Ellen’s comment > Likes and Comments

Bravo Ellen.

Thank you! This is a most eloquent description of pretty much exactly how I felt too!

You know, I really loved the book, yet I also agree with everything you wrote, isn't that weird?

Thanks Patrisia and Angel, I'm new here and it's kind of you. :)

Christina, that's funny -- but I think understandable. I have some guilty book loves myself, largely hangovers from my teenaged days (Thorn Birds, anyone? Gone With the Wind?). It's totally possible to adore a book even while acknowledging that it's not exactly Grand Literature.

What's funny is that I really WANTED to love Outlander! It's right up my alley concept-wise and I love a huge unwieldy tome. I just couldn't get past the things I mentioned above; they kept throwing me out of the immersion of caring about the plot/characters and into the wtf zone.

I don't actually fully disagree with most of what you wrote minus one thing. I just look at it at all through a different lense but can see where you're coming from.

The later part of point 3. The particulars of jamie shunning jenny or not are sort of moot for me. Because even if he had, it wouldn't have been uncommon of the times. But more importantly, it wasn't on some vague rumor (although it is true that he heard more about it later) he did witness what he thought was rape about to take place. Then had to deal with his own shame at having not been able to protect his sister. I thought the feelings behind what happened fit quite well within that time period and at how a man wouldn't want to see the family he felt he failed.

As for the history, the meat of the war and who Charles is, is much more detailed in book 2. I learned so much history from reading these books. It made me interested in things I had never cared about before.

I think its easy to take the first book and make a lot of assumptions about the characters and such because so much is left unfinished.

For instance, the rape reenactment scene: so many are bothered by this thinking that the writer made Claire "cure" Jamie by this route. However that is completely not the case, as those who continue reading find out. I'm not implying that's how you felt, just using it as an example.

hi Gertt -- If we all only reviewed the works we loved, this would be a pretty poor place to have interesting discussions of books, wouldn't it?

On the contrary, I think it's important for folks to be able to say "This book is reviewed and touted as a masterpiece of historical detail, yet I found that it doesn't provide much actual historical insight at all". Or whatever.

Why do you equate the expression of literary criticism with "anger" or "trying to destroy" a book? Must say that seems an odd reaction to me?

Perhaps there is more realistic and/or gripping dialogue about the time-travel dimension of the relationship in subsequent books; in my copy of Outlander, however, the only thing outside of Claire's hasty farewell warning to stay away from Culloden are these 2 sentences (looking back I was mistaken in my math above, it's actually 2 whole sentences out of 627 pages):
"He was fascinated by my descriptions of modern life, though I could tell that most of my stories seemed like fairy tales to him. He loved especially the descriptions of automobiles, tanks, and airplanes, and made me describe them over and over as minutely as I could."

That's it! Clearly the book is meant for fans of pure historical romance and not science fiction/fantasy, since it is the very tension of time-displaced lovers trying to understand their epochal differences that made the plot so appealing to me. Ah well.

Actually that is one thing that always irritated me as well. The writer tells UA they have these conversations about what the future was like but we read very little of the actual telling. I don't mind adding this spoiler because you probably won't continue reading, but when others eventually learn she's from the future, again, there is very little said or shown about the topic, although we are told they have talked. Its not enough for me.

When a character learns something huge, I want to walk with them through that moment. Not just get told briefly they talked about it.

Mrsbooks, yes exactly! I really wanted that emotional thrill, that narrative payoff after all the build-up, so it felt like such a strange omission. Wouldn't your soulmate be endlessly fascinated if you came from the future? I know I would. Heck, my husband is 10 years younger and we have far more discussions about that than Claire and Jamie ever did about 200 years. ;-)

Re. Jamie shunning Jenny, his sister. I think what stuck in my craw was the almost slapstick, teenaged-romance-novel immaturity of their reunion scene; much like what bothered me about the depiction of Claire's jealousy wasn't that she was jealous of Laoghaire, but that she flounced around like a sorority girl about to dump her prom date. Bleh. It just rang false and superficial.

