Is anyone else disappointed?

[Trisha]

I was very excited about this book because it had good ratings, but I dislike it. I'm three quarters of the way through, and just reading in order to finish it. The story is shallow, and the entire story just feels underdeveloped. Claire's ease of putting Frank aside for Jamie is off-putting. Yes, she had to marry Jamie. But no, she didn't have to have several annoying sex scenes after the first. It's hard to admire her and see her as a heroine. I don't pity her for losing Frank. I'm thinking he's better off now. I'm disenchanted with my peers who rated this book so well. It's over 600 pages of cheesy romance, disguised as an adventure. Does anyone else agree?? Or did I read this book with the wrong impression and that is why it is not living up to my expectations?

[bubblegumpopper]

I agree 100%. The whole book felt crass (how many rape scenes do you need in a book?!) and pathetic to me. And also very condoning of extramarital affairs. The whole gypsy thing about her being highly sexual and whatever just seemed like a big get out of jail free card to let her make all of her decisions with her vagina. There are a lot of die hard fans that defend this book to the teeth though. Don't be surprised if you're informed that you're just not "intelligent" enough of a reader to appreciate the book. That's what I was told. Oh, and those that claim this is not a "romance" novel. You can dress a chicken up as a pig, it doesn't make it a pig. This is definitely a romance, but a twisted, disgusting, misogynistic version of one that sets feminism back about 80 years.

I walked away from the book with the firm conviction that she was in desperate need of an editor to rein her in. I took a peek at the next one and it is even longer! Over 1000 pages. That is insane.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Trisha wrote: "I was very excited about this book because it had good ratings, but I dislike it."

I think it either clicks with a person or it doesn't. If it's not for you, it's not for you. I can totally understand how it feels to see glowing reviews, but pick up a book and end up in the minority. I did that with R.L. Mathewson's Playing for Keeps (hated it with the heat of a thousand suns) and quite a few other "popular" books.

I also don't get the big draw to YA/Vampire romance at all and won't read Twilight or the Sookie Stackhouse series even if my life depends on it. That's just me and I won't slam anyone else for loving it. We all have different life experiences, preferences, and beliefs.

As for Outlander, there are several things that happen (i.e., the rape, attempted rape, and violence) that really get my hackles up, even though I liked the series as a whole. Many parts were difficult to read, but at the same time the behaviors were very human, flaws and all.

Life is too short to read books that aren't enjoyable to you. There are tons of options out there for everyone. : )

[Dee]

Chelsea wrote: "I agree 100%. The whole book felt crass (how many rape scenes do you need in a book?!) and pathetic to me. And also very condoning of extramarital affairs. The whole gypsy thing about her being ..."

i'm curious to say how you can say a book set in the 1700's can set feminism back 80 years...obviously, i'm a fan, since I gave it 5 stars, but that statement just intrigues me

[Gentry]

Glad to know there are others out there that feel the same as I do about this book. I couldn't even finish it, it was so boring.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Dee wrote: "i'm curious to say how you can say a book set in the 1700's can set feminism back 80 years...obviously, i'm a fan, since I gave it 5 stars, but that statement just intrigues me."

I had to ask myself that question, too, Dee. Since it was set in the 1700's, I simply read it with those parameters in mind. It doesn't mean I threw away present day values. LOL!

[bubblegumpopper]

But it was centered around a modern-ish woman who is basically sold like chattel and just goes along with it. She puts up very little protest or anger about being forced to marry a complete stranger (despite already being married.) If you don't see the normalization of treating women like cattle as an affront to feminism, then I can see why we don't see eye-to-eye on this book.

Also, the whole book just felt like it was perpetuating the rape culture of "she may say no, but she really means yes."

There's no female empowerment in this book. She puts up lukewarm protests to being treated like a commodity, which are completely ignored, and then she always requires a man to swoop in and save her.

What sets feminism back is that women are glorifying this portrayal of a woman being reduced to a possession and always requiring a white knight to swoop in and save her. Normalizing these kind of ideas is what sets back feminism and makes it "okay" to think of women as weaker and less competent then men.

Anita Sarkeesian has 2 great videos on this "damsel in distress" phenomenon. They're focused around the protrayal of women as weak characters in need of saving in video games, but the overall themes also apply to the recurring themes in Outlander:

Damsel in Distress Pt 1 - http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013...

Damsel in Distress Pt 2 - http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013...


I'm not opposed to romance stories or men supporting and helping women, but I prefer stories where it is a reciprocal relationship and both characters show growth. I don't really feel like either Claire or Jamie showed any growth in this book. Jamie basically says, "suck it up, that's how it is" and then Claire meekly complies with him. That is not at all reciprocal and it rubs me the wrong way.

And, by the way, there are plenty of strong, independent women scattered throughout history. It's a cop-out to say that "it's set in the past, so therefore Claire has to be walked all over." Actually, her inclusion of the other time travelling woman (forget her name..starts with a G?) disproves that theory. She seemed pretty autonomous and self-sufficient and didn't just acquiesce to whatever the men told her to do. I think I would have enjoyed the whole book a lot more if she had been the main character and Claire got burnt at the stake instead.



