You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.29 AVERAGE
4.29 AVERAGE
I wish I could give 6 stars just for this one. I've given up on having a favorite Pterry book anymore as each new novel deligjts and challenges me in new ways, but godsdamn this is a masterclass in writing and storytelling. Wildly entertaining, excellent quotables, and a good, deep dive into the questions of war, gender, religion, and politics.
A very funny take on women dressing up as men to fight in wars. It had some favorites in it: Sam Vimes, Sergeant Angua, Reg Shoe. It mostly revolved around Polly Perks, who dressed up as Oliver Perks to find her brother Paul who went away to war last year but didn't come back. It was very funny, I laughed. The best running gag ever. Loved the socks bits.
There was some pretty good wordplay in this one, however I felt the story went off the rails towards the very end, and I was disappointed with the conclusion.
What started out as a fun book that I didn't have to think too much about, it turned into a book about cunning and pride and made me smile. It was my first discworld novel, which I wouldn't recommend beginning the series here but too late now, and I just really enjoyed a twist that kept twisting.
His subject matter is at times a little darker than some of his other books. That doesn't detract from it in any way, though. This was very well done, and just the sort of creative detail I expect from Terry Pratchett.
adventurous
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Years of war, controlled by a royal family member no one have seen in years, and a god that hates babies and chocolate? This is Terry Pratchett's 31st novel in the discworld universe and probably one of his best ones. We follow Polly, a 17 year old girl in disguise as a man so she can join the army and find her brother. Her regiment is a mix of different people and creatures, but what is the common thing between all of them is that they all learn how to have a good pair of socks on them.
If you look beyond the humour and satire, there is tons of philosophical and political parts of the story. As always with Pratchett, its an adventure that you don't want to skip.
If you look beyond the humour and satire, there is tons of philosophical and political parts of the story. As always with Pratchett, its an adventure that you don't want to skip.
3.5 stars rounded up to 4
I audibly snorted more times while reading this book than I did during all my other reads this year combined.
Pratchett tackles a lot of things in this book – nationalism, war, religion (including civili religion) and how it can be instrumentalized, the Army, and gender (especially gender equality) and with most of these, especially when tackling war, the Army, and nationalism, his humor and satire are outstanding in the best Pratchett manner.
At the same time, some aspects of the book didn't quite land for me. I'll put the rest of this review under spoiler tags since I'm going to go into detail and will be quoting parts that happen towards the end of the book.
I think it is fair to say that when it comes to gender, Pratchett was mostly concerned with gender equality and the structural issues that lead to gender inequality not so much with gender identity (though these two things can of course not be separated completely). The novel is definitely completely on point when, after the reveal that a big part of the Army’s leadership, including the famed General Froc, are actually women, it highlights that an institution like the Military isn’t going to magically transform just because women enter it. Rather, the institutional structures will change the individual – especially if that individual wants to rise in the ranks.
At the same time, the repeated scenes of revelation throughout the book are also where things got a bit sticky for me. I’ve thought long about how to put this into words, but I think the easiest way of saying it is that the book deals with gender from a very cisgender and heterosexual perspective. While there are some passages that deal quite well with gender performativity and the interdependency between presentation and how the world around people will treat them based on that presentation, the book also and with few exceptions, starts to use she/her pronouns (and sometimes the characters former name) as soon as a character is revealed as female. There are a few exceptions, for example Sergeant Jackrum and General Froc and with the latter, the use of “he” and the title often comes with a nudge and a wink after the reveal. All of this drives home that, in the eyes of the narrator, the characters are all really women, no matter for how long they have been living as men.
Mostly, I think, this is due to the position from which Pratchett was writing this and, again, on what is focus usually is. In addition, he is clearly drawing on some well-known stories of women who enlisted in the Armed Forces as men and the reasons that were given in those stories. Deborah Sampson/Robert Shurtlieff is an obvious example from U.S.-American history. In the narrative about Sampson/Shurtlieff’s life – written by Massachusett’s writer Herman Mann – patriotism is highlighted as a motif for enlistment. However, as scholars like [a:Jen Manion|14370010|Jen Manion|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] ([b:Female Husbands: A Trans History|51771013|Female Husbands A Trans History|Jen Manion|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1574189022l/51771013._SX50_SY75_.jpg|72140890]) and Judith Hiltner have pointed out, these kinds of narratives often draw heavily on already existing texts about “female husbands” and “female soldiers” and highlighting patriotism was one way of making the transgression of fairly fixed gender lines palatable to contemporary audiences. It makes sense that Pratchett is drawing on these stories for his characters’ backstories, but in its insistence that all these characters are “really women” the novel also forecloses the possibility that some of them might actually be trans or enby.