And as I said, I didn't hate the book outright. Perhaps I'm so critical because I really DID want to like it and it disappointed me.

Right? I feel like I'm on Mars. How has this book developed such a following as the safe kind of naughty lady book? It is some seriously dark stuff. If the man you love after he rapes you offers to let a serial killer rape him to save your life you're supposed to save his soul by re-raping him and making him call you mommy? What the Hell is going on here? This was a more brutal read than Trainspotting and lacked any kind of self-awareness. It is not some innocuous beach read to pass along to your friends without comment.

thanks Gertt- I realized my typo on the 18th century early on but cannot figure out how to edit my post. (?)

Ellen, I agree with your assessment completely. I really, really *wanted* to like this book, but like you said, the whole capture/save circle got a bit old. And the characters did all seem immature and predictable. Oh well... on to something else!

I confess to reading the first 5 books more than twice...in order to refresh my memory when a new episode was released. But I found I really did not like the people. They were so pompous and arrogant it really made me dislike them.

HATED it. Seriously. There was a complete lack of character development. I only read the first one (same thing... a friend swore by it) and I saw it as just a bad romance novel with better prose.

Not to mention the fact that Claire is almost as Mary Sue as Ayla from the Earth's Children series.OMG, CLAIRE healed someone again! (Though at least I enjoyed Clan of The Cave Bear)

Brooklyn Ann -- yep. (I made it through to Valley of the Horses, but my excuse was being a hormonal 15-year-old at the time.)

What strikes me as unusual about this particular series, Outlander, is that not only the protagonist but the AUTHOR herself functions as a Mary Sue.

Some have since been deleted, but I've gotten a number of negative responses to this comment, to the effect that I must have a personal vendetta against Gabaldon for posting a negative review. I see this emotional fan response everywhere someone criticizes the book. Must say I find this quite bizarre (although fascinating).

I couldn't even get that far into the book to give that much of a detailed description on why i didn't like it. But i must say i'm shocked about the comment on not knowing who Charles Stuart was :-0

I don't think the emotional fan response is exclusive to Outlander. If you negatively comment on anything with a *large fan base you will always get some upset fans.

Unfortunately, I did a lot of research into the history of Scotland before I even started the series - in fact before the first book was written. When I picked it up, I was worried it was going to be some goofy time-flippy romance. Luckily for me, Diana Gabaldon did her research before writing the book. Now, I don't expect romances to get their history right. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised when they are even in the same era, let alone the same time frame. I think you were expecting too much from the book - especially for someone who didn't even know who Bonny Prince Charlie was - and guess what? People in shock or trying not to be burned as a witch tend not to talk about weird stuff like time travel.
Speaking as someone who has lived through being raped multiple times by someone who kept me prisoner for two weeks, my husband had to do some pretty hairy things to get me to deal with the immediate issues. 24 years later, I am finally going in for the new, improved PTSD therapy that will take a good 12 weeks and is supposed to open every mental wound I still have and have me relive them all. Gosh. Add some lavender essence, a fireplace and put me naked in a room with a raging fever and a desire to die and you have the "rape" scene with Claire and Jamie. And Gosh, I've been assured by a competent psychologist who normally works with veterans that the process works.
The fact that you actually learned about the Civil War from a fantasy novel both depresses and frightens me. There are perfectly good books that are interesting *and* factual that will teach you far more about the burning of Atlanta and Sherman's march to the sea, let alone other interesting bits about the Civil War.
It's this kind of thing that scares people off from historical fiction - they may have to think for themselves instead of being spoonfed what tidbits of nonsense a poor researcher chooses to put into their novel to heighten tension or explain the presence or absence of various characters. Gone with the Wind was a poorly researched bit of fluff that dragged on for way too long and was so fluffy it was made into a movie that drained all of it's remaining integrity and historical meaning. Contrary-wise, Outlander, and the series borne of it, have been carefully researched by someone who knew that people who actually researched historical facts would be involved in the reading and promotion of the book and series.
Now, I don't think I am reacting emotionally to your complaint. I may be wrong, by your standards. However, I was a member in good standing of a historical research and recreation society with both a chosen identity that was Scottish, and a penchant for doing research to make certain I got things right for myself. I have been called upon to teach dance and costuming and was considered a go-to person for the 1600-1750 time period of Scotland. Both with psychology and setting, not to mention what was done and allowed by various people, Ms. Gabaldon got it right.
Sorry if your incorrect assumptions got you more flack than you expected. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about your criticisms. I'll do my best to explain the psychology of those living in the time period as well as what happens to a person when thrust into negative and/or damaging situations repeatedly.
Best thoughts.

