Back in our day we had to read the classics unexpurgated uphill both ways barefoot in the snow
Bring out your Cluebats! TheBookseller.com reports that independent publisher Real Reads will be producing dumbed-down versions of all six of Jane Austen’s novels to appeal to tweens ages 8-13.
“It struck us that very few books are aimed at bridging the gap between children’s and grown-up books, and that there was a yawning gap in the children’s market for classics.
So what happens if the kids read “real” Jane Austen novels? Does it stunt their growth? Do they grow hair on their palms? Go blind? What?
“People might say, ‘Not Austen again’, and that’s the point-it’s not just Austen again,
No, it’s not Jane Austen, that’s for sure.
they are beautiful books that will open the classics up for young people and adults with little time on their hands. They are paperbacks with a dust cover that can be taken off, meaning that adults can read them in public without fear of being seen to read a children’s book.”
Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. Why in the world would an adult have to read a dumbed-down version of Jane Austen’s novels? Don’t we have Andrew Davies for that?
*beats Dumbed Down books into shreds with Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness*
Oh, and you kids get off our lawn!
January 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
This reminds me of the time they put that poor woman who got assigned to novelize the movie of Little Women and make it less writer-y on NPR and she got ripped a new one on air. Take heart! Tune in!
January 8th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Novelize the movie Little Women?!?!? I think I am going to be ill, or perhaps just weep into my handkerchief for a while.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Yikes! And I just got rid of a Children’s Illustrated Classic version of P&P we got from somewhere. I have been wondering how old our kids should be before they read Jane Austen. Maybe they should start with the Juvenilia. The History of England would be good.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:36 am
I am appalled! Edit Jane Austen?! How dare they do this! Wait for the kids to grow up, why don’t ya?!
January 8th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Ok, as I bookseller, I have to peddle this stuff, but NEVER to adults. This takes riding on the coatails of Jane Austen’s success into the pimping arena. Hmm? Does that make me a ho? Ack!
January 8th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Junior high is a good time to read P&P for the first time.
My three teen-aged children have loved the JA movie adaptations for many years, but only my daughter has been interested in reading the novels.
I don’t think ANY of the novels are appropriate (abridged or unabridged) for an eight year old…
January 8th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Why not go and have a look at the Real Reads Austens on http://www.realreads.co.uk, then see what you think? These aren’t abridgements; they’re retellings by an experienced English teacher and believer in the importance of ‘classic’ literature.
Caroline Sanderson, Austen writer, says ‘Real Reads provide young readers with the perfect introduction to the pleasures of Jane Austen’s work; pleasures which may well last a lifetime’, and Mariella Frostrup on BBC R4 called Real Reads’ Dickenses ‘miniature masterpieces’.
The Austens also have brilliant illustrations by Ann Kronheimer …
January 8th, 2008 at 3:53 am
But these abridgements already exist, don’t they? I remember reading one (P&P) when I was about 12 or 13 years old, just about to become a Janeite, and my English wasn’t good enough to read the whole book in English yet (though I did read the whole book in Dutch).
January 8th, 2008 at 5:10 am
I am the author of the ‘Real Reads’ Jane Austen series, refered to by John in 7 above. I embarked upon the project with trepidation, as a lover of Jane Austen and as a teacher who believes that ‘dumbing down’ is an insult to any reader.
The finished books make Jane Austen’s stories, characters and concerns accessible to children from about nine years old and upwards. I have deliberately imitated Jane Austen’s style, desperate to avoid the kind of retelling that is just a list of events. Real Reads stay true to the original plot and the characters behave consistently with their originals. These retellings, however, have their own internal and intellectual integrity.They are stunningly illustrated - I was moved to tears when I saw the pictures by Ann Kronnhemer which accompany my text in ‘Pride and Prejudice’.
I have not sought to replace the originals. Accordingly, the notes at the back, which offer guidance for further thought and further research, frequently refer the reader to Jane Austen’s work.
