Outlander
question
Am I the only one who can't stand this book?
deleted member
Jul 08, 2019 01:26PM
0 votes
Thank you. I just couldn't get through the book because it was just danger/rescue/humping/repeat but the show seemed promising. I got through the whole first season and I feel tricked... I kept thinking something would happen to advance the action or show historical events. All I got was very problematic storytelling.
The last bit was like Ramsay Bolton (as Capt JR) from GoT turning Theon into Reek (played by Jamie) Jamie finally gets rescued and is like, retraumatized and abused back to health? WTF. It's pretty sad when the douchebags writing the GoT series do a better job of portraying trauma and its after effects. I wish I could unsee it to be honest.
The last bit was like Ramsay Bolton (as Capt JR) from GoT turning Theon into Reek (played by Jamie) Jamie finally gets rescued and is like, retraumatized and abused back to health? WTF. It's pretty sad when the douchebags writing the GoT series do a better job of portraying trauma and its after effects. I wish I could unsee it to be honest.
flag
I remember the series from long ago and knew my tastes back then. I was never tempted to read an historical fiction romamce regardless of its fantasy elements. But I love the show now and here at the end of season 4, I wanted to know what happens next....so I went to the library and picked up The Fiery Cross. Thank goodness I didn't buy it!
1) Her science facts are wrong: hawks in fact DO have binocular vision because their eyes are on the FRONT of their head. Mongolian spots can appear on anyone with Native American, Hispanic, Asian or African descent. For Claire and Jamie to assume Fanny's infidelity with a black man is both ignorant and racist in the extreme. DG needs to get her money back from NAU, she clearly didn't learn anything.
2) The writing was so tedious (useless and boring descriptions) I put the book down numerous times. PACING!! Half this book needs to be cut out.
3) How high was her editor? In one scene Jamie was bare-head, Claire waxing unpoetic about his red hair AGAIN, then a few paragraphs later takes off a hat. Then when they're laying in bed after sex (I just skip over that anymore because even their sex is boring) Jamie is laying quietly with his arms over his stomach then he's got a mysterious third hand a paragraph or so later which is placed under Claire's backside. I'm not kidding! Then of course there is the girdle v. griddle usage that finally was caught long about pg.250. There are other poor/incorrect usage that calls into doubt whether or not the book was actually edited or simply spell-checked.
4) Some of the Gaelic and French translations are wrong. The nickname they give Roger translated to “shreiker” not Thrush. I think her Gaelic source must have been having her on. Had this been the only error in the entire text, I would have ignored a phrase Germain asks Claire. I speak and read a little French and there's a big difference of baby language for “who is that?” and “Where they go?”
5) She clearly lacks an average ability with language usage because whole passages have been worked over with a thesaurus so much so that it blows up meaning and readability.
6) The plot is little more than, “this happens then this happens then this happens” etc., with twists that come out of literally nowhere that the characters seem to magically comprehend. To finish the book for the plot points I'm about 300 pages in and skimming.
7) The show is way better than the books. RDM had none of the problems adapting them that D&D had with GOT.
But in the end she's a millionaire with a tv show and I'm not.
1) Her science facts are wrong: hawks in fact DO have binocular vision because their eyes are on the FRONT of their head. Mongolian spots can appear on anyone with Native American, Hispanic, Asian or African descent. For Claire and Jamie to assume Fanny's infidelity with a black man is both ignorant and racist in the extreme. DG needs to get her money back from NAU, she clearly didn't learn anything.
2) The writing was so tedious (useless and boring descriptions) I put the book down numerous times. PACING!! Half this book needs to be cut out.
3) How high was her editor? In one scene Jamie was bare-head, Claire waxing unpoetic about his red hair AGAIN, then a few paragraphs later takes off a hat. Then when they're laying in bed after sex (I just skip over that anymore because even their sex is boring) Jamie is laying quietly with his arms over his stomach then he's got a mysterious third hand a paragraph or so later which is placed under Claire's backside. I'm not kidding! Then of course there is the girdle v. griddle usage that finally was caught long about pg.250. There are other poor/incorrect usage that calls into doubt whether or not the book was actually edited or simply spell-checked.
4) Some of the Gaelic and French translations are wrong. The nickname they give Roger translated to “shreiker” not Thrush. I think her Gaelic source must have been having her on. Had this been the only error in the entire text, I would have ignored a phrase Germain asks Claire. I speak and read a little French and there's a big difference of baby language for “who is that?” and “Where they go?”
5) She clearly lacks an average ability with language usage because whole passages have been worked over with a thesaurus so much so that it blows up meaning and readability.
6) The plot is little more than, “this happens then this happens then this happens” etc., with twists that come out of literally nowhere that the characters seem to magically comprehend. To finish the book for the plot points I'm about 300 pages in and skimming.
7) The show is way better than the books. RDM had none of the problems adapting them that D&D had with GOT.
But in the end she's a millionaire with a tv show and I'm not.
Both characters (Jamie and Claire) are quite immature.
I tried to read the book after episode 10 of season 7 of the Outlander TV series, where I couldn't understand how Claire and John could get together to “mourn” Jamie.
I couldn't believe anyone could justify them having a “carnal acquaintance” just after her husband's death, so I bought the kindle version of the book where Lord John and Claire get married and it was hard to read.
I just tried to read the extracts about the wedding and their night together and couldn't bear to read any more. English is not my first language, but even I can admit that the writing is... mediocre. And why write 800-1000 pages if the writing isn't there?
I don't know what Jaimie or Claire are like in the books (considering how little I've read) but, boy, do I wonder if, in the final season of the TV series, we'll still hear Claire shouting “Bloody Bastard” every 1 or 3 scenes...
I tried to read the book after episode 10 of season 7 of the Outlander TV series, where I couldn't understand how Claire and John could get together to “mourn” Jamie.
I couldn't believe anyone could justify them having a “carnal acquaintance” just after her husband's death, so I bought the kindle version of the book where Lord John and Claire get married and it was hard to read.
I just tried to read the extracts about the wedding and their night together and couldn't bear to read any more. English is not my first language, but even I can admit that the writing is... mediocre. And why write 800-1000 pages if the writing isn't there?
I don't know what Jaimie or Claire are like in the books (considering how little I've read) but, boy, do I wonder if, in the final season of the TV series, we'll still hear Claire shouting “Bloody Bastard” every 1 or 3 scenes...
LOVED the Book. And LOVE the series! Not all genres are for everyone. And Bashing someone's hard work is in poor taste!!!
I didn't like Book One. Couldn't finish it. I expected it to be a historical novel with some romance, some fantasy. Instead, it was a romance set in historical times. I got to the scene where she (view spoiler), and I just couldn't buy it any longer. I'm glad other people adore it, but it just wasn't for me.
If Jamie's raping & beating of Claire is in the tv series and it's quite graphic I'd rather know so I can record & fast forward.!
Can anyone recommend a good historical novel or series taht doesn't glorify rape the way Overlander does?
This could have been such a great story for me -- it has some elements, as many people here have noted -- but then dives down into trash.
This could have been such a great story for me -- it has some elements, as many people here have noted -- but then dives down into trash.
I can't stand it either. Its just so pathetically boring. The whole plot is just an excuse to get some completely unrealistic version of an English woman to get a chance to have sex with some idiot Scottish guy. I never liked the Scottish anyhow. I hope their bid for independence lands them in the poor house.
Its a book for undersexed housewives whose husbands don't want to see them nude.
Its a book for undersexed housewives whose husbands don't want to see them nude.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
