Outlander
discussion
Is anyone else disappointed?
date
newest »
newest »
Brittain wrote: "Thank goodness we had the resources for more than just "don't do it again". I believe part of the solution was to get him involved in community basketball programs so that he wouldn't spend as much time exposed to it among other things. He needed a positive male role model in his life and that coach was good about that..."I am sure both of those things did him a world of good. I am very glad that you and your colleagues cared about this child. To give him a structured environment would have helped him regardless of the cause of his actions. I ran a summer and after school federal program for at-risk kids for 3 years. Many of my kids were ESL learners. We had classes for them to become more proficient in English after school (and I taught classes during school hours as well) as well as night classes for their parents in English. With a little instruction, kids pick up second languages very quickly.
Mary wrote: "My oldest daughter was in an honors program in undergrad where they had early morning classes in her honor's dorm. Many of those students wore drawstring pajama pants to class."I have heard of that happening in the US. I wasn't sure if I should believe it. I mean I've seen all sorts of things worn at the uni but never pajamas...
Tytti wrote: "I have heard of that happening in the US. I wasn't sure if I should believe it. I mean I've seen all sorts of things worn at the uni but never pajamas... ..."Well, if you have to be in a class just down the hall at 7:00 a.m......My oldest daughter recently got her masters at the University of Limerick in Ireland. She sent me some hilarious pictures of students walking around in "animal themed" pajamas. It seemed to be the "in thing" there.
Mary wrote: "Tytti wrote: "I have heard of that happening in the US. I wasn't sure if I should believe it. I mean I've seen all sorts of things worn at the uni but never pajamas... ..."Well, if you have to be..."
That is so bad in America. I hate it. I went to a school where we were expected to dress up. Jeans were too casual except during winter. It was refreshing. My brother thought it was exceedingly strange.
i'm pleased for them Mary - but not everyone is apparently as well rounded as your children are - which we have heard time and time again - what is wrong with requiring kids to wear school uniform? countries all over the world do it - many of whom school higher than the US on standardized tests -now I know correlation isn't causation but maybe its something to consider - if you remove the distraction of what people are going to wear each day, you put everyone on a level playing field - no one feels ostracized because they can't afford the newest shoes, or brand name clothes
Dee wrote: "i'm pleased for them Mary - but not everyone is apparently as well rounded as your children are - which we have heard time and time again - what is wrong with requiring kids to wear school uniform? countries all over the world do it - many of whom school higher than the US on standardized tests -now I know correlation isn't causation but maybe its something to consider - if you remove the distraction of what people are going to wear each day, you put everyone on a level playing field - no one feels ostracized because they can't afford the newest shoes, or brand name clothes ..."Dee: My parenting skills have been repeatedly questioned on this board, so I gave some information about my own children. I am so sorry you feel the need to be snarky about my children. I personally hate uniforms because I think they stifle creativity. Your mileage obviously varies.
Mary wrote: "Well, if you have to be in a class just down the hall at 7:00 a.m..."Yeah, we don't have a campus, we live all around the town. My best achievement was being on a lecture at 8:30 after seeing the "light sign" (meaning no more orders) in a bar at 3:30. It was after the department's Christmas party.
Tytti wrote: "Yeah, we don't have a campus, we live all around the town. My best achievement was being on a lecture at 8:30 after seeing the "light sign" (meaning no more orders) in a bar at 3:30. It was after the department's Christmas party. ..."LOL! I tried very hard and was fairly successful at never scheduling an 8:00 class. I think I had one and a good friend of mine was in that class as well. We took turns going to class so we had a full complement of notes.
Mary wrote: "LOL! I tried very hard and was fairly successful at never scheduling an 8:00 class. "Well with that there was no choice, four hours of statistics and it was always at that time. I probably wouldn't have gone otherwise but it was the last lecture. But I didn't go to the Russian exam I would have had at 12.