EDIT:

One other thing that bugs me about the book, but is completely unrelated to the issue of feminism, is her introduction of germ theory. Had she just ignored this altogether, then I would have happily pretended it wouldn't be an issue (as I do with all other time travelling stories....mmmm, Highlander books by KMM!) However, she specifically discusses how Claire is "safe" because she's been vaccinated. Here's the thing though, the vaccination is only against specific strains, and bacteria and viruses mutate quite regularly. Her vaccination wouldn't likely work against a strain of small pox (I think that was the disease...I could be wrong though) that was prevalent 200 years ago. And she would have brought back thousands of strains that would be completely foreign and potentially life threatening to everyone she encounters in the past. She would have been a total Typhoid Mary! Or, I guess Typhoid Claire would be more accurate.

Gabaldon introduces this and then totally ignores all the problems with it. It was sloppy. She may have done her research on historical Scotland, but her scientific research was severely lacking. As someone with a science background, this leaped out at me and really irked me. But I don't imagine it would bother someone who doesn't have a science background though. :)

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Let me be clear. I did not say I CONDONED the bad behavior. I said it was difficult to read, but it was very HUMAN. It was a realistic representation of the sexism of the time. Claire goes on to break new ground for women in the 1940's. She become a doctor, not just any doctor, but a surgeon, at a time when women were expected to be educated, but not use that education for anything other than keeping house and raising children.

"Normalizing these kind of ideas is what sets back feminism and makes it "okay" to think of women as weaker and less competent then men.

Pardon me, but that's a stupid and dare I say "ignorant" assumption. This is a work of fiction. Not the Bible. Give women a little more credit. We're not a bunch of cows that think the book is perfect in every way or that we turn a blind eye to things. Many of your "issues" have been discussed at length in other threads, giving lots of insight on the human psyche.

As for Gellis Duncan, look up the name in Scottish History. She was based on a real life witch. She's a pretty poor role model.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Re: Rape culture

Suddenly a Bride is a far more dangerous example of rape culture. Review for Suddenly a Bride. Most of the glorious reviews don't even recognize it for what it is.

[Mrsbooks]

I totally agree that people either love this or hate this. You rarely get a warm response.

Not all people look at situations and scenario's with the same "glasses" on. Our personally experiences tend to color how we see something. Often times, I don't understand how a particular person can look at the same thing as me and see something totally different but that's how being individuals work.

Chelsea said that Claire is a "modernish" woman. And I think that is a very important point to not over look. Claire was born in the year 1918? I think often times we forget how much progress women have made in the last 70 years. Claire comes from a time where women were fighting for their rights, much more than today. Today we just accept these as normal.

So Claire, being thrown back in time, to a time in which, she has absolutely no inclination to stay, why would she try to "fight" for her rights? I thought Diana showed Claire's continual inner struggle with this, yes she wanted to, and at times failed to control her impulse to do exactly that, but knowing history, is it really worth bothering? Especially when you're only temporarily visiting? Claire living during the times where she can see the fight happening and seeing the results should be better able to see the wisdom in when to fight and when not to.

If I somehow ended up in the middle east without planning to, I wouldn't be fighting for my rights either. I'd know and hope the trip would be a short one and I would bend to their culture and laws because it would be the "wise" thing to do. It's what you do when you're in another land, (whether we feel they're right or wrong), not the other way around. My distaste for how they treat females is what would keep me from purposely ever going there. Just because I acquiesce doesn't mean I agree with what's going on.

Claire in essence gives up these rights to stay with Jamie. A testament of her love. That would be a difficult sacrifice to make. At the same time, less of a sacrifice for Claire given the times in which she lived than it would be for us, us having many more rights to give up than Claire did.

I do take insult that this book sets feminism back and promotes rape culture. You may believe you're insulting the book. But this is an insult to the readers to suggest that we're stupid enough to believe we would now allow ourselves to be less or to think that rape is Okay because it "happens" in a fictional story.

" I don't really feel like either Claire or Jamie showed any growth in this book"

I think because this book is so long people forget what kind of a timeline it follows. It's what? A year? I don't know about you, but my personal growth in a year generally isn't very much noticeable. This is a series of books and when reading them all, that is where you can see the growth in the characters. Actually, I believe this portrayal is more real than most books that show personal growth.

Not that I don't like personal growth lol, but have you noticed how quickly it happens in most fictional books? The Character has an "aha moment" where they finally see things clearly and then we're told they've put their life back together with one or two set backs and sometimes none at all. Not realistic to me at all. Personal growth takes time, lots of it.

[Tytti]

Chelsea wrote: "But it was centered around a modern-ish woman who is basically sold like chattel and just goes along with it. She puts up very little protest or anger about being forced to marry a complete strang..."

I don't get this. So you don't think she had the right to go along with the marriage? I would have done the same thing. And if it would have required to sleep with Jamie... well there are worse things that could have happened.

Also she did save/help Jamie (and others), even (view spoiler)[getting help to save him from the prison (hide spoiler)]. It probably would have been unbelievable if she had done it herself.