I think Real Reads make great characters, plots and concerns accessible to those who might not be quite ready to tackle the more dauntingly-sized original (children and adults alike). I hope, as Caroline Sanderson (A Rambling Fancy - In the Footsteps of Jane Austen) says, that I offer an introduction that will form the beginning of a life-long relationship.
Why not try one and let us know what you think? ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and ‘Sense and Sensibility’ will be launched on Valentines Day. The others follow hot on their heels.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:26 am
First the adults and now the children. I really don’t know whether to laugh or cry. :-/
Adults have to be made to get attracted to JA’s books by making adaptations that are dumbed down, sexed up, modernised etc etc.
I have always thought that those interested in reading find their way - kids and adults alike, to literature and what it has to offer.
EFFORT IS WHAT IS BEING LOST HERE IMO.
Everything is packed, instant, and ‘paid for’.
Why not let the children find their way using their own efforts?’
The first is to develop in them a taste for reading.
There are several books for that age group. Why not use them??
Why latch on to another’s work?????
In my case I grew up on Enid Blyton, and went on from there till I discovered JA in the school library at 15/16
How on earth does one retain the main factors of JA’s genius, mainly her wit and the *language* used?
In fact then it really looks like these novels are nothing but *boy meets girl love stories* and they get married at the end.
Do they have to be led like sheep to the novels?
Is it *absolutely necessary* that everyone should read JA???
She has survived 200 years without all this, hasn’t she????
January 8th, 2008 at 6:44 am
In response to some of Reeba’s comments.
Please don’t cry.
I did not set out to ‘dumb down’, ’sex up’ or ‘modernise’. I agree with you that many readers can and will find their own way to the classics. This is one possible route. Real Reads offers some people a way in should they choose to follow it. Is this a bad thing?
I agree with you that I cannot lay claim to an ounce of Jane Austen’s wit and genius but I hope that my versions pay homage to these qualities.
You are right - it is not necessary that everybody should read Jane Austen, or indeed Charles Dickens or any other authors. However, those who don’t (and let’s face it, the majority of people won’t) are therefore deprived of some of the greatest stories, greatest characters and greatest moral debates presented by some of the greatest thinkers. (see Henry Tilney). Surely this is a pity for them and, I would argue, a pity for our society.
Why not make all of these qualities accessible to those who might otherwise never encounter them? Could it be because we want to keep them the preserve of the intellectual elite?
Some people will move on from Real Reads to the original, some people, who might never have tackled the original anyway, will have access to an important part of our culture, society, ethics and manners.
Should this really make us cry?
What might make me cry is your comment that these look like a ‘boy meets girl love story’ without even seeing one. Give us a chance!
Once again - I encourage you to read one.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Sad thing is, for many kids these new novelized versions will be all the Jane Austen they will ever read. I so agree with Reeba’s assessment: Wait ’till the kids are 14 or 15. They’ll get Jane then.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I came to Jane Austen as an adult (in my late 20s) but I read Jane Eyre at 11 and Crime and Punishment at 12, so you’re barking up the wrong tree. The children can read the real book when they are ready for it. And any adults that read such books should be ashamed of themselves.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I started Austen at age 13. There were plenty of other books to keep me busy up until the time I started Austen. What’s the rush?