We also had "fun" at one exam that was at 10. Ok otherwise but it was after a national student "pub crawl". My friend and I had to drink more than others (10 and 12 in four hours) so we visited a couple of bars together and he quizzed be some questions. After I got home I read a bit more and passed it with a decent enough grade.
Dee wrote: "countries all over the world do it - many of whom school higher than the US on standardized tests"Well Finns don't and we have been one of the better countries for years. The only uniform we have is student overalls but that's in the university.
tha'ts why I said Many,not all
Dee wrote: "tha'ts why I said Many,not all"I don't think it has anything to do with uniforms. There are probably countries that have them and do worse.
Then again, we once didn't even have uniforms for soldiers in a war. They did quite well, though, in their civilian clothes. Better than the neighbour anyway. :D
possibly - that is why i also said correlation does not equal causation and based on my scan of the scholarly literature today i couldn't find any longitudinal studies that show the long term effect of wearing uniforms or not - it may be out there, i just didn't get a chance to lookbut I don't buy the "makes them more creative" argument in the slightest
You don't have to buy it. You asked. I answered. Why don't we just do away with clothing designers altogether and just have everyone wear the same thing?
Dee wrote: "but I don't buy the "makes them more creative" argument in the slightest"Well I went to a "high school" where half the students went to "art high school". You could often tell on which side students were. Many art students had distinct styles.
Brittain wrote: Despite what everybody seems to thing these days, the church is fully capable of appropriately handling sexual education. "HA! I literally laughed out loud when I read that! You can't be serious...please tell me you're not serious?! I definitely do not claim to be aware of all of the various Church's positions on things like birth control, but I know that the Catholic Church is still of the position that abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control. That does not allow for a well-rounded and complete sex education. Even the rhythm method is still disallowed by the Catholic Church (though this is a far from foolproof method of birth control to begin with!)
Actually, sex education in the US as a whole is still largely focused on abstinence due to the inadequate separation of church and state. The teenage pregnancy rate in the US is the highest among all of the developed countries and is also almost double that of the other countries. Abstinence emphasized sex education is not as effective as other programs. More comprehensive sex education programs have a noticeable effect on lowering teen pregnancies and STI prevention and many actually delay onset of sexual activity.
Chelsea wrote: "Actually, sex education in the US as a whole is still largely focused on abstinence due to the inadequate separation of church and state. The teenage pregnancy rate in the US is the highest among all of the developed countries and is also almost double that of the other countries. Abstinence emphasized sex education is not as effective as other programs. More comprehensive sex education programs have a noticeable effect on lowering teen pregnancies and STI prevention and many actually delay onset of sexual activity. ..."There is also some evidence that teens who were previously sexually active have a greater chance of becoming celibate again after comprehensive sex education. I live in the south and I have yet to see a church offer comprehensive sex education. They may be out there, but I have never seen it.
gertt wrote: "Being creative is not determined by the clothes you wear, however, many creative people (artists, etc.) develop unique styles of dress. .."You are entitled to you opinion on the matter. I do not like uniforms and I doubt I ever will. Conformity (IMO) has a negative impact on creativity...again in my opinion. That does not mean it squelches creativity entirely, but I do believe it hurts. I was thrilled when my youngest finally graduated from high school and I never had to deal with idiotic dress codes ever again.
Chelsea wrote: "Actually, sex education in the US as a whole is still largely focused on abstinence due to the inadequate separation of church and state."The fun part is that in Finland church and state are not completely separated. I don't think most people even want them to be... Religion is even taught in schools, though you study another subject if you don't belong to a church or there is no teaching (not enough pupils/no teacher) in your religion.