This also means that some of the jokes come very close to common transphobic stereotypes. This is especially notable when Lieutenant Blouse (one of the few cisgender men) dresses up as a washerwoman to sneak into a castle. What Pratchett is drawing on in those sections is clearly the tradition of young men playing female characters in Renaissance theater and also the tradition of drag in the Army, but a lot of the humor turns on the “a man in a dress who is badly imitating a woman” trope which also has a decidedly transphobic undercurrent. I think Pratchett was probably not aware of that undercurrent (I wouldn’t have picked up on it had I read this book when it was first published, or even 5 years ago), so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. (I wrestled a bit with whether I was too ready to do that for Pratchett compared to some other very famous fantasy author who shall not be named, but since Pratchett didn’t have a habit of making increasingly transphobic statements (afaik) and since some of the issues I had with the book clearly come from his focus on structures of inequality and from him drawing on commonly known historical sources about women in the Army/drag in the Army, and the history of theater, I do feel justified.)
All of this being said, there are two characters, one pivotal, one who is only mentioned in passing a few times, that could be read as trans, so I want to talk about them for a moment.
Sergeant Jackrum is not only the character who reveals that part of the Army’s leadership is female, but also the sergeant of the eponymous regiment. And, as becomes clear during a conversation between Perks and Jackrum is also passing. (There are hints before this moment, but this is when the novel makes it clear.) And while the text does continue using his last name and he/him pronouns afterwards, this only happens after the following exchange:
This exchange, and especially Perks’ insistence that Jackrum is a liar and can continue to live that lie if it means being reunited with family highlights that enlisting in the military while passing as a man, in the world of this novel, is always an act, a lie, never an expression of trans identity. And, again, I can see why Pratchett went this way, but it would have been nice to have at least one trans character.
The other character mentioned above is Captain Wrigglesworth, a schoolmate of Lieutenant Blouses who, as several characters mention was “Keen on, er—” “Amateur dramatics,”. Here, again, the novel nods to the tradition of drag in the Army, but there are also a few moments where Lt. Blouse, for example, stops and seems to have second thoughts about whether “amateur dramatics” are the only explanation of Wrigglesworth’s talent at passing for a woman. This is never elaborated further, so while one can read this as a hint at a possible trans character in this universe, it fell…..a bit short.
TL;DR I enjoyed this novel, but there are some things in terms of how gender identity is represented that I wish Pratchett had done differently. (I’m not saying he’s a bad person because he didn’t, I can see why and how the novel turned out how it did. This is probably mostly a “me thing” thing and not a “him thing”. (Reading novels that are very close to one’s main research area can be tricky in this way.))
I audibly snorted more times while reading this book than I did during all my other reads this year combined.
Pratchett tackles a lot of things in this book – nationalism, war, religion (including civili religion) and how it can be instrumentalized, the Army, and gender (especially gender equality) and with most of these, especially when tackling war, the Army, and nationalism, his humor and satire are outstanding in the best Pratchett manner.
At the same time, some aspects of the book didn't quite land for me. I'll put the rest of this review under spoiler tags since I'm going to go into detail and will be quoting parts that happen towards the end of the book.
Spoiler
This is a book about women enlisting in the Army for a variety of reasons (finding a brother, running away from dire circumstances, finding a “husband”, looking for a way to prove one’s skills, etc.) and it’s here where the novel sometimes didn’t quite land for me.I think it is fair to say that when it comes to gender, Pratchett was mostly concerned with gender equality and the structural issues that lead to gender inequality not so much with gender identity (though these two things can of course not be separated completely). The novel is definitely completely on point when, after the reveal that a big part of the Army’s leadership, including the famed General Froc, are actually women, it highlights that an institution like the Military isn’t going to magically transform just because women enter it. Rather, the institutional structures will change the individual – especially if that individual wants to rise in the ranks.
At the same time, the repeated scenes of revelation throughout the book are also where things got a bit sticky for me. I’ve thought long about how to put this into words, but I think the easiest way of saying it is that the book deals with gender from a very cisgender and heterosexual perspective. While there are some passages that deal quite well with gender performativity and the interdependency between presentation and how the world around people will treat them based on that presentation, the book also and with few exceptions, starts to use she/her pronouns (and sometimes the characters former name) as soon as a character is revealed as female. There are a few exceptions, for example Sergeant Jackrum and General Froc and with the latter, the use of “he” and the title often comes with a nudge and a wink after the reveal. All of this drives home that, in the eyes of the narrator, the characters are all really women, no matter for how long they have been living as men.
