A long time ago in 19th Century France a writer by the name of Victor Hugo wrote an inspired bit of work entitled Les Miserables. Or perhaps "bit" is an understatement. This brilliant portrayal of French society covered over 1,400 pages of utter genius. More than a century later, publishers have created abridged versions of the classic roughly 400 pages long—not even a fourth of the original manuscript. Other abridged versions exist ranging from slightly less than the original length, to lower than 200 pages. Incidentally, only one unabridged version is available in paperback today.

I do not see how such a remarkable and lengthy novel can be compressed into such an infinitesimal space and still retain its glory and splendor. It simply cannot be done without drastically altering the atmosphere, and even the plot of the book! It's like handing someone a half-eaten candy bar— who wants that?! I certainly don't.

So why is it even attempted? Why do people choose to sabotage an exceptional book by publishing only a snippet of the full novel? Why must they persist in catering to people who are too busy or stupid to read the entire thing? A thousand other "whys" may be addressed, yet I believe there is a sole cause in the core of it all.

Society, as a whole, seems increasingly lacking in esteem towards good literature. Much of what is published today is base and superficial—nothing compared to the great insight and depth of both plot and characters that existed in former centuries.

Likewise, society has also seemed progressively lacking in the intelligence and exertion to read such grand literature. People simply aren't committed enough to put forth effort and break the bonds that society and technology have put upon their minds. They would much prefer to spend their time posting inane comments on the internet than even thinking about picking up a book, let alone actually reading it.

Thus it is not surprising that many a great book has suffered the pain of abridgment. People don't want to read lengthy books, so publishers shorten them. In my opinion, the crime is worse on the publishers' parts than even on the readers. Some people choose not to enjoy reading, but that is their problem—it should not be up to the publishers to alter the way a novel is portrayed just so they can make more money off it. This privilege belongs solely to the writer of the book, and, as all of said writers are, in fact, deceased, I believe it is the ultimate crime to butcher their work when they are not here to defend it.

And so, I believe the true abridgment in question is not a matter of books but of human intelligence. If a person isn't willing to put forth the effort to read a book, whether they haven't the time or haven't the intellectual capabilities, they should not be given the benefit of enjoying the story. Publishers should not accommodate to these people, all the while making those who do wish to read the entirety of a book suffer the pains of trying to find a decent copy so they can read it.

To justly honor the brilliant authors of the past, I believe it is crucial to stop this blasphemy and begin publishing higher-quality versions of the classics. It will be a great day indeed when society ceases to cater to selfish whims and fancies and instead determines to accomplish what is truly best for the good and the intelligence of the people.