Brittian you wrote "I wouldn't let a kid read Outlander, more for the fact that rape is so easily accepted in it. Do you think that is appropriate for a 7th grader?"I do not think rape is "accepted" in Outlander. Rape was a reality of that time as it is of this time. The difference is that Men rarely got persecuted for it back then. Times are changing but still have a long way to go. I would let a 7th grader read it depending on the 7th grader. If it were my daughter we would discuss the rape and put it in context. 7th graders know what rape it. It makes most people feel uncomfortable to read it and there are adults that do not want to. I think if the 7th grader could handle it and was willing to discuss the concerns they are old enough to know about the terrible people that were and are out there in the world. To me it is as valid as reading the details of the holocaust.
i was about 14 when I read Outlander for the first time - so 8th grade
First I read the first four novels. I really liked the first and then grew less and less interested as they went on.Secondly, I was drawn to this discussion because of the Thread's title and wanted to have a discussion with people who did not like the books and was very disgusted by seeing the thread get hijacked. There are loads of places for fans to rave about the series but few places where people can have a lengthy or detailed critical dis session and that says a lot more about fans than the actual book(s).
On feminism, if Claire were born in 1918 she was three when British women got the vote and it would have still been quite the topic of discussion in her school years. The suffrage movement was bigger and more radical in Britain than the US and she traveled extensively with her uncle who would have raised her to be quite independent and fearless...which I believe is in the book. I would not have expected her to wage a feminist war there but surely she would have had some prenuptial agreements with Jamie such as something as basic as no hitting?
Also what really burned me up was that she thought Jamie was in his 20's and she knew Laoghaire was 16 and not only did she not scold Jamie after seeing him with the teen she encourages him on....THAT IS ANTI-FEMINIST to the hilt! My mother was born in 22 and she, my aunt and grandmother were all pretty feminist and certainly frowned heavily on girls in their mid-teens getting involved with 20something men.
And, the whole concept of sex being the primary glue of marriage seems unbelievable shallow. Good sex only gets you so far. What else did they really share? No movies, books, authors, politics, music, love of animals, art, religion......Really, whiskey and sex? Who wants a marriage like that?
Kay wrote: "Secondly, I was drawn to this discussion because of the Thread's title and wanted to have a discussion with people who did not like the books and was very disgusted by seeing the thread get hijacked. .."Bless your heart and shame on us for intruding on a PUBLIC discussion board.
I read the first 4 books - I think that's time enough for love to bloom and a relationship to have a sounder foundation than hot sex (not that I'm opposed to hot sex at all) and an unplanned pregnancy (staying together "for the kids" is right up there with staying together for the money... Meanwhile, the idea of sex keeping them together is a device in the story not something I made up. I have no problem with the sex device for the beginning, but having sex in a camp with many other men nearby that can hear....well,that's a bit pushing it for me -- and historically speaking they most likely would have moved away from the party for their intimacy. It would have been different inside a hall or castle where the majority of people were sleeping in one great room ,but that was over a hundred years before this timeline. Claire hardly needed to see a birth certificate to see he was at least in his early 20's (23 actually) and later she remarks that she thought he was older.
Your sarcastic "Bless Your Heart" really helps show a lot of what sort of person you are. Participate? By all means. Hijack and redirect the conversation and make ugly remarks to people who disagree with you.........well, bless your little tiny heart, you're going to need all the blessings you can get with that Christian attitude.
Kay wrote: "First I read the first four novels. I really liked the first and then grew less and less interested as they went on.Secondly, I was drawn to this discussion because of the Thread's title and want..."
My Grandmother was born in the 40's and she would ask my teenage friends when they were getting married. At one of these particular times my friend was only 16. My Friend told her that and my Grandmother didn't feel that was too young. She still uses phrases like "age is just a number." She even suggested a couple older guys, because to her, men mature later in life so need to be older when they get married. So no, not everyone would have those same views during that time period. Heck - not everyone has the same views today. I thought our off topic discussion was a good example of that.
This doesn't apply to Claire though. She does have those views. She was upset when Fergus was interested in whatshername who was only 15? And wasn't Fergus 30? I can't remember the exact ages. But Jamie wasn't bothered and he told her that's how it was done, even though Claire knew, he helped calm her down because her opinion and feelings on it weren't going to change anything.
