Hello,

Is there anybody here who has read Witch Wood by John Buchan? I am thinking of giving it a try but what makes me hesitate to read it is I have read it is full of Scottish jargon. (as far as I can remember, even Lovecraft mentions it in his "Supernatural literature"), So, Is the book hard to read? And if so, is it worth reading?

Thank you very much.

Personally, I found it very worthwhile. The eeriness is definitely understated rather than overt, and suggests considerably more than it says, but this gives the novel a weird glamor of substantial power. However, I am not one who is at all deterred by dialect, and the Scottish dialect here is indeed quite pervasive in the novel overall, and in fact is quite integral to the creation of the aura of weirdness; it wouldn't work nearly so well in straightforward English.

My suggestion, therefore, is to tackle R. L. Stevenson's "Thrawn Janet" first (if you've not read it before), and see how the dialect there sits with you (again, it is very much a part of the success of that tale, as here). If you find that one tough going, then you're unlikely to be able to make it through Witch Wood with any pleasure. If, on the other hand, you find the short story to be to your taste, then by all means go for it, as I think it is a fine example of the Scottish weird tale.

Thanks for the tip.

I'm activating this thread -- this is a book that I've had my eye on for a rereading. I read it in 1987, 1996, and 2002, so it's due or overdue. If anyone else is interested, he or she should approach the dialect with good will. Be willing to read the novel in sizeable chunks & you'll probably end up agreeing that the dialect is a strength of the novel.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> -- this is a book that
> I've had my eye on for a rereading. I read it in
> 1987, 1996, and 2002, so it's due or overdue.

A fourth time, ... you must indeed find Witch Wood a very very important book. When there are so many other unread books, you could use your valuable time to read instead.

You mentioned earlier that you have not read a huge number of books, and that this is not something you regret. While I agree that it is better to deepen ones connection with a relative few number of great books, than to spread oneself too thin, ... in this case I still find it curious. Making this one worthwhile to read a fourth time, it must surely be a very rich book. Or perhaps it is simply the joy of revisiting old ground; in the same way we appreciate repeated daily walks in our local familiar landscape, being home.

Knygatin, with Witch Wood it'd be mostly what you suggest in your final sentence, I think. I don't remember it as outstandingly important, great, or rich, but as an appealing story with an intriguing historical and geographical setting, etc.

Most of the literary reading I want to do is rereading. There isn't a lot of fiction or poetry that I have never read but that I do want to read; most of that proposed reading is of books I have owned for a while but not read yet.

Most of the nonfiction & non-poetry that I want to read & that will be new to me is travel writing (Penguin Travel Library books, mostly), some literary studies (none of them published recently), theology, history, and biography.

I've cut way down on the book reviews I read.

Novelty would rank low, if it would rank at all, for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Apr 21 | 10:41PM by Dale Nelson.

Thanks Dale, I respect your viewpoint. And it may furthermore be a way of deepening character stability, and increasing ones peace of mind and cultural integrity.

Much that makes a really good book or poem good will probably not be fully felt on a first reading.

Conversely, rereading is likely to show flaws that an enthusiastic first reading missed or hardly noticed.

This doesn't mean that painful disillusionment will be the consequence. I still like Conan Doyle's "Speckled Band."

I don't remember Witch Wood too well. I remember enjoying it as I read it, but also feeling a certain disappointment at the end, as I expected maybe too much of the denouement. Spoiled by Hollywood, maybe.

This is not to be confused with Angus McTiernan's seminal 1934 work on golf equipment and strategies, titled "Which Wood?".

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Which would be a sad mistake to make.