4 ms·

This was a formative read for me many years ago but only recently realized there is also a novel version. Has anyone here read both?

remoquete 4y ago
It’s commonly agreed that the short version is way better.
- ghaff 4y ago
  The novel and film are "fine" as I recall but the short story is the real classic.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Indeed. And it wasn't written in 1965, despite this title.
  - solardev 4y ago
    (For anyone wondering, Wikipedia says it was written in 1958 and first published in 1959. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon)
- jstx1 4y ago
  I would have said the opposite - I like the few changes in the novel and I think that the whole story is a bit more impactful when it takes a bit more time instead of being very compressed like the short version is.
solardev 4y ago
I've only read the novel... didn't realize there was a short story version of it until just now. The short story reads a lot like, well, a short version of how I remember the novel to be. FWIW the novel was also excellent and is one of my all-time favorite books. As someone who is smart but not that smart, in a culture (software/tech) where intelligence is fetishly worshipped to the detriment of other personality traits, this was a very humbling, humanizing, and deeply touching read. EDIT: Actually, I just read the short story version. The story is essentially the same, as you'd expect, but the pacing suffered a little bit IMO. It was more believable in the longer form, where plot developments happened more gradually and the characters were fleshed out more. The novelization has more emotional impact because it was a smoother journey (at least as I remembered it) vs the rapid progression of the short story version. But, granted, it didn't help that I already knew the basic premise before reading the shorter version, so YMMV. Still, if you have time, why not go for the full thing? It's the sort of story that invites quiet contemplation instead of quick digestion.
tyrust 4y ago
The novel is short enough that I'd recommend it. If you really don't read much, though, the short story gets the point across. Either way, highly recommended.
nathell 4y ago
I have. I started with the novel, in a Polish translation, when I was maybe 13, and it had resonated with me so much that to this day I consider it _the_ most important book I’ve ever read. A formative read, indeed. I read the short story a few years after that. I think it’s the essence; I perceive it as a distillation of the novel (rather than the novel a dilution of the story, though I’m aware the story was first.) I guess had I started with it, I’d be considering it _the_ most important short story I’ve ever read today.

remoquete 4y ago

It’s commonly agreed that the short version is way better.

ghaff 4y ago
The novel and film are "fine" as I recall but the short story is the real classic.
jeffbee 4y ago
Indeed. And it wasn't written in 1965, despite this title.
- solardev 4y ago
  (For anyone wondering, Wikipedia says it was written in 1958 and first published in 1959. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon)
jstx1 4y ago
I would have said the opposite - I like the few changes in the novel and I think that the whole story is a bit more impactful when it takes a bit more time instead of being very compressed like the short version is.

solardev 4y ago

I've only read the novel... didn't realize there was a short story version of it until just now. The short story reads a lot like, well, a short version of how I remember the novel to be. FWIW the novel was also excellent and is one of my all-time favorite books. As someone who is smart but not that smart, in a culture (software/tech) where intelligence is fetishly worshipped to the detriment of other personality traits, this was a very humbling, humanizing, and deeply touching read. EDIT: Actually, I just read the short story version. The story is essentially the same, as you'd expect, but the pacing suffered a little bit IMO. It was more believable in the longer form, where plot developments happened more gradually and the characters were fleshed out more. The novelization has more emotional impact because it was a smoother journey (at least as I remembered it) vs the rapid progression of the short story version. But, granted, it didn't help that I already knew the basic premise before reading the shorter version, so YMMV. Still, if you have time, why not go for the full thing? It's the sort of story that invites quiet contemplation instead of quick digestion.

tyrust 4y ago

The novel is short enough that I'd recommend it. If you really don't read much, though, the short story gets the point across. Either way, highly recommended.

nathell 4y ago

I have. I started with the novel, in a Polish translation, when I was maybe 13, and it had resonated with me so much that to this day I consider it _the_ most important book I’ve ever read. A formative read, indeed. I read the short story a few years after that. I think it’s the essence; I perceive it as a distillation of the novel (rather than the novel a dilution of the story, though I’m aware the story was first.) I guess had I started with it, I’d be considering it _the_ most important short story I’ve ever read today.