Maybe Claire didn't discourage Jamie with Laoghaire because if it weren't Jamie Laoghaire would marry, it might be someone 30 or older. She also knew Jamie was a nice guy. Why would she do anything but encourage that? I'm not sure at what age Laoghaire did get married, but I'm sure it was young and in the end she did manage to end up with someone who abused her.
Prenuptial agreement for hitting? I'm sorry but that makes me laugh :) There is also the perspective thing to look at here. Had Claire actually suggested that, Jamie would have been appalled that she even had to. Claire's perspective of a husband hitting his wife would have been with fists. Jamie's perspective on disciplining his wife was with a belt on the rear-end just the same as everyone he knew would have done with their children.
Then there is the thought of just all the chaos going on, would Claire have even thought of it with Jamie? It's true the thought may have occurred to her with someone else, someone who showed some kind of abusive signs. But Jamie didn't.
Claire also spent the majority of the time drunk once she knew she had to get married. That would have clouded judgement too.
_____________
Since you didn't like the book I'll assume you aren't familiar with these threads very well. But you will notice that many of the threads get hijacked. We're a lot of the same people chatting in these and as we discuss, we get distracted (as imperfect people are prone to do) we go from one thing to another eventually and repeatedly come back to the main topic. It wasn't because this thread is about disliking Outlander. This can happen anywhere.
What was the age limit for marrying in UK at the time? In Finland it was 17 for girls so 16 isn't that young. And maybe Claire was smart enough to know that girls usually married older men, because they were able to provide for them, and they married young. Even Scarlett was only 16 in GWTW when she married for the first time.Besides, 16 and 23 is perfectly legal in many countries (not to marry, of course, but to see each other).
Kay wrote: "Your sarcastic "Bless Your Heart" really helps show a lot of what sort of person you are. Participate? By all means. Hijack and redirect the conversation and make ugly remarks to people who disagree with you.........well, bless your little tiny heart, you're going to need all the blessings you can get with that Christian attitude. .."Kay: You basically told those of us who were debating the issues in Outlander to go away and mind our own business so those who did not like the books could have their own club. That was kind of rude and I apologize for responding in kind. It just kind of flew all over me that the underlying message was: go away. That is not how public message boards work. If you go to a thread that is in support of the book, you will find detractors there. That is how it works. Threads also morph. That is also the nature of public message boards.
gertt wrote: "Mary wrote: "I personally hate uniforms because I think they stifle creativity. ..."My grandchildren go (went) to private grade school and wear uniforms. They have no problem with it and they are..."
My grandchildren go to a public school that requires uniforms
So, how many of us love coffee and how many love tea? The book is open minded, so naturally, people with traditional minds will hate it. Also, people who have uneventful relationships will hate it as well, because Claire's and Jamie's relationship is so fulfilling and sexual.
Anita wrote: "So, how many of us love coffee and how many love tea? The book is open minded, so naturally, people with traditional minds will hate it. Also, people who have uneventful relationships will hate it ..."So exactly how open-minded one should be and how eventful a relationship one should have to find it not boring? I doubt many people actually "hate" it.
Jaime was not wayyyy too much older than herand I loved this scene.
I agree. I read the book 3 years ago. I liked the love that eventually evolved between Jamie and Claire. However, what turned me off was the extensive detail. I've never read the other books.
Hi all, just wanted to jump in here and say how absorbed I've been reading this discussion thread. (Not necessarily a good thing as I'm supposed to be writing a book, but I digress). So first off thanks to Trisha and Chelsea for kicking it off.I am a huge fan of Outlander, an ardent feminist and also a romance novelist, so that probably explains why I find this debate so fascinating. Although I'll admit right here and now I know absolutely sod all about germ theory or bacteria so I have to admit that part of the debate when totally over my head.
Just really wanted to make a few (sorry, rather long-winded.. I’m a writer people, bear with me!) personal observations from my own perspective (although I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread due to time constraints, so if I'm repeating what someone else has already said please forgive me!).