"I think you were expecting too much from the book". That is a really good point Kristine. This book gets so much hype no wonder people are not thrilled with it when they read it.

Its for that very reason I like to know practically nothing about the movies I go see. Every time I have high expectations I end up disappointed.

When read Outlander I knew nothing beyond it involved time travel and it was number 1 in a few good reads lists. I ended up loving it.

hi Kristine,

Let me hasten to reassure you (and Tracy) that I don't expect to "learn" history from novels, nor was I unaware of who Bonnie Prince Charlie is, even if I misspelled Stuart; my phrasing was exaggerated hyperbole that's probably easily misread. Apologies!

My intent was to express my disappointment that Gabaldon enriched her narrative with very little of the contemporary politics she is said to have researched so thoroughly. My contrasting example was Gone With The Wind, in which Mitchell used the Civil War to such great advantage, precisely *because* she so lyrically invoked her biased version of the events (the poor South and its childlike "darkies" groaning under the yoke of self-determination imposed by the North). Most of her best historical passages are neither factually correct nor neutral, but they serve to underpin her characters' motivations brilliantly.

Gabaldon is obviously similarly biased towards the monarchist perspective, but doesn't explicitly invoke the war/s of succession other than as the most reductive McGuffin (= motivating plot element, of little consequence in itself). It simply presents us with a good guys/bad guys theme where one side wears plaid skirts and other red jackets. It's a very reductive view, and it's frankly bad history.

How to make use of historical fact is every author's prerogative, of course! And clearly many readers are well content with Outlander's invocation of it. Yet if asked to explain my OWN critical reaction to this particular novel -- which is, as I understand it, the sole raison d'etre of GoodReads -- I will say that I think it's a shame the contemporary political situation wasn't used to make the narrative of this novel more rich and nuanced and less dependent on violence, sex and rape as plot movers.

Kristine, you have my best wishes going forward with your treatment, and I wish for you that it proves helpful rather than harrowing.

Well said.

This series is one of my favorites of all times. Every few years I go back & read them all again! Everyone of course has their own opinions, but I love the relationship between Jamie & Claire and her conflicting emotions. I am loving the series on Starz - I imagined Jamie being "bigger" and more handsome than who is portraying him but he's growing on me. The show is following the books pretty good so far.

Thank you...I have been saying that to friends who are obsessed with this series.

I think the book is best explained as a first serious attempt at a novel. It has a lot of weaknesses, and it reads like a romance novel written from a template. Spanking scene, torture porn, and everything.

But, something about it intrigued me, and I read further. Dragonfly in Amber is a much better attempt at a novel. Better plotted, more interesting storyline, and you can see Gabaldon learning her craft.

I think the Starz series is doing a really great job of taking what was good about the first book, fleshing it out, and making it into a great story.

There is a good story in there, but I don't think Gabaldon was quite there. And why should she be? We all learn from practice and doing, authors included.

I am impressed that she became a MUCH better writer in subsequent books, although, I think the last two went off the rails a bit.

I read one and a quarter books. I've viewed up to Ep. 8. Soft porn. A disloyal wife who happily takes on Jamie - surely this storyline only appeals to the frustrated woman who yearns for a fantasy life more sexed up than the Mills and Boon.