January 8th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I’ve never understood this whole thing about “reading levels” and what’s “appropriate” for kids of various ages. IMHO, kids who want to pick up a good book and give it a try should be encouraged to do so. The greatest books are accessible on many levels and repay many future rereads, so there’s nothing wrong with understanding only 75 percent at the age of 12. Plus, you learn some new vocabulary, get accustomed to wrestling with complex sentence structure, and discover that extra effort can yield great rewards. Or — worst case scenario — you abandon it after 10 pages and read something else. So what? There’s no shortage of other books to try. My 5th grade son’s friend has a teacher who won’t allow her students to read books that she has decided are above their reading level — including the last Harry Potter and A Tale of Two Cities. Seems totally wrong-headed to me.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Gill–it’s true that people who never read the classics are missing out. And I do believe your intentions are the best. BUT, the point of reading Austen is not just to experience her plots, but her writing. I’m sorry, but people who will read your retellings are not reading Austen. And yes, I can tell that without even laying eyes on them. Because not Austen is not Austen, no matter how much effort you put into it.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
PS–I too read Pride and Prejudice at the age of 12. (And Jane Eyre at 11). Both were in the Reader’s Digest Abridged Classics, but an abridgement is not the same as a retelling. An abridgement is still the original author’s words.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Hmm. I think that, done right, these could be a good thing– for the age group for which they are intended. It is very true that many kids in that age group would be perfectly capable of reading Austen in the original– I would have been one of them, although my tastes were rooted in Baby-Sitter’s Club and Perry Mason novels at that point in my life, so I didn’t end up reading Austen until I was 17. But not all kids are able to appreciate the cadence of Austen’s prose– even I had trouble with it as a 17-year old who’d been in honors English classes for 4 years. Is it really bad to fall in love with the stories first and the language second? I came to Austen through the S&S and Emma movies– and what are those but a retelling? If these encourage kids who might otherwise have never cracked open P&P to read and love Austen (eventually, when they’re ready for it), and if they really do stay within the spirit of the originals (unlike those Illustrated Children’s Classics abominations) then I’m all for them.
OTOH, the implication that they’re also making Austen “accessible” for adults is ludicrous, and worthy of cluebatting.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Gill — Thanks for for explaining your intentions. I shall withhold judgment on your editions until I read them.
In the mean time, I have taken the liberty to start working on my own retelling of P&P, aimed for the beginning reader. Here is an excerpt:
See Jane. See Lizzy.
See Jane and Lizzy’s silly sisters.
Silly Kitty! Silly Lydia! Silly Mary!
See Mr. Bingley. See Mr. Darcy.
Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy wear blue coats.
See Jane and Mr. Bingley dance.
See Lizzy and Mr. Darcy dance.
Dance dance dance!
See Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy leave.
Jane is sad. Lizzy is glad.
See Mr. Wickham. He wears a red coat.
Lizzy likes red. Lydia likes red. Silly Lydia!
…
January 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Henry Tilney, of all characters in fiction, should be enjoyed in the original.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Dear Gill, I was definitely not pointing at you, but speaking generally.
I was responding to Mags original post and hoped to cover ‘all’, the adaptations and everything.
I am firm in my belief that those who love reading will *find* JA, and the thrill of discovery, as well as the search for good books over the ages, which is, classic literature.
*Why* and *how* could anyone miss these books if they love reading and are looking for classic literature??
‘The boy meets girl’ comment was made generally too, which again I do believe they would be, without the wit, satire, the lovely language, and the intricacy of the plots.
But I would like you to know that when I have decided whether to laugh or cry
it will be over the general situation with dumbed down books, some sequels, adaptations, - all meant for adults or children 
January 8th, 2008 at 10:59 am
LOLDeb R
To continue;
Jane’s ill and takes to bed,
Not in Longbourne but Netherfield instead,
silly mother sent her in rain,
alas! it was all in vain.
Darcy left, Bingley left,
Bad sisters thought it perfect.
In London they did talk and talk,
watch Bingley teeter and balk.
No, He dicides Jane he’ll not wed,
Darcy, and sisters are happy he’s misled.
End of chapter 2
January 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Err… my version is for the adults.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I recommend the Jane austen Quiz on the Real Reads site.
http://www.realreads.co.uk/zones/austen/quiz.html
You get to play Sardines with all your favourite characters of S&S and P&P.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I R-ly like playing drag n’ drop with the Austen characters on the real reads site–so much EZer than having to aksherly KNOW anything!
Sorry, Gil, but I join the consensus in thinking 1) not everyone in the world has to read JA; 2) JA is really a mature reader’s taste, not a child’s 3) children should read books that they are interested in, not what adults think they should like and 4) JA’s books are not centrally about LUV, they are about gaining maturity and a sense of self and then love is the reward. I don’t think that this concept is really approachable by a 9-year old–they think they know everything anyway!