I think what fascinates me most about this debate is how people construe an author's motives when they come to read a book.
What particularly stood out for me was Chelsea's statement:
Gabaldon is a woman, writing for women, but she chose to perpetuate all these subservient women tropes. I don't like that.
Firstly, I don't think for a minute DG thinks she's writing only for women, she's made quite a point of saying she doesn't think Outlander is a romance for precisely this reason. I'd have to disagree with that myself, but that's from my perspective as a reader because I love romance and it's the romantic relationship between Jamie and Claire that I find so compelling.
Similarly we can all argue until we're blue in the face whether the tropes in the book are reinforcing the subservience of women. Again, I'd strongly disagree with that reading.
I saw Claire as being remarkably strong, she's thrown into an impossible situation and yet she does everything she can to survive... And that survival for a very long time involves her attempts to return to the time in which she was born. Does she perceive herself as chattel when she marries Jamie? I thought she agreed to it so she could prevent herself from being re-arrested by BJR? The marriage is a means to an end to stop that happening and nothing to do with her agreeing to become Jamie's possession (even though she may be perceived as such due to the mores of the time once they're wed)...
Anyway, again this has already been discussed at length, as has the beating, the rape, etc etc etc. And ultimately that’s just my personal opinion.
But the point I wanted to make is this - the flaw for me in that statement Chelsea has nothing to do with your opinion of the book, obviously you didn't care for it. And I did, and I can't change your opinion any more than you can change mine because every reader is unique and what they bring to their reading of a book, whether they identify with the characters or find their actions and reactions really annoying, whether they are drawn in by the writing style etc, is different.
But here's where I had a problem. Your stated opinion of DG's motives when writing the book. Because…
1). I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens creatively when a writer is writing a book.
2) It is also a strangely anti-feminist thing to say…
And here’s why.
Obviously every writer is different, no two writers have the exact same process. But I'd say that a couple of things when writing are fairly universal, whether you're writing romance or literary fiction, whether you're a plotter or a panster, hugely successful or completely unknown. Basically you want to tell a story, yes it's your story but ultimately what that story becomes is entirely down to the characters you create. And they quite literally have a life of their own.
Shameless name-dropping alert… That said, I've been to a talk DG gave in Inverness (yup I really am that much of a mad superfan!) when she talked about the genesis of this story and it rang very true with me about what happens when I write my own books.
What you do as a writer is you build characters from the ground up. They become fully formed in your head. They have flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths. You hope like hell at least a few readers will identify with them and enjoy the book as a result, but ultimately that's not something you think about while you’re writing it, because you can't. You can only write the book for yourself. Your characters become real people to you because they have to for you to be able to take them on their fictional journey with any degree of conviction. Then you put them in fictional worlds and situations to challenge them. But those fictional situations again are born out of the febrile writers imagination - the hotbed of information that is percolating in your brain and is in many ways outside your conscious control... I know that probably sounds totally schizophrenic and like a get-out-of-jail free card (as in: ok so the writer’s not responsible for what happens in the book, WTH!)… But it’s not an excuse or an apology, because you will stand by what your characters do and say and how they react because you absolutely believe that’s what they would have done and said and you love them for it (even the really evil ones!) Because they have fired your imagination and let this process happen. You are in control, but only in the sense that you are the only one who truly understands who they are. Because you are the one who is delving into their psyches at every turn to discover how they would react during every step of their fictional journey - whether it be to discover that the hot new guy at their high school is a centuries old vampire who could end up sucking the life out of you if you have sex, or the knowledge that you’re going to have to commit bigamy to save yourself from being tortured by some sadistic British redcoat because you had the misfortune to get thrown back to the 1740s Highlands!