Mostly, I think, this is due to the position from which Pratchett was writing this and, again, on what is focus usually is. In addition, he is clearly drawing on some well-known stories of women who enlisted in the Armed Forces as men and the reasons that were given in those stories. Deborah Sampson/Robert Shurtlieff is an obvious example from U.S.-American history. In the narrative about Sampson/Shurtlieff’s life – written by Massachusett’s writer Herman Mann – patriotism is highlighted as a motif for enlistment. However, as scholars like [a:Jen Manion|14370010|Jen Manion|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] ([b:Female Husbands: A Trans History|51771013|Female Husbands A Trans History|Jen Manion|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1574189022l/51771013._SX50_SY75_.jpg|72140890]) and Judith Hiltner have pointed out, these kinds of narratives often draw heavily on already existing texts about “female husbands” and “female soldiers” and highlighting patriotism was one way of making the transgression of fairly fixed gender lines palatable to contemporary audiences. It makes sense that Pratchett is drawing on these stories for his characters’ backstories, but in its insistence that all these characters are “really women” the novel also forecloses the possibility that some of them might actually be trans or enby.
This also means that some of the jokes come very close to common transphobic stereotypes. This is especially notable when Lieutenant Blouse (one of the few cisgender men) dresses up as a washerwoman to sneak into a castle. What Pratchett is drawing on in those sections is clearly the tradition of young men playing female characters in Renaissance theater and also the tradition of drag in the Army, but a lot of the humor turns on the “a man in a dress who is badly imitating a woman” trope which also has a decidedly transphobic undercurrent. I think Pratchett was probably not aware of that undercurrent (I wouldn’t have picked up on it had I read this book when it was first published, or even 5 years ago), so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. (I wrestled a bit with whether I was too ready to do that for Pratchett compared to some other very famous fantasy author who shall not be named, but since Pratchett didn’t have a habit of making increasingly transphobic statements (afaik) and since some of the issues I had with the book clearly come from his focus on structures of inequality and from him drawing on commonly known historical sources about women in the Army/drag in the Army, and the history of theater, I do feel justified.)
All of this being said, there are two characters, one pivotal, one who is only mentioned in passing a few times, that could be read as trans, so I want to talk about them for a moment.
Sergeant Jackrum is not only the character who reveals that part of the Army’s leadership is female, but also the sergeant of the eponymous regiment. And, as becomes clear during a conversation between Perks and Jackrum is also passing. (There are hints before this moment, but this is when the novel makes it clear.) And while the text does continue using his last name and he/him pronouns afterwards, this only happens after the following exchange:
“Wouldn’t wish meself on him, lad,” said Jackrum firmly. “Wouldn’t dare. My boy’s a well-respected man in the town! What’ve I got to offer? He’ll not want some fat ol’ biddy banging on his back door and gobbing baccy juice all over the place and telling him she’s his mother!”
Polly looked at the fire for a moment, and felt the idea creep into her mind.
“What about a distinguished-looking sergeant major, shiny with braid, loaded with medals, arriving at the front door in a grand coach and telling him he’s his father?” she said.
Jackrum stared.
“Tides of war, and all that,” Polly went on, mind suddenly racing. “Young love. Duty calls. Families scattered. Hopeless searching. Decades pass. Fond memories. Then…oh, an overheard conversation in a bar, yeah, that’d work. Hope springs. A new search. Greasing palms. The recollections of old women. At last, an address—”
“What’re you saying, Perks?”
“You’re a liar, Sarge,” said Polly, leaning forward. “Best I’ve ever heard. One last lie pays for all! Why not? You could show him the locket. You could tell him about the girl you left behind you…”
This exchange, and especially Perks’ insistence that Jackrum is a liar and can continue to live that lie if it means being reunited with family highlights that enlisting in the military while passing as a man, in the world of this novel, is always an act, a lie, never an expression of trans identity. And, again, I can see why Pratchett went this way, but it would have been nice to have at least one trans character.
The other character mentioned above is Captain Wrigglesworth, a schoolmate of Lieutenant Blouses who, as several characters mention was “Keen on, er—” “Amateur dramatics,”. Here, again, the novel nods to the tradition of drag in the Army, but there are also a few moments where Lt. Blouse, for example, stops and seems to have second thoughts about whether “amateur dramatics” are the only explanation of Wrigglesworth’s talent at passing for a woman. This is never elaborated further, so while one can read this as a hint at a possible trans character in this universe, it fell…..a bit short.
TL;DR I enjoyed this novel, but there are some things in terms of how gender identity is represented that I wish Pratchett had done differently. (I’m not saying he’s a bad person because he didn’t, I can see why and how the novel turned out how it did. This is probably mostly a “me thing” thing and not a “him thing”. (Reading novels that are very close to one’s main research area can be tricky in this way.))
adventurous
emotional
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I absolutely adored this book. It's my favorite Discworld book, and Polly is an amazing character to see things through.
It's always a treat to read a Pratchett Discworld book. After a while you get to know the returning characters and are introduced to yet another group of quirky personalities. It's like coming home. This time, Pratchett takes on the subjects of gender and war and the intersection of the two. While the message is clearly there, the story is number one. If you've never read any of his books, I suggest starting with the first ones (The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic) to get your feet under you. From there, you can branch off to the many streams that make up the novels of Discworld.