As for Geillis, (view spoiler)[she slept with Dougal and killed her husband (hide spoiler)]. I don't see how that is a good role model to anyone, though I guess the character is interesting.

Also, you think people knew about different strains of viruses in 1940s? I think that knowledge came much later. Besides, I think they used a vaccination made out of cowpox which is a different disease altogether and milkmaids had been known not to get smallpox already in the 18th century. I did have a problem with her taking penicillin for granted because she had been a combat nurse before they had that but still...

I don't really like romance novels and there was a bit too much romance and violence and that made it boring for me, but I can see why others like it. But I also know that books with ratings much over 4.00 are generally not that good.

[Mrsbooks]

Tytti wrote: "Chelsea wrote: "But it was centered around a modern-ish woman who is basically sold like chattel and just goes along with it. She puts up very little protest or anger about being forced to marry a..."

"I don't get this. So you don't think she had the right to go along with the marriage? I would have done the same thing. And if it would have required to sleep with Jamie... well there are worse things that could have happened."

I think the key here, is that Claire was attracted to Jamie and liked the sex. LOL. If she hadn't have been either, no one would fault her on it. How could they?

Sorry Claire, you're stuck married to a young, fully built dream boat but you can't be attracted to him. Also, when you're forced to consummate your marriage (Or BJR will get you) make sure you don't enjoy it. Cause that's easy.

[Tytti]

Mrsbooks wrote: "I think the key here, is that Claire was attracted to Jamie and liked the sex. LOL. If she hadn't have been either, no one would fault her on it. How could they?"

Yeah, it's much more honorable to marry an old man to get some power... Well I did like Scarlett when I read GWTW and I was 12.

Also, it wouldn't be very wise to start talking about feminism when Highlanders are more or less in a war. It wouldn't be a priority for them, probably even for the women. In general, in a crisis or at war times the attitudes are usually more conservative. (Which is probably true these days in the Middle East, too. In the 1960s/'70s women were wearing miniskirts in many countries...)

[Angie Elle]

Mrsbooks wrote: "If I somehow ended up in the middle east without planning to, I wouldn't be fighting for my rights either. I'd know and hope the trip would be a short one and I would bend to their culture and laws because it would be the "wise" thing to do. It's what you do when you're in another land, (whether we feel they're right or wrong), not the other way around. My distaste for how they treat females is what would keep me from purposely ever going there. Just because I acquiesce doesn't mean I agree with what's going on. ..."

This is an excellent comparison that pulls the situation right into this day and age!

Admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of this book, but it has to do more with the detailing than anything else.

It boggles my mind that people aren't able to get past their own hang-ups and step back from modern society enough to let this story be told accurately for the time it takes place.

[Lisa]

I totally do understand the issues everyone has with this book. I also wanted to put it down after about four chapters but was encouraged to continue by a friend. I don't actually find Claire's behavior jarring in this book, and in fact, find how quickly she is subsumed by this backward culture very fascinating--also how over time her own belief system begins to awaken Jamie to another way of looking at things.

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.

[Jeanine]

I don't normally read sexually graphic or violent books, but for some reason I saw beyond that with this series and enjoyed it...but that's me. I would, and have, however, told others that asked about Outlander what to expect so that they don't get the wrong impression. Gertt wrote

Good point. I work in a library and see what books go out frequently and this series does. I started to read them for that reason. At first I wasn't sure I would like Outlander because the first few chapters were dull. I do however love history and these books have a lot. I read to enjoy and tend to overlook a few things. I don't try to over analyze them either. So that said, I agree do not dis the author because you did not like the book

[Tytti]

gertt wrote: "Often times people recommend books to friends and fail to tell them the facts...graphic sex, violence, uncomfortable situations....which can be unsettling to a lot of people."

One of my favourite tv series was OZ (set in prison), so I don't get "unsettled" easily. In fact I thought the beginning was more interesting, even though many of you have said otherwise. And even though I do enjoy the romance in the series, in the book things usually got more interesting when Claire was interacting with others. Unless it was about violence or having babies or just an endless dialogue about something that was already clear... I sort of might like to read the next book, too, but probably won't because of the length that might not be warranted.

[Mary]

Trisha wrote: "I was very excited about this book because it had good ratings, but I dislike it. I'm three quarters of the way through, and just reading in order to finish it. The story is shallow, and the entire..."

Different strokes for different folks.

[Mary]

Chelsea wrote: "But it was centered around a modern-ish woman who is basically sold like chattel and just goes along with it. She puts up very little protest or anger about being forced to marry a complete strang..."

I don't see a woman who is 26-27 years old in 1945 as a woman who has been steeped in feminism. Women "began" to question on a societal level after WWII, but the movement really had not begun when she went back in time. So I did not expect a woman born in the 1920s to be a raging feminist. I absolutely disagree that she let other people walk all over her.