Having said that, I must add that I enjoyed both the text and the drawings of the manga version of NA, that I think Clueless is a better version of Emma than many of the recent adaptations are of their novels, and that I really liked the Mormon and the Bollywood versions of P&P and S&S. There are indeed alternative ways of experiencing JA.
As a writer myself, I don’t envy your task in simplifying JA’s stories, insights or elegant prose (now Dickens, on the other hand–*there’s* a writer who could have used an editor!). I will certainly buy at least one of these books to see what they are like.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
The Real Reads website is very attractive and carefully done. It would be a great resource for a teacher or parent who WANTED to introduce Dickens or Austen to a young reader. The child would certainly understand the plot, but the humor, the style, etc. which is the essence of a Jane Austen novel could not be included.
I still believe, as an educator and a mother, that junior high is soon enough to introduce the next generation to Jane Austen’s works.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I do not believe that abridged works or “re-tellings” are appropriate for any audience. Why can’t the target audience for the JA “re-tellings” read The Yearling, Little Women, or Anne of Green Gables — to mention only a few. Just as we come to appreciate caviar and Champagne, we come to appreciate the sophisticated writing of certain authors.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I read P & P, Jane Eyre, The Moonstone, David Copperfield and other English classics by the age of 10 in slightly bootleg Hong Kong editions. I certainly didn’t get it completely, but I kept on going. I was part of an expat family, and read everything I could find in English. I also ended up reading “unsuitable” items abandoned by travelers, like A Coffin for Dimitrios and Penguin murder mysteries.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I just looked at the excerpts from S&S from the Real Reads site. This is a very radical re-working of the novel. Firstly, the story is told from the point of view of Margaret, the youngest daughter.
Then, remember chapter 2, the hilarious scene where Mr. John starts out suggesting an annuity of 3,000 pounds a year, and he & Mrs. John compromise (a few pages later) with the gift of a pheasant or partridge once in a while.
This is how RealReads S&S deals with it.
“When Father died, a complication in his will meant he left all his money to our brother, depending on him to be generous to the rest of us. He wasn’t.”
Well, aren’t those two sentences guaranteed to make lifelong readers out of the younkers.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
So…it’s fan fiction?
Why didn’t they just say so?
January 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I read my first Austen novel at the age of sixteen. Some of her novels I didn’t read until I was in my twenties. I haven’t suffered for this. I read a great deal as a child. I read historical fiction, Alcott novels, The Bobbsey twins, Little House books and many others. My childhood wasn’t stunted as far as literature goes.
I watched Emma Thompson’s portrayal of S&S at 15 and decided to read the book. I have gradually become an Austenite since.
I have several young sisters and I wouldn’t want them to read some “easy read” version of Jane Austen’s novels. I would just encourage them to pursue other good books and wait a few years.
“However, those who don’t…are therefore deprived of some of the greatest stories, greatest characters…Surely this is a pity for them and, I would argue, a pity for our society. Why not make all of these qualities accessible to those who might otherwise never encounter them? Could it be because we want to keep them the preserve of the intellectual elite?”
I certainly do not consider myself to be among the “intellectual elite” and I think if people choose not read classics and thus miss out, it is their own fault.
