George's Marvelous Medicine

Author of ''The Twits'' and ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'' A Bantam Book

by Roald Dahl

Paperback, 88 pages

English language

Published April 2, 1983 by Bantam Skylark, published by Bantam Books Inc., by arrngmt w/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc..

ISBN:: 978-0-553-15186-2
OCLC Number:: 9831828

(25 reviews)

George decides that his grumpy, selfish old grandmother must be a witch and concocts some marvelous medicine to take care of her.--WorldCat

75 editions

📖 Leo reviewed La maravillosa medicina de Jorge by Roald Dahl

Un cuento bien posicionado en su estilo y género

4 stars

Alejándose de la difusa línea en la que unos autores escriben fábulas que parecen cuentos, otros cuentos cuentos que parecen fábulas, Dahl nos entrega un cuento sin moraleja que hasta requiere de una advertencia inicial, seguramente exigida por la editorial. La historia de Jorge y la medicina que se ingenia se sale de los márgenes y ayuda a ejercitar la imaginación, que a veces sufre de sedentarismo, atada por las "buenas costumbres".

arkadione reviewed George's marvelous medicine by Roald Dahl

Review of "George's marvelous medicine" on 'Goodreads'

2 stars

Nothing special. If Roald Dahl didn't write this, it wouldn't be popular at all. I chuckled a few times but it's nowhere near as funny or inventive as The Witches, The BFG, or Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

The Gnome King reviewed George's Marvellous Medicine by Roald Dahl

Review of "George's Marvellous Medicine" on 'Goodreads'

4 stars

I tried my hardest to hate this book, George is such a little psychopath, no matter how you read this book it is about attempted murder...at one time George even gets egged on by his Dad. But....the Grandma is such an evil old hag I soon found myself siding with George and relishing a big explosion.

The writing is typical Roald Dahl, quirky, dark and humourous. I thought it was going to be one of his weaker books due to the length, only 100 pages, but the length was just right in the end, any longer and things would have got to be too silly.

In the copy I read the illustrations were poor, things may have been squashed a bit to fit them on the page I guess, but the animals just looked a mess.

This was my first read of this one, don't remember reading it as a …