[Dee]

Jamie is a man of honor - he promised that he wouldn't fight if Jack let Claire go - mentally it would have been worse for him if he had tried to escape

[Zoey]

Mrsbooks wrote: If I somehow ended up in the middle east without planning to, I wouldn't be fighting for my rights either. I'd know and hope the trip would be a short one and I would bend to their culture and laws because it would be the "wise" thing to do. It's what you do when you're in another land, (whether we feel they're right or wrong), not the other way around. My distaste for how they treat females is what would keep me from purposely ever going there. Just because I acquiesce doesn't mean I agree with what's going on.

..."

Thats a great comparison Mrs Books, and we definitely have to see Claire as a woman from her time, not our time. There is a big differecne between the two, even though its not that many years.
I always compare Claire to my Grandmother as she was born about 1922, so pretty close and this is a woman who still to this day believes it is a crime for a woman to wear trousers/pants for anything other than working in the garden, & only "those" types of women dye their hair LOL.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Bree wrote: (view spoiler)["Jack has no honor, and Jamie didn't need to comply. He didn't have to fulfill his promise to a scoundrel. He may have been killed, or maybe not. Didn't his friends come and rescue him? Claire was outside of the castle while this was happening. I would have understood if Jamie had no other options... such as, if Jack had restrained him. (hide spoiler)] "

This is an interesting issue, Bree. I think there are several things going on. They were deep inside the prison, so even if Jamie subdued BJR and left the room, he wouldn't have gotten far. If I remember correctly, (view spoiler)[when Claire left the room, Jamie's hand was still nailed to the table *shudders* (hide spoiler)].

My thoughts on Jamie keeping his word: Yes, his word was his honor. It meant more to him than anything that might happen to his body. Other factors to consider: (view spoiler)[Perhaps he was giving Claire enough time to get away from the prison. He also knew how brutal BJR could be. Maybe Jamie realized that putting up a fight would've been far worse for him. BJR would've still gotten what he wanted, but made him suffer all the more and killed him in the process. As it was he nearly died. The man was a sick, twisted predator. (hide spoiler)]

[Michelle]

Chelsea wrote: "But it was centered around a modern-ish woman who is basically sold like chattel and just goes along with it. She puts up very little protest or anger about being forced to marry a complete strang..."

I think that Diana did a pretty good job of describing nursing in the 1700. As to the "germs", she is correct in that the vaccinations would have protected her. Her immune system would have been superior to those in the 1700 due to the fact that she would have already been exposed to more severe strains virus's and bacteria. As to Claire being a "Typhoid Mary" She would have to have been infected with the disease to have carried it back in time with her. As an RN I appreciated that she did quite a lot of research to get this pretty accurate.

[Tytti]

Michelle wrote: "Her immune system would have been superior to those in the 1700 due to the fact that she would have already been exposed to more severe strains virus's and bacteria."

That's not necessarily correct, IMO. Viruses change but not always to more serious. In some cases they have to become less serious in order to stay "alive". The reason why some bacteria have become more serious nowadays is because of modern medicine and the improper use of it. Though I'm not sure it would have had time to affect Claire yet and if it would have made a difference, it was only 200 years after all.

[Bree]

gertt wrote: "Bree wrote: "*Spoiler*
It has been a long time since I read Outlander. But, I remember the author was good at developing characters, and writing description. I did not continue on with the series ..."

(I just realized that I don't know how to use the spoiler feature yet.) I understand what you are saying. I guess, what I am struggling with is: why did the author create such an awful situation. I liked Jamie so much, and I couldn't stand that the author let that happen to him. Maybe the book was too mature for me.

[Jeanine]

Doesn't anyone understand Jaime at all?

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

It was a tough scene for me, too. One of many that I call "WTH?" moments. I don't have the answer for it, but I do know the good outweighed the bad for me. I had to see how the characters persevered.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Bree wrote: "I hope he gets to experience some joy and happiness in life. He's too good of a man to suffer through the whole series."

The second book was hard for me because we learn right upfront that something went wrong, but it's setting up for the third book, which I liked even more than the first one. These aren't typical stories. They're a bit fantastical, but they are very honest in their portrayal of life. We don't get the good without the bad. Things go wrong, people die, we hurt each other, but we also love our families, develop deep friendships, and face our problems head on. For me, that honesty is a big draw. It gives me a lot to think about and a lot to discuss with other readers.

Unless you're under 18, it's probably not an issue of the book being too mature for you. I think anyone would have difficulty reading the violent scenes. We're SUPPOSED to be disgusted, angry, hurt, sad, etc. over BJR's behavior. There's nothing wrong with saying, "This is past my limit of tolerance." and putting the book down. That's okay. It has to be a personal choice. We're all different and have different tolerances. : )

Oh...the spoiler tag. This is how it's done (take out the asterisks):

<*spoiler>You're text here. <*/spoiler>

Giving you this:

(view spoiler)[You're text here. (hide spoiler)]

[Jeanine]

Becky you say it so well. These are my thoughts but I don't have the elegance of writing them

[bubblegumpopper]

First off, let me preface this by saying that I'm trying to multitask; both writing this and trying and create a "magic" pink umbrella for a Hagrid costume, so I hope this ends up somewhat cohesive!