Although, I have enjoyed several of the Austen based films (including the Bollywood adaptation Bride & Prejudice) I can’t help thinking these books are just another way for people to make money off of Jane Austen’s fame and another way we can lower our expectations of the up-and-coming generation.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I looked at the RealReads site, and I think the books are dreadful. The Pride & Prejudice book jacket picture looks just like Keira Knightley, Kitty and Mary have been cut out, and the proposal is the first chapter in the book. The books are very dumbed down, IMO.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I have to say that I agree with all who think abridged works are a bad idea. I didn’t read many books at all until I was a pre-teen, but when I did start reading a lot, it was unabridged classics. I read P&P at age 11 and have been a read-aholic ever since. I think the down side to abridgments or “re-tellings” are that so many young kids read them and then check that book off their list as read and never bother to read the real thing. This to me it a tragedy. The fact that they didn’t just wait and read the real thing and discover the wonderful writing styles and use of words that only an original can hold it just sad. I mean, as history has shown, great writers and great thinkers come from kids who read great books in their childhood and teen years. If we “dumb down” all the good books, then we are really not helping them. I know from experience
OK, I’ll stop talking now.
–Julianne
(The 16-year-old passionate advocate of children reading great literature.)
January 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I don’t post here very often, but I check this website every day and had to express my undying hatred of children versions of classics. I was given a children’s version of Pride and Prejudice for my birthday when I was, oh, 9 or 10. I read it and absolutely hated it, which is what I hung onto for years. Then, when I was a freshman in high school, I needed a book for English class and headed straight for the “A” section with a friend, ready to grab something that looked good. I came across the Austen section and abused Pride and Prejudice to my friend thoroughly, yet vaguely. When she asked why I hated it so much, I said I couldn’t remember exactly, just that I had read it years ago and that it had been terrible. So, to refresh my memory, I checked it out and read it so I could more thoroughly explain why it was terrible. After finishing the first chapter, I ran upstairs to my book cabinet (I don’t get rid of books, I still have the whole Little House series to this day), grabbed the version I had read and felt ridiculous for not having realized that it hadn’t actually been written by Jane Austen.
So, really, these children versions of classics are not necessarily introducing great literature to them. In my case, it turned me off to what has become my favorite author’s works. I would really have missed out if I hadn’t been so eager to remember what was so bad about Pride and Prejudice in order to spread the word to everyone not to read it.
I still have that terrible version because when I was going to throw it in with some Good Will stuff, but realized I didn’t want to be responsible for someone else reading that nonsense.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
With all due respect to Gil and and the others involved in this endeavor, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard, the author’s intent notwithstanding (good intentions and all that).
Expecting that someone who wants to read a book should actually read that book and not some “specialized” alternative is not snobbery and it does not support some special, isolated “intellectual elite”. How does lowing our standards do anything to break down said elite? It doesn’t, in fact, inform a greater amount of people. It just encourages everyone to be underachievers, so instead of endeavoring to give more people a solid, good education, we’re just giving everyone a watered-down, half-assed education and patting ourselves on the backs for it.
Meanwhile, any really intellectual elite is safe in the knowledge that no masses will be threatening their position, since all they have to do is throw them a few “easy to read” revised editions.
Bah.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Actually, I think the snobby and elite attitude is that which says that the real versions of these books are somehow too hard for anyone non-elite. The novels of Dickens and JA were not reserved for elite readers in their own day: they were popular works read by people with different levels of education, including women with hardly any. Dickens was practically the John Grisham of his time. Jane Eyre was a huge bestseller. It’s relatively recently that we’ve come to think of these books as the preserve of those with Ph.D.s. When readers tackle the actual books, they learn that these works are fresh, funny, eccentric, energetic, individual — they LIVE, unlike the Cliffs-Notes-For-Kids that RealReads seems to be, from my perusal of the web site. (No reader of the RealReads versions of Oliver Twist and P&P could, as far as I can tell, get much sense that these two authors have radically different voices — everything sounds the same.) The big obstacle to kids enjoying these works is vocabulary, IMHO, and the only way you overcome that obstacle is by reading books that are a bit hard for you — learning new words in context, looking some up in the dictionary, ignoring those that aren’t essential to comprehension. Rather than promoting the false idea that the real books require complicated gatekeeping, I’d rather see teachers and parents demystifying these works by telling kids to give them a try, along with the latest J.K. Rowling.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Great Expectations was ruined for me because I was introduced to it too early (when I was 14), as was Persuasion (when I was 18). But I did come back to them, when I was a decade older, and loved them both. There’s nothing wrong with letting children or teens read Harry Potter, or what ever they like, and leaving them to discover Jane Austen when the time is right for them. My 20-year old niece loves Jane Austen, but she came to her only after many years of Ella Enchanted. Nothing wrong with that. Instead of re-writing the classics, authors should concentrate on writing excellent original works to keep kids reading until they can discover for themselves the supreme pleasures of Dickens or Jane Austen.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
wait…proposal in the first chapter of P and P? WHOA.