So I guess what you’ve got to ask yourself is with all that going on, was DG thinking about perpetuating subservient women tropes, or setting back feminism 80 years (both arguments I’d disagree with on the basis of my reading of the text but again that’s your opinion against mine)… Or was her focus actually much much narrower than that, of telling a story, being true to the specific characters she had created, making them fully rounded, well-developed individuals and then throwing dramatic conflicts in their path and allowing them to have their own completely unique reactions? From my own experience as a writer, I’d say categorically it is a later.
For more evidence of why I think I’m right about this, check out how DG herself describes her creative thinking behind the Wentworth Prison finale (and some interesting stuff about the ‘love story’) http://www.dianagabaldon.com/2010/12/...
But here’s the thing, (and why I’ve probably bored you all rigid with my comment) as a feminist I believe that female writers should have the same creative freedoms as male writers do. They shouldn’t have to be bound by anyone’s preconceived notions of what women should or shouldn’t write. Anymore than male writers are. And they shouldn’t be judged for them either.
Whether you connect with their characters, enjoy their writing, think their stories are good, bad or complete bollox is fair criticism (and that absolutely includes your reading of the feminist or anti-feminist tropes in the novel btw). As a reader you’ve paid for this experience (or if you’re a reviewer you’re intending to inform other like-minded readers) so absolutely if you thought the book was crap, you should say so and no one should feel offended especially not the author! But when it comes to making personal judgements about DG’s opinions on feminism, the subservience of women, etc based on your reading of what she has created? That to me is an oddly retrograde and in many ways anti-feminist stance. Which says women writers should be held to a different standard, should only write tropes, themes, situations that adhere to what your reading of feminism is. Because why? They are representatives of all women? The female leads they create should always behave in a pro-feminist way that you can relate to?
That’s a problem for me, as a writer, a reader and a feminist, because it doesn’t put female writers on an equal footing with male writers…. It doesn’t allow them the same creative scope or self-determination. Yes they are women writing in an unequal society but by forcing them to write in a certain way to a certain agenda… And indeed saying women should only be free to read the same way... Is that making them more free, more equal, or less so?
Bravo, Heidi! Very well said. You bring up valid and thought provoking points. Thank you!
Heidi wrote: "Hi all, just wanted to jump in here and say how absorbed I've been reading this discussion thread. (Not necessarily a good thing as I'm supposed to be writing a book, but I digress). So first off t..."Love this. Especially last 2 paragraphs. Applause :)
Hi Becky and Mrs Books and thanks... Have to admit I have just reread my comment and realised it goes on FOREVER (jeeze do I need an editor) and maybe sounds a bit browbeating... For those of you who think Outlanders anti-feminist (and I'm a lunatic) that wasn't my intent, I just wanted to add a (hopefully) interesting new perspective to this very engaging debate.
Heidi wrote: "Hi Becky and Mrs Books and thanks... Have to admit I have just reread my comment and realised it goes on FOREVER (jeeze do I need an editor) and maybe sounds a bit browbeating... For those of you..."
I thought it was very well done and I really appreciated your take on character development. I dabble in writing myself and know just how attached we get to those voices in our minds telling us they want to turn left when we think they should turn right. ; )
Heidi wrote: "Hi Becky and Mrs Books and thanks... Have to admit I have just reread my comment and realised it goes on FOREVER (jeeze do I need an editor) and maybe sounds a bit browbeating... For those of you..."
Excellently done. Down to the last sentence.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Hi Becky and Mrs Books and thanks... Have to admit I have just reread my comment and realised it goes on FOREVER (jeeze do I need an editor) and maybe sounds a bit browbeating... Fo..."
Thanks Becky.. Phew!
Eileen wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Hi Becky and Mrs Books and thanks... Have to admit I have just reread my comment and realised it goes on FOREVER (jeeze do I need an editor) and maybe sounds a bit browbeating... Fo..."
Cheers Eileen!
