Jeanna's Reviews > Witches Abroad

Witches Abroad by Terry Pratchett
Rate this book
Clear rating

F 50x66
's review
Jan 16, 11

bookshelves: fantasy
Read in January, 2011

I'm embarrassed to admit that for me the funniest thing about this book was Nanny Ogg and her entertaining openness about her *ahem* romantic adventures. And also her drinking (how many people do you know who could knock down six glasses of absinthe and only feel a little uncomfy? okay, I admit I don't know exactly how bad that would be, but it's absinthe! it must be pretty bad, right? I just now learned that vodka is usually 80-100 proof, and absinthe is something like 120-140 proof. so there you go). And maybe also the songs she sings (which generally are the types of songs that drunken sailors would sing, so maybe they're not all that different from points 1 and 2 above).

So yes, I'm a bit juvenile. Or a lot juvenile.

But anyway, despite Nanny Ogg, I didn't particularly care for the book. Granny Weatherwax and Magrat, the other two main characters, were too unlikeable. Granny was a self-centered busybody and Magrat was a wimp. Of course Pratchett's characters are all really more caricatures than real people, so I shouldn't be surprised. But they just didn't work for me.

Rating: PG-13 probably for all the innuendo. Although I must say it was presented so innocently. I shall have to think on this further.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Witches Abroad.
Sign In »

Comments (showing 1-3 of 3) (3 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by C. (new)

C. Carlson I'm glad I found this review. Most of Pratchett's books are for thinkers and those who can glean as much content from what's not written than what is. In fact, if you could read Pratchett's books with some insight you'd see he sometimes intentionally doesn't say things. The missing information serves to underscore a point he's made, but never written.

Reading reviews like this, I can then see what books you liked so I can stay away from them. Don't feel bad, you and my wife have similar things to say, and I love her to bits!

Jeanna C. wrote: "I'm glad I found this review...."

Thanks for reminding me that there are people out there who don't know me and will take my reviews out of context. I write them mostly for friends and family, but this is a good reminder that other people read them too.

Frankly I prefer Pratchett's other books strongly over the witches books, because I too like the way his style is generally understated and leaves a lot out. Hence only two stars for this one.

What I'm really surprised by, though, is that you bothered to comment simply to tell me that you think I'm shallow, I can't read with insight, and you will never read the books I like. It just seems kind of... mean-spirited.

I admit, this annoys me. Partially because you have made a snap judgment about me based on a single review. But I suppose it's hypocritical of me to be annoyed at that--because I have now made a snap judgment about you based on a single comment. So maybe we're both wrong. I would like to think so.

message 3: by C. (new)

C. Carlson It is probably a good idea to keep in mind that anonymous strangers can read these reviews, and write something really annoying. It's important to keep in mind that the Internet offers a community only when the the users agree to cooperate. What we see as 'troll' comments can be excellent reminders that we're building expectations where we have no control over the outcome. When the outcome isn't congruent with our expectations, frustration rears it's head.

Your dislike for these books is based on a lack of understanding. What we can't understand, we can't identify with. What we can't identify with, we can't appreciate. You don't care for Pratchett's witches because you don't identify with them. You don't identify with them because you don't understand them. You read the book (and you are bloody well smart [I would not argue that]), so you caught everything that was written in it. So, the only thing lacking is an understanding of what wasn't written.

What I find curious is that your negative opinion is justified, but mine apparently isn't. I wonder why? I would venture it's because my opinion was in direct reply, where your review was never meant to be read by the book's author. It's interesting that it's alright to talk negatively about what someone writes so long as they don't see it.

So I don't appreciate your review. Because I can't identify with it, because I don't understand it. I don't understand the review because I've understood what Pratchett's witches don't say. That simply puts us in diametrically different positions.

Let me be self-effacing for a moment. Shallow is usually reserved for negative connotations. But seeing things at face value is just as important as the abstract. Often times, I can't see the birds for all the sky. Thank gawd for my wife who never sees subtlety. I can't stand the things she likes, and vice versa. Dean Koontz bores me to tears, and my wife can't get past the cover of the Enchiridion of Epictetus...and we love it that way.

And it all condenses to this: How great are your friends and family who love and cherish you just the way you are. When we're faced with jerk comments from people who don't even know us, it's nice to remember that there are those folks we call our home; who love us even in spite of ourselves.

So reread my comment if you like- take what's useful and leave the rest. I don't know if anyone's ever found a use for codswallop...

back to top