I hate this book so much. Thank you for putting it into words.

i tried two or three times to get past the first book.. couldnt do it.. dont see what all the hype is. unless you like violence and rape

I totally agree. It took me 3 months to read this book. I kept putting it down. The plot just wasn't there!

OMG I totally agree!!!!! I thought I was the only one who thought this way!

I'm still reading, up to chapter 22 at the moment, and I feel very similarly to you. I am most perturbed by Clare's teenage-y attitude that is really unbecoming of a married woman, possibly in her 30s. She doesn't even have the maturity to have a heated discussion without hurting Jamie with her words, only to pacify him later. I have never heard of the hurt/comfort genre, if that's what this is. She has a funny way of loving someone while disrespecting them.

nope. it's terrible. it's written well but i hate claire. there are times when i'm like ok not everyone is a badass who wields a sword but she is dumb and has no spine. i didn't finish it.

I liked the first season until Jamie is raped. That was over the top gratuitous sex. Actually porn. I'm tired of there being porno in TV series. I've had enough. Won't watch it anymore.

Ditto to Ellen's comments! Exactly what I feel about this book!

I feel this book would be better written in the third person. It is written in the first person, from Claire's point of view, and for someone who just traveled back in time 200 years, Claire does not have very deep thoughts.

This is just a bodice ripper romance, not fiction, not fantasy, not sci-fi. The TV show is probably better than the book.

I guess it all comes down to there is a book for everyone, and no one book/story touches everyone the same way. I have also noted the few items you touched on...Claire's "re-raping" which I thought was a bit over the top was the highest on my list, but I was able to tuck that aside because overall I cared about these people and their plight and the few missteps the author made didn't deter me, but obviously that's not the case for you. I have recommended this book to many people, but it's certainly not a book I would recommend to my mom, or any of her friends. The rape alone would turn them all off. As I said, there is something for everyone.

I share your point of view, the book was long and tedious to read and romance had a lot of wtf moments. For someone not from the UK, I wholeheartedly agree with point 4, had no clue what Jacobites were!

funnyhow they removed all the questionable acts in the tv series-as clearly then we could'nt worship jamie at all. he "enjoyed"seeing her struggle in fear. yeah. big hero. not tomention the instant sexhe had with her after shewas nearly raped ..he says "sorry i had to"?? err yeah. not sure how that works.

also the rape-re enactment..er what? and then the loving tales around the campfire of fathers beatings. by then i just had enough-someone who was raped andtortured several times inlifewouldn'tbe laughing at the old beatings he got for "good reason". regardless of the time period.

I was willing to give this series a try (not having read the books, mind you). I thought the premise was intriguing. But after a while, I started to feel turned-off. I would be in a bad depressed mood after watching. I mean, how many almost-rapes do you want to see (unless that's your "thing")...but what really put me off, was when Jamie (Claire's husband in the 17th century actually BEATS her with a belt!!!! And then she still KISSES him after that and "makes love" and gives him goo-goo eyes? Disgusting! I really didn't want to watch any more after that. And by the way...where does the plot go? the show devolves into gross male-dominated porn! Not interested...sorry...I'm so tired of looking at the lead character's ass....I felt if I had to be subjected to the sight of it one more time, i would scream! Sorry I bought the stupid first season on disk. Waste of money.

I agree that I could never actually recommend these books to anyone. This is one case where if someone has interest in the storyline, I am directing them toward the tv series.

I agree with everything you wrote, especially #5. This was the first "Romance" genre book that I ever read (being a male, I am not in the target audience). You can be very sure that I will never read another one.

Completely AGREE, but you are far more kind and articulate than I about this book !!!

Thank God. I was thinking I was the only person who felt this way. Nice synopsis.

I'm reading this for the first time in 2020 and your assessment really tracks for me. Thank god, I was starting to feel crazy.

Thank you for bringing up Claire's re-rape of Jamie in order to somehow revive and restore him. Using what she knew of what he had suffered to put him back in that moment and frame of mind was horrifying. That scene made my skin crawl and not for the first time while reading this book!