I completely agree with Robert Hardy (comment #37). Then again, I also agree with Emily (comment #18).
In my opinion, it all depends on the edition of the abridged or retold classic, and on the reader, too. Ever since I could read I’ve always disliked abridged stories, so when, at the age of about 9, I read the Illustrated Times Classic (abridged) of Pride and Prejudice I was very…skeptical with it. In the beginning I’d only heard of Jane Austen vaguely, so when I was starting to get tired of the Babysitter’s club I wanted something more challenging, which meant it was the perfect time to stumble on upon Pride and Prejudice abridged, fall in love with the story, and about 2 years later (when I actually understood Jane Austen’s writing) read the full wonder that is Pride and Prejudice.
In a way abridged classics are useful (for my friends, too), but they have to be written at least somewhat properly-which means no proposals in the first chapter. It all depends.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I’ll join the general consensus as well.I’ll never get the point of doing this to novels - shorten them, abridge them (except for language studies, which is an altogether different matter), mess with them. It’s like letting someone spoil all the fun of a thriller by telling you how it ends. If a child is not ready to read the book then, IMO, it’s preferable to wait and see if he/she likes the real thing in time. If he/she doesn’t - well, then it’s their loss, and no sort of lengthy synopsis will help them.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:39 am
To be completely honest, I think it’s a good idea. I bought P&P at a library book sale when I was twelve (and I always read at a very high level), but just couldn’t read it until I was fourteen, and I read a lot of Children’s Illustrated Classics as a kid - I think they’re very helpful. The argument that people should come to the classics when they’re old enough to understand them does make sense to me, but I think introducing these stories to children when they’re still young can help overcome the prejudices against them they might develop from popular culture and other people.
I think they should be for children in a lower age group, though - read the kid version when you’re six or seven, maybe see the movie at ten, and read the real book when you’re ready - and should be used as introductions to literature and not as replacements. I came to a lot of books by reading the kid’s version or seeing the movie.
(And I haven’t looked at the website yet - but that would only change my opinion of this venture, and not of the practice as a whole.)
January 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
What got me was this–”very few books are aimed at bridging the gap between children’s and grown-up books.” When was the last time these people visited a children’s library? There is an AMAZING amount of great work for just that age group out there–something doesn’t have to be a retelling of a classic for it to be literary, and/or worth a child’s time!
The problem I come up against as a school librarian is that I have too many parents discouraging their kids from reading what they consider “fluff” (meaning anything written recently) and forcing “the classics” down their throats too early in an attempt to get them ready for college. (A fourth grader that’s reading an abridged Moby Dick? Hardly a good plan to inspire a lifelong love of reading!) Many parents think those Children’s Illustrated Classics are the greatest things on the planet, but I cringe whenever they tell their students to check one out. I’d much rather give a student something like Rick Riordan’s The Lightning Thief or Shannon Hale’s The Goose Girl if it’s going to get them hooked on reading so they have the skills and interest to delve into the classics when they’re ready!