I apologize if anyone took my comments as a personal attack on themselves. I don't look down on anyone that likes this book. We're all entitled to our own opinions on things. One of my closest friends absolutely adores this series and we have raucous debates about it whenever it comes up. Personally, I enjoyed the Twilight series (with the exception of New Moon), but I completely understand why it annoys the crap out of so many others. I don't take any negative comments about Meyer's writing skills/style as personal attacks on myself. Though generally I just don't open the threads that have that topic (actually, sometimes I specifically open them because the haters have some really funny comments!) If you're not wanting to read about the reasons why someone dislikes a book that you love, then opening a discussion entitled "Is anyone else disappointed?" or "Does anyone else besides me hate Twilight?" may not be your best bet.

I won't apologize for critiquing Gabaldon though. You all really appreciate her writing and you are welcome to that opinion, but my opinion is the polar opposite. I find her writing repetitive, her pacing terrible, her flowery prose irksome and I don't like her chosen themes (I like hunky Scotsman in theory, but not in her execution.) I do find the almost fanatical defense of her writing kind of weird and off-putting though. The same way I find the fanatical defense of Meyers' writing off-putting even though I'm sort of a fan of hers. If you didn't actually write the thing yourself, then why be so die hard about it?


Feminism:

The whole concept of feminism is incredibly subjective, so my conception of it and yours may be fundamentally different. Which also might be why you can't understand why I hate the book and I can't understand why you love it. But when I discussed it's impacts on feminism, I meant from a reader's perspective, not from the story's perspective.

From a story perspective, okay fine, it wasn't the most enlightened of times or places. But she is coming from a time frame that actually was historically going through a feminist wave. During the war when women were entering the workforce to fill the positions that the men who went off to war left vacant, women actually had more power and freedom than they had had prior to the war. And remember that the women's suffrage movement has come and gone, so women from Claire's time have had the right to vote for something like 80 years. Obviously it's nowhere near as far as we've come now, but these weren't barbarian times either.

From my perspective as a reader, I felt that Gabaldon romanticized her disempowerment, which really irked me. I hate that she's treated as chattel. It's great that she fell in love with Jamie eventually, but that doesn't negate the original message that she was a piece of property that was given to him in the first place.

I hate that Gabaldon uses the damsel in distress trope at least 3 times (repetitive writing) where Claire gets into a pickle and only her knight-errant can get her out of it. From what I can remember, she gets kidnapped by the bad guy twice and arrested once and all 3 times Jamie has to ride to her rescue. If you count their marriage, that's 4. (On a side note, none of those could have been cut to make this story flow better and make this book a manageable 400-500 pages?!)

Weirdly, my favourite part of the story is most other people's least favourite; when Jamie was held captive (not that he was raped, that was hard to stomach.) It's the only time that Claire is the saviour and not Jamie. She's proactive and chooses to do something instead of just being passively forced into something. Had they shared the "saviour" role evenly instead of it being a 4:1 split, my whole opinion on the book probably would have been completely different. But she should have stopped there; I can't stand the weird scene where she recreates his rape scene to help him get over it. That was incomprehensible to me.

I guess, to be fair, she does choose to take action and wanders away to get to the stones...and then bumbles it and gets captured. Then she does choose to befriend the witch...which gets her captured. I read it as Gabaldon trying to warn women away from actually thinking for themselves. Don't choose your own path, or horrible things will befall you!

But mostly I hate that nobody even SEES these things. There's so many people that think that women have the vote so now we don't need feminism anymore. The problem is that sexism hasn't gone away, it's just become more pernicious and sneaky. Not enough people question why size 4 women get airbrushed to look like size 0's (I will grant you, people have started to question it in recent years, but no real progress has been made yet. Why aren't photoshopped ads labelled as such?) Not enough people question why women get paid 70% of what men do. Not enough people question why beauty pageants still exist, yet there's no male equivalent.

Gabaldon is a woman, writing for women, but she chose to perpetuate all these subservient women tropes. I don't like that.



Typhoid Claire:
As to the germ theory, I looked it up and the smallpox virus does indeed have a very low mutation rate and might not have mutated in a 200 year period, so I'll give you that. The Typhoid Claire thing still bothers me though. A human body contains 10x more bacterial cells than human cells. We're all 10% human and 90% bacteria (which is both incredibly disturbing and kinda cool!) And these bacteria will all have different mutation rates and definitely will not all have existed 200 years ago. Something that is innocuous to us now would not necessarily be so to someone from 200 years ago. Not to mention the fact that she was nursing during a war, where foreign bacteria were now being introduced globe-wide, which was not nearly as common in the time she travelled back to.

[Mary]

Bree wrote: "(I just realized that I don't know how to use the spoiler feature yet.) I understand what you are saying. I guess, what I am struggling with is: why did the author create such an awful situation. I liked Jamie so much, and I couldn't stand that the author let that happen to him. Maybe the book was too mature for me. .."

Yet the rape of women happen in books all of the time. Do we discount Tess of the Dubervilles because she was raped in the book? Or The Lovely Bones because the person raped was a young girl? Life can be very grim and many, MANY great books explore the more grim aspects of life. Does it bother you because a man was raped and tortured?