Heidi wrote: "Hi all, just wanted to jump in here and say how absorbed I've been reading this discussion thread. (Not necessarily a good thing as I'm supposed to be writing a book, but I digress). So first off t..."Bravo for a well written argument for lack of a better word, I enjoyed your comments to the very end. I am reading this series now and am enjoying them.
"I do agree that it needs pruning--it's incredibly longwinded. I guess in time you develop a tolerance for its overly lush detail once you are fully immersed in the world and characters. I have found the following books in the series to flow better and just to let you know, every single meandering detail has meaning later on. "As the author has stated herself, she never intially saw this book as a book - just as something to start her writing career or to try writing (or something along those lines, please fans step in and correct me there!) - I think that's why the other books begin to flow better.
I read the book years ago and loved it at the time, so was surprised when I couldn't get through the follow-up novel. In fact, I'd bought the entire series and ended up selling them all at a yard sale without reading any of them. Now that I've seen a bit of the Showcase t.v. series, I think I am beginning to understand a little more about why I lost interest. I know there are always big differences between a novel and its Hollywood-produced counterpart, but I have to admit that watching the t.v. show is a bit like trying to force myself through reading a book I'm not enjoying just to know I've given it a chance. Well, last night I watched the first episode of the second season, and I'm through giving it a chance. Perhaps these criticisms can be applied to the books, as well. What bothered me in the first season was the fact that Claire seems to be the focal point of every male character. They ALL want her. Were there no other women in Scotland at the time, or what? I finally turned the t.v. off last night after the opening scene in which Jamie shows up at Jack Randall's castle to rescue a kidnapped Claire. Naturally, Jack is about to rape Claire, as this seems to be all he and every British soldier can think about, when Jamie jumps through a window. A fight ensues, and Jamie renders Randall unconscious, then simply leaves the nasty villain lying on the floor while the lovers make their escape. Jamie's convenient explanation is handled through the character's narration, "I couldn't bring myself to kill a helpless man", or something to that effect. Really? This man who tries to rape your wife at every turn? This man who once made sure you were lashed almost until your final breath, leaving disfiguring scars on your back? I think this scene could have been written better - for example, Jamie, unable to control his anger for Jack Randall, could have been ready to inflict the final killing blow, when a British soldier could have burst through the door. Jamie would have been forced to leave Randall and act quickly to get Claire away from the soldier and out of harm's way. At least it would have better explained Jamie's motivation in leaving Jack Randall alive. I don't actually remember this scene from the novel. Perhaps it was something written into the t.v. series by their writers. In any case, it did jump out and serve to remind me of some of the reasons I didn't continue to read the entire "Outlander" series.
I know I'm jumping in a bit late, but.....I can totally appreciate being annoyed by/disliking the book or series. In fact, I was annoyed in the first book by the number of times Claire had to repeat pretty clueless mistakes and then get rescued from her own stupidity myself, so I get that. It is also certainly true that brevity is not the strong suit of these novels! :)
I do, however, disagree very much with the notion that the books "set feminism back." Disclaimer: I have read the whole series and enjoyed it, and I believe this particular theme shifts somewhat over the course of the thousands of pages of novels. Not that there aren't some problematic gender constructs to be found -- there certainly are. (e.g., in Outlander when Jaime says that he 'doesn't think he can stop once he starts' even if she objects on their wedding night; just read MOBY, & was decidedly annoyed that Jane was (view spoiler)).
Nonetheless, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many ways in which these books are strong exemplars of feminist values; at least, that's one of the things I value about them. To one of the points made on this thread: to me, it seems decidedly more anti-feminist to get kidnapped/tortured/whoknowswhat in the name of one's sexual purity/monogamy/husband's property rights to one's reproductive organs than it does to decide for oneself that the preferable path is a sexual alliance with an attractive man. There are tons of other examples -- affirmative consent makes a number of appearances; to me, Claire's sexual agency is not arguable; they acknowledge that sexual assault happens to men and is quite painful for them when it does because it is not about chastity or sexual purity; the episode with Jenny/BJR makes it explicitly clear that it is silly for Jaime to assert that HE gets to decide whether his life or her "honor" is the more important; Claire is quite capable and effective, especially during medical scenarios, her wheelhouse, right from the outset (she is a SURGEON, and simply persists in her competence in spite of the social expectations to the contrary); heck, even excessive depilatory measures get jabbed at because women as sexual objects = ewwwww, weird. Really, the examples could go on and on.
