No to Abridged Books

On 3/10/10, I wrote about fond memories of reading Readers Digest Condensed books when I was a child, despite my later negative feeling about abridged books. I said in that post that in general I "firmly believe that books should be read unabridged; abridging books seems unnatural, almost like mutilating them." I was thinking about this again recently, as a couple of times when I checked out an audiobook from the library, I realized after I took it home and looked at the very small print that the version of the book on CD was actually abridged. First, this annoyed me because I feel such an important fact should be clearly featured, to allow readers/listeners to make informed choices. Second, and this is more important, I don't understand the need for abridged versions of books. Maybe if the books are for young people with reading problems, or those just entering the world of reading, these books could provide a "bridge" (pun intended) to full versions of books. Or for not-very-literary bestsellers, something like Readers Digest Condensed could provide quick and fun reads for pure entertainment or for an introduction to the works of writers. But in general, I strongly dislike abridged works, and feel they cheat the reader of the full experience. I suspect most authors would also be very unhappy with having their works abridged.