[Mary]

Chelsea wrote: "I hate that Gabaldon uses the damsel in distress trope at least 3 times (repetitive writing) where Claire gets into a pickle and only her knight-errant can get her out of it. From what I can remember, she gets kidnapped by the bad guy twice and arrested once and all 3 times Jamie has to ride to her rescue. If you count their marriage, that's 4. (On a side note, none of those could have been cut to make this story flow better and make this book a manageable 400-500 pages?!)."

She also kills a man who is attempting to rescue her while Jamie stands helplessly by. I understand your frustration at what you see as a damsel in distress. However, I don't think this had anything to do with feminism per se, as it does being thrown into an unfamiliar situation. Claire screws up and has to be rescued because she does not GET that her situation is more precarious than she realizes. This actually is what causes the scene where Jamie punishes her (which is a scene that is one of the most heavily criticized). Until that point, she does not understand how her action not only place her in danger but place others in danger as well. The beating does jar her both physically and mentally. I think this is the point she really understands that she is not in some dream game, but in real life danger. She also lets Jamie know that if he EVER touches her again like that, she will kill him and she does get his promise to never beat her again. After that, she saves Jamie from the prison. She saves Jamie from death after his rape. In subsequent books, she is called upon to save him again. So if she is the damsel in distress a few times, Jamie gets to be the one in need of rescuing as well. She stands up to Dougal. She stands up to Father Bain. She stands up to BJR. I cannot recall a single instance when she cowers in fear. There are also times in subsequent books when she is the one who has to support them through her medical skills. I actually see the feministic tendencies in Claire. It is odd to me that others do not.

[Mary]

gertt wrote: "Normally, I wouldn't read a book that contained the violent scenes, or the romance for that matter, that's in Outlander, but somehow I was able to get past this because I found the overall story...the history, family-life, friendships, adventure, humor, character growth and love...so appealing. Perhaps it's the way Ms Gabaldon writes or Claire's voice telling the story, but she takes you through the rough scenes quickly and moves forward.."

But isn't romance a part of life? I think of all the great books that are romance or contain romantic elements and I think literature would be a very barren place indeed without them: Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Emma, etc. Your comment got me thinking about WHY we discount romance as a genre or as a part of what is considered "serious literature?" Is it because it is considered the purview of women?

[Mary]

gertt wrote: "Mary wrote: "I just don't read many romance novels. I prefer a mystery. .."

Fair enough. :0)

[Adrienne]

I'm a librarian and had never read it. The dirty looks I received from both patrons and my co-workers for having not read it... ugh. So I gave in and read it. I don't get the hype over it. Historical fiction is right up my alley, I honestly expected to like it. Nope. Not one bit. The marital rape, the abuse, the homosexual rape... the immediate acclimation to life in 1743 as if time travel were a daily chore...

I've read better.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Chelsea wrote: "I read it as Gabaldon trying to warn women away from actually thinking for themselves. Don't choose your own path, or horrible things will befall you! But mostly I hate that nobody even SEES these things."

I don't see it that way because it wasn't WRITTEN that way. By choosing to ignore important facts that motivate the character's behaviors you end up with a skewed perspective. That's probably why you've run across so much negative feedback.

You're claiming we don't SEE these important issues. We're saying we DO see them, but we understand WHY the characters made the choices they did. Life is not black and white. It's millions upon millions of shades of grey.

If the characters had chosen differently there wouldn't be a story, or it would've been inaccurate for the era. I'll take it farther...should DG NOT have written the story because it asks women to stretch their minds and understand the difference between 1745 and 2014 (not to mention all they've gained)? Hell no.

Not trying to change your mind or make you like the book, I respect that you don't care for it. I'm not the first one to say DG's got big brass ones. I'd never be able to stand up against the hate mail I'm sure fills her daily inbox, but her book and their popularity speak for themselves. She doesn't need me to defend it.

I believe Outlander's popularity makes it an easy target for those who want to get their "agenda" heard and they focus on one or two scenes in a very large book to do so. I don't deny them that right, but forgive me for being redundant: When the facts are ignored or skewed, people are going to quickly dismiss your argument.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

gertt said: "I found the overall story...the history, family-life, friendships, adventure, humor, character growth and love...so appealing. Perhaps it's the way Ms Gabaldon writes or Claire's voice telling the story, but she takes you through the rough scenes quickly and moves forward."

Exactly! That's what kept me engaged. I felt like I watched these people live out their experiences.

Jeanine wrote: "Becky you say it so well. These are my thoughts but I don't have the elegance of writing them."

Thank you. *blushes* That's kind of you to say.

[bubblegumpopper]

Mary wrote: "She also kills a man who is attempting to rescue her while Jamie stands helplessly by. I understand your frustration at what you see as a damsel in distress. However, I don't think this had anything to do with feminism per se, as it does being thrown into an unfamiliar situation. Claire screws up and has to be rescued because she does not GET that her situation is more precarious than she realizes...."