I honestly hope these new Austen versions are a cut above the abridgments and retellings already out there. But I agree with Lyndsay’s post–children often have no idea that they aren’t reading the real thing. We are cheating them out of truly experiencing the magic of the classics as they were written if they’re coming away saying, “Austen. . .been there, read that” when in fact they haven’t.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
My son started reading The Lord of the Ring series when he was in grade 5 and had thoroughly enjoyed them. I don’t see why ‘tweens’ can’t start to read some Jane Austen in the original. However, if they can’t understand the books in their original, they may not be mature enough to read them in the first place. So, no need to ’simplify’ for them.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
These “re-tellings” remind me of what Disney did to Grimm’s tales. The original version is much more exciting — not to mention horrid.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I started reading LOTR at 10, and moved on to Austen at 12 and Gone With the Wind at 14/15 and not because I was pointed in the right direction or anything, but simply because I was curious. A lot of kids are curious about these ‘great works of literature’ they hear about, and a lot of children appreciate a book that challenges them. Ok they might not get all the subtlety or wit of Austen, I know I got a lot more out of re-reads of Austen’s works when I was in my mid teens, but to be fair they’re not exactly getting that subtlety or wit in abridged/dumbed-down versions (not to insult the writing, but it’ll never be Austen no matter how good an imitation, for an imitation it’ll remain)
I agree that some children MAY need a little bit more encouragement, but why not just point them in the direction of Austen and let them try. Worse case scenario, they can’t understand it/don’t enjoy it….they’ll put it aside and try again in a few years. In the meantime, there are plenty of books to keep their passion for reading alive till they have the maturity and vocabulary to fully appreciate Austen.
TBH, I think this is taking the easy way around a tough problem, which is the state of literacy skills in young children. Why not invest more in making sure that children can actually read by the time they leave primary school (the figures of children who can’t is astounding!).
As for adults reading these dumbed down versions, it’s insane! Use a bloody dictionary if you come across a word you don’t understand! Jeez….
January 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I agree that the RealReads version of P&P is horrid.
I remember the Classics Illustrated comic books when I was growing up. No one would mistake them for the original novels, but they weren’t half bad as story-telling. The problem with Jane Austen is that it’s not just the story that’s interesting, but the way it’s told.
I would not be averse to a Reader’s Digest Condensed version of P&P - it’s just that it would be devilishly hard to know what could be taken out without losing something significant. Jane Austen wrote very tight stories. At least you would be getting Jane Austen and not a paraphrase.
I know one novel that could take the Reader’s Digest treatment - Les Miserables. I got to about page 600 and got lost during one of the author’s dissertations.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
It’s called young adult fiction- has a whole section at the book store, including a recent novel by adult fiction writer Nick Hornby. I was reading P & P at twelve and have read it every year since. Now, in my twenties, I’m finally reading non “classics” and some of it is from the YA fiction section. RealReads seems to be another jumper onto the Jane train masquerading as a JA-light for adults and an introduction for youths. I’m not sure which of the three is more insulting.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Dear Austenbloggers
I’m surprised that so many intelligent, thoughtful, well-read Janeites appear to be perfectly comfortable trashing a book they haven’t even read. I don’t think Jane would have thought much of that from the courtesy point of view!
Here’s the opinion of a well-respected Austen scholar who *has* actually read the books — this from Josephine Ross, author among others of ‘Jane Austen: A Companion’ and ‘Jane Austen’s Guide to Good Manners’ (!)
“As Gill Tavner points out in the footnotes to her Real Reads, ‘Nothing can beat the originals’; but where a novelist of Jane Austen’s calibre and formidable reputation is concerned, some introduction to the originals may be invaluable for the uninitiated. These lively, attractive little volumes are ideal. Charmingly presented and skilfully written, they capture something of the flavour and tone of Jane Austen’s peerless craft, while simplifying the narrative and dialogue. Even as a purist, I think these Real Reads are a Real Help for the younger, novice reader.”