As I said, there are certainly some examples of problematic stuff as well -- but life is very rarely uncomplicated and I think it's worth it to view them in balance. But to do that, examples of both problematic and encouraging gender constructs should be included since the books clearly contain both. And, it's important to note in any such analysis WHO the main character is.... she's certainly tough, independent, sexual, smart, capable; in short, she's a badass. :)
Rebecca wrote: "I read the book years ago and loved it at the time, so was surprised when I couldn't get through the follow-up novel. In fact, I'd bought the entire series and ended up selling them all at a yard s..."I don't recall that everyone had a hankering for Claire. There was Jamie, obviously. There was Jamie's uncle Douglas. However he seems kinda slutty anyway.
Jack Randal doesn't count. He's not really interested in Claire. Jack gets off on inflicting pain onto people. This could have been Claire or anyone but it had nothing to do with Claire being Claire.
I agree with you though about Jamie saying he couldn't bring himself to kill a helpless man. That wasn't in the book and in my opinion a very poor change. In the book Jamie does render Jack Randal unconscious but there are footsteps fast approaching the door. They naturally escape. It wouldn't have made sense to take the time to kill Randal when at any moment men with guns would burst into the room.
Thanks Mrsbooks. I admit that I don't remember details of the book very well, having read it so long ago, so I am unfortunately relying on the t.v. series to jog my memory. As in most cases, the book is turning out to have been far more superior entertainment. I agree that Jack Randall isn't really interested in Claire romantically, but I suppose when I think about it again, I was referring to the tendency of male characters in the t.v. series in general to be constantly grabbing at Claire, trying to drag her off and have their way with her. Again, maybe this wasn't so predominant in the book, but I can't remember the details. I've realized it's probably best to refrain from referring to the t.v. series here in the future, as this board is about the book(s), and there are many differences between the two. I am certainly enjoying reading all the posts! :)
I really enjoyed reading this discussion and really wish I would have found it before now. I understand the disappointment angle a lot. However, in my opinion that does't mean that the book was bad, like a few others have said. I didn't pick up the book in the romance section and I had no expectations for the "hot sex scene" (which to me weren't actually that hot). I picked up the book for the fact that it was a fiction book and I was told it was very good. I don't really see it falling into the category of "romance" either though but I wont open that can of worms again. The things that I am most disappointed in is the character of Claire. I love that she is a strong character. I love that she knows what she wants and is not afraid to go get it. I don't really have a problem with everyone wanting her. I feel like this happens with most led characters in books. My problem with her is actually hard to explain. I feel like she lets important things go just because she understands the other person, mostly Jamie's, perspective. There are several times in the book that she is seething about something and once she hears Jamie's side she just says ok that's fine. In all the things are are so realistic about the books this is the one thing that bugs the crap out of me. For example, no woman would be able to just understand their husband not telling her that while they were apart he got remarried. I know that I have talked to Mrsbooks about it before in another thread and maybe she can help me explain it better if I didn't come across well.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)
Suddenly a Bride (other topics)
Playing for Keeps (other topics)
Outlander (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)Dragonfly in Amber (other topics)
Suddenly a Bride (other topics)
Playing for Keeps (other topics)
Outlander (other topics)
Then I am sure they can learn to clean up their facebook account, wear work appropriate clothes and write a resume. People do learn from negative experiences. My oldest daughter was in an honors program in undergrad where they had early morning classes in her honor's dorm. Many of those students wore drawstring pajama pants to class. Some of them are now lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. They DID figure out how to dress themselves.