Very good points and quite compelling actually. It's quite possible that a large part of what irks me is that she doesn't get a clue early enough and all the bumbling around and underestimating the danger makes her come off as hopeless and annoying to me. I do really like my feminine characters to be highly intelligent (and ideally they don't talk about their feelings too much.)

I was not a fan of the spanking scene in general, but what really annoyed me about it was how quickly she forgave him. Had she kept her legs closed for a few weeks then it wouldn't have been as bad for me. I didn't like that she caved and opened her legs for him the next day. But after that part I did like her a little more and that was probably because, as you pointed out, she wizened up to the dangers. Except by that point my dislike of her was so firmly ingrained that there was no saving the book for me.

I think this book is also a victim of its own hype for me. All I had heard from people I know that had read it is how AMAZING it is, so my expectations were probably too elevated to begin with. My annoyance at plot points is directly proportional to the amount of time invested in that book. If I'm reading 800 (!!) pages of a romance novel, it better wow my socks off, and this book did not even come close to that for me. I just looked, and it took me over 3 weeks to read this. I remember I kept putting it down and it was a chore to pick it up and start reading again. I literally dreaded it. If I wasn't so compulsive about always having to finish a book once I start it, I would have stopped reading fairly early, but I just can't bring myself to do that. I normally go through 1-2 books a week, yet it took me 3 weeks to slug through this one. That's a lot of time to brew vitriolic thoughts. :)

[Mary]

Chelsea wrote: "I was not a fan of the spanking scene in general, but what really annoyed me about it was how quickly she forgave him. Had she kept her legs closed for a few weeks then it wouldn't have been as bad for me. I didn't like that she caved and opened her legs for him the next day. But after that part I did like her a little more and that was probably because, as you pointed out, she wizened up to the dangers. Except by that point my dislike of her was so firmly ingrained that there was no saving the book for me..."

I am not a big fan of women using sex to punish, so I would have been annoyed if after she forgave him, she DID punish him by refusing to have sex with him. How long would have been a sufficient interval in which to hold on to her anger? Claire could be annoying at times, but I think that is also part of the story. I do not like characters that show no growth throughout the course of a story. I actually did not realize this was a series of books when I started and began with book #5 (A Breath of Snow and Ashes). Jamie and Claire's relationship was fully realized by that time and when I read the first book, I knew where that relationship was headed. I am sure that colored my reading of the first book (how could it not?). I love long books, so the length of it did not bother me, but I have reached that point in my life that if a book is not doing it for me by the 25% point, I just let it go. Too many books and not enough decades left in my life .

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

Mary wrote: "I am not a big fan of women using sex to punish..."

OMGosh, yes! AMEN! I ran across that recently in a different series and it just came across as immature behavior.

[Mary]

Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Mary wrote: "I am not a big fan of women using sex to punish..."

OMGosh, yes! AMEN! I ran across that recently in a different series and it just came across as immature behavior."

Big No No for me.

[Tytti]

Well the women in Britain have had the equal vote from 1928, so I don't understand where you get that 80 years, it's less than 20 years for Claire. Also I don't think I would have behaved much differently, except maybe being a bit smarter. Many of the characters annoyed me sometimes but that is normal for me.

Also the germ thing... First of all I guess she should have been infected by some but she was healthy. And most people in those times had already suffered from those, they were mainly "children's diseases". That already gives some protection. Besides, the book already features time travel! It isn't actually believable in the first place. There wouldn't be a story if everyone got sick the minute they meet her, or if she had got sick and died...

Personally I didn't "like" Jamie's rape because I simply found BJR to be too evil and not very interesting. His character wasn't explained enough. And I used to watch OZ so male rape and twisted relationships are nothing new to me. Also it is a romance, there isn't enough of other things for me to think it's something else. GWTW or Anna Karenina (the only similar books I can now think) are not romances for me, they are more "full-blown novels". I was hoping for more history and politics.

[Dee]

the second book (Dragonfly in Amber) is much more political/historical in basis - lots of french court/politics as well as scottish in the lead-up to culloden

[Mary]

Tytti wrote: "Also it is a romance, there isn't enough of other things for me to think it's something else. GWTW or Anna Karenina (the only similar books I can now think) are not romances for me, they are more "full-blown novels". I was hoping for more history and politics..."

I really am not understanding your definition of a romance. A romance IS a full blown novel. GWTW and Anna Karenina are not romances because they do not have a happy ending, but they do have romantic elements. Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre would be romances because there is a happy ending in each of them. A romance novel by definition is a story in which the hero and heroine are the prominent characters and there is a happy ending. That is pretty much it, so many books qualify as romances. This book as a single title really does not fit the definition of a romance because there is not an ending yet. This is a series of books. If you read the second book, there will be as much history and politics as you can stand as Jamie and Claire end up in Paris at the court of Louis XV where Charles Stuart just happens to be. The rising also takes place in Dragonfly in Amber. You will also learn more about BJR in subsequent books. Outlander is basically the book that sets up the story for all that is to come. This series could hardly stand up to eight books and counting if Gabaldon revealed everything in the first book. :0)

[Mary]

Dee wrote: "the second book (Dragonfly in Amber) is much more political/historical in basis - lots of french court/politics as well as scottish in the lead-up to culloden"

You beat me to it .