If any of your are actually interested in reading one of Gill’s retellings *before* you trash them, we’ll be very happy to send you Real Reads ‘Sense and Sensibility’ in low-resolution PDF format. Email austenblog@realreads.co.uk and we’ll send it to you with our compliments. Then you can comment from knowledge rather than from pride and/or prejudice …
January 10th, 2008 at 8:49 am
John, I haven’t read the complete books, but I’ve read the first few pages of each that you have up on the website. Also, this page http://www.realreads.co.uk/zones/about/whats-inside.html that gives a lot of the notes and related material in your P&P. I think others who comment above, have also read these extracts. I’m interested in reading the entire RealReads S&S and will send you an email - thanks!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
John, I meant no disrespect to Gill Tavner or anyone else who has put hard work into the Real Reads books. I’m sure it was a very difficult thing to do. I am deeply sorry if I came across that way. What I personally was endevering to do was to state my displeasure in the fact that classics in general do get shortened/abridged/dumbed-down or whatever you want to call it. I was certainly not trying to make a judgment on something I have not read. Although we all must agree (and as you said) nothing can replace the original. Looking back on my post, I know see that I was rather harsh in my opinions and did not take time to consider this from Gill’s point of view, whom I am sure has the best intentions with this endevor. Gill, please accept my apologies.
–Julianne
January 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
After checking out the sample pages, frankly, there aren’t enough sporks in the world to get me to read the whole thing.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Julianne,
Thanks for your fair-mindedness. I thought that your original post was very sensitively expressed and made a valuable point.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Dear John (and Gill),
Before you start blustering about with reprimands about our poor manners, pehaps you should read the sign posted over the door:
“One lump of snark or two?”
This is a snarky blog, and it’s our playground (or Mags’, rather), not yours. Deal with it.
(Snark, by the way, is something at which Jane Austen excelled. Perhaps if you had actually been paying attention when you read her books you would know that.)
January 10th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Gack! Sorry, that’s me on #52. Didn’t mean to post anonymously.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Dear John and Gill,
I absolutely respect your endeavor, and I hope you succeed as Jane Austen is a wonderful author and hopefully by publishing these retold stories more “tweens” will know about Jane Austen and read her real books in the future.
However, on your sample pages on the website, you say you tried as hard as possible to accurately retell the story. Then, how come Darcy proposes in the first chapter? Surely it takes more than 7 pages to get to that point of the story. If it did only take 7 pages, it isn’t an easier version of the story, or a re-telling; it’s a complete…inversement (is that a word?) of the story. A “boulversement”.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:49 am
As a dyslexic reader I did not read a great deal when I was young. In an effort to get me reading my father brought me many abridged classics when was about twelve. I did read these and enjoyed them and having the knowledge of the story lines really helped me through difficult years at school. As an adult and more skilled reader now, I have read all of Jane and many of the classics I had read in abridged versions when young. It was like rediscovering them all over again. I felt lucky to have had the experience of reading “Wuthering Heights” for the first time twice, first as a twelve year old and then again in my twenties. I can see the value of an abridged version (maybe not a retelling).
Having said that, I never did read “Pride and Prejudice” in the abridged version. I remember seeing the first episode of the BBC Fay Weldon adaptation and rushing to my parent’s bookshelf and pulling the book off the shelf - I must have been fourteen at the time and still a very unskilled reader. I read all 300 pages of the book before the screening of the second episode – slow reader as I was. As a confirmed purist when it comes to literature (I am now a librarian) I was always grateful that I had been spared the abridged version of “Pride and Prejudice” and loved the idea that this dyslexic reader found Austen so thrilling that she read the entire book in a week. I think Austen is accessible to the young and does not need retelling, so much so, I am giving all six novels to my niece who turns twelve at the end of January.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Hi Anonymous (oops, Diana!)
Don’t worry, we’ll snark with the best of you. Just need to learn some of the US-isms … what’s a spork, e.g.?
As so many of you have pointed out, our relationship with Jane certainly isn’t based on purism — we love her too. We’re just out to milk very penny we can (with integrity, of course …)
January 12th, 2008 at 4:04 am
A final note for Deb R — hope you get this …
So many people have enjoyed your primary P&P (’See Jane. See Lizzy.’)!
If you were interested in finishing it we’d love to see if there mightn’t be a market …
If you’re interested leave us a note on austenblog@realreads.co.uk
Thanks for brightening our Janedays!