abridged for the Modern ReaderWhy the fuck would anyone subtitle a book like this? It literally makes the reader think he is dumb compared to previous generations of readers
spit on hoi polloi
>>25322698Because he is?
as a concept i dont think its that bad of an idea. it will get more people invested in the universe of the original book and they can then read it if they wish. one of the biggest hurdles preventing people, me including, from reading a book is that its too much of a commitment. having an abridged version lets one get an overview of the real thing before committing to it
does it cut out all the fujobait?
Well, the reader IS dumber, there is no way around that. Literacy becoming commonplace does not mean the majority will get smarter, it means there will be more dumb books.I guess abridged and simplified versions of books could maybe sometimes work as stepping stones to the real thing, but since they will inevitably neuter and outright eliminate the meaningfulness and artistic element of the original, reducing it to a mere recounting of events, i suspect they will do more harm than good. The arrogant peasant will read it, and then feel vindicated in his belief that the classics are boring and pointless, while learning enough of the basic plot to feel qualified to engage in discussion.
>>25322698should have subtitled it "version for niggers and wiggers"
>>25323062neither of those two demographics can read
>>25322698You just answered your own question, OP.Editorials abridge the shit out of classics because the literacy rate is going down. Not to mention that with the advent of the internet and chronically online nimrods, the editors know well that modern-day "readers" have short attention spans, and that they're stupid as fuck. This is why they make those abridged works.
