Tags

, ,

Image

One of the few things my library’s booksale won’t accept is Reader’s Digest Condensed Books. And yet they always turn up at the bottom of boxes amidst more worthy books; or a poor elderly person has lugged them from the other side of the river, and so we receive delivery of whole boxes of them. Fiona-Scott Norman, writing in The Big Issue 402, is perceptive, although typically merciless:

… the pointless horror of Reader’s Digest Condensed Books. Forty-seven years (1950-1997) of ‘simplifying’ bestsellers by cutting out style, passages that didn’t drive the plot and anything faintly racy… It is telling that these nutritionless, ‘uniquitous’ [?] tomes are now light years beyond valueless, and as difficult to dispose of as bins of radioactive waste. you canot sell them, you cannot give them away; op shops do not take them. They do not exude ‘retro chic’. They are soulless junk.

And yet I understand the impulse behind condensed books. I find too many books too long. I wish writers had cut them down, pared them till they are reduced to their essence. Of course, the condensations don’t reflect this, but instead a popular perception that plot is all there is when it comes to novels.

Interestingly, I think Fiona did her research on Wikipedia, but didn’t read carefully enough; from what I gather, Condensed Books continue as Reader’s Digest Select Editions.