[Diana]

I know a lot of women love this series and I am so glad that there are so many avid readers out there, but I did not enjoy it like I hoped I would. I only got about half way through the first book and I called it quits. I think it just goes to show that different people enjoy different types of stories. The truth is that the idea of being in a situation where I would have to take another husband hurt my heart and I did not like that storyline. I also had a hard time getting into the characters. Claire does not think like I do, so it was hard to relate to her. But that is ok because there are thousands of books in print - when one does not suit your particular taste, you can find another.

I think the feminist argument is really not relevant to the book. It is fiction and it's the 1700s. Women have little to no rights and are traded, sold, and stolen like livestock. That is fact. The feminist movement has only gained power in the last 100 years or so. Asserting our modern day view of women would have gotten Claire in a world of hurt in 1749.

[Mrsbooks]

Chelsea wrote: "Mary wrote: "She also kills a man who is attempting to rescue her while Jamie stands helplessly by. I understand your frustration at what you see as a damsel in distress. However, I don't think thi..."

I can feel your pain over how quickly Claire got over the beating. I can't relate to her there. I know I would have been totally different. But because of what I know my reaction to that situation would have been, I can say that I feel Claire moving forward after that, is a sign of a strong character, not someone who's passive.

If it were me, my pride would have taken a beating much more than my rear-end. Being from the 21st century, I would have been HUMILIATED! Even though logically, I believe I would have understood (their time period mindset) just like Claire did, that doesn't change how I would have FELT about it.

It would have taken me a LONG time to move on. But would that have been smart? Would it even have been a sign that I wasn't weak?

We live in a time period where qualities like mildness, meekness and being submissive are considered, well, bad. Really. But I believe they are good traits in men and women in certain situations.

Its kind of like if someone is telling you off and you end up shooting your mouth off back. I don't admire this. If the person being yelled at responds in a mature, reasonable and mild manor, I think they are really strong! Because it's so difficult to reign ourselves in when we want to do the opposite.

Claire let go of her pride quite quickly. It was smart to do that and took a hell of a lot of strength.

[Becky ♡The Bookworm♡]

I've been thinking about the comments re: vaccinations and Typhoid Mary. Outlander is a stepping stone to a long series and as others have said so eloquently, we don't get all the answers in the first book. The issue with Claire's vaccinations/immunity never concerned me because I believed there to be something paranormal going on.

Claire's immune system is different and not just because she's been vaccinated. She recognizes this oddity in this scene from Dragonfly In Amber, where she reflects on her state of health and hygiene and sanitation standards of the 1700's (There are big spoilers in here, so if you haven't read past Outlander, you don't want to know just yet):

(view spoiler)["In fact, aside from the childbed fever, I had not been ill once since my passage through the stone circle. That was odd.....I remained as disgustingly healthy as always."

Then there is that whole "healing" thing with Master Raymond after Claire's miscarriage. Definitely paranormal and another one of my WTH? moments. It was weird, but...whatever.

Another factor to consider:

I'd have to find the passage, (I think it's in DIA, although it may be in Voyager), but I'm fairly certain Claire tells us that Jamie couldn't travel through the stones. That led me to believe there is something else unique in Claire's physiology (as well as Gellis Duncan's) that allows for time travel and perhaps explains this "immunity" that we are seeing.

Just my take on it, FWIW. (hide spoiler)]

[Mrsbooks]

gertt wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Being from the 21st century, I would have been HUMILIATED! Even though logically, I believe I would have understood (their time period mindset) just like Claire did, that doesn't c..."


Claire did forgive Jamie quickly. The word quickly is quite subjective though. Perhaps you would feel she forgave quickly had it been within a few hours? Someone else a few minutes? I thought a few days was too quickly.

And Claire did also forgive Jamie because she understood. Their long walk/ride back to Colums, Jamie talks to Claire about his own personal experiences with beatings. It was his way of making amends with her. Jamie's personal examples helped Claire understand the culture and the why's and that did help her move on.

I would have also moved on, like you said, because I would have HAD to. It wasn't an option. I just wouldn't have have been able to forgive and lift that mark from my pride as quickly as Claire did. I probably would have carried resentment with me for a few weeks.

But Claire didn't. She didn't let her pride get in her way. And yes, this was probably easier for her because she is not a 21 century woman.

[Tytti]

Mary wrote: "I really am not understanding your definition of a romance. A romance IS a full blown novel. GWTW and Anna Karenina are not romances because they do not have a happy ending, but they do have romantic elements. Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre would be romances because there is a happy ending in each of them. A romance novel by definition is a story in which the hero and heroine are the prominent characters and there is a happy ending. "

I don't have a definition for romance, I just know when there is too much of it. Whose definition that is anyway? I certainly don't want to know beforehand how the book ends. And a "full-blown" novel is something that isn't just romance (or something else), that doesn't concentrate on just one couple.