Outlander question

Nancy wrote: "Anyone care to chime in?"

You're not the only one. Me, I was seduced into trying this series by the toothsome Sam Heughan. But shortly after starting it I felt torn, since the premise is really intriguing, but the carry-through just isn't there. I finished it, but only because I read very quickly. I even skimmed through the second volume, Dragonfly in Amber, to see if the plotting improved any over time.

My criticisms are:
1. After the first third, there isn't any plotting to speak of, other than a series of really tedious capture/torture/rescue scenes. The last half reads like the Perils of Penelope.

2. Claire is probably the most bizarrely incurious narrator I've ever encountered (who wasn't deliberately written as such), which is all the more wasteful given that the premise provides so very much to be noticed and investigated.

3. Emotionally there is little interiority in the characters, despite the attempt to sketch them out via their personal histories. What is there I found off-putting. Claire is a married woman who throws teenaged fits of jealousy over a younger woman; Jamie is a grown man who shuns his own sister for years after hearing a vague rumor that she hooked up with a British soldier. It's just not compelling character motivation and seems to come straight from the romance genre. Yawn.

It's a thousand page time-travel novel and there is literally ONE SENTENCE covering what her 17th-century husband asks her about her life in the future.

4. Historical detail? I got all the way through the novel and still had to google who Charles Stewart was and why he was important, what the wars were about, or how the laird system worked at this time. There is a surplus of minutely descriptive narration of physical details, but an almost total dearth of actual historical exegesis.

I learned far more about the Civil War from Margaret Mitchell than I learned about Culloden from Gabaldon, to give you a comparison.

5. And yes, the author's obsession with the brutal transgression of physical barriers is too repelling for me. I just didn't enjoy the lovingly detailed acts of physical abuse. I understand there is an entire established genre of hurt/comfort fiction, but it didn't grip me. The conceit that Claire re-"rapes" Jamie in order to heal him from his own rape is an astonishingly weird take on human psychology.

I think it's an excellent premise and the actual writing isn't as awful as some other bestsellers, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

I'm from Scotland. I just call this book/series Fifty Shades of cultural appropriation.

I could not have put it better than this! Ditto on all accounts! That is what I meant in an earlier post regarding the fact that the premise is an great one, but Gabaldon could have done so much more with it, especially, as you said, no one seems remotely interested in the future. Also, Claire hops right into the 1700's without really observing or taking anything in. She's just been transported 200 years into the past, and she has very little comment/observation about what she finds around her. Yes...I would rather have read those details that the torture/sex scenes. Thanks for a GREAT post!

I just finished this book last month and am relieved to find others who were as unimpressed with it as I was. Ironically, I do enjoy the television show, but I found the book lacking. It reads like housewife wish fulfillment. A woman is thrown back into the past and almost immediately finds herself married to a man who isn't her husband and is given a direct reason to not feel guilty for cheating on her husband in the future because the villain of the story looks like him.

Part 3 of the book, after Jamie and Claire's wedding was particularly brutal to slog through as it was essentially 100 pages of the two of them having sex in various scenarios. The romance just didn't sit well with me. I think that the actors in the show bring a lot to it that was lacking in execution in the novel form imo.

Also, what was up with the fact that the book was written in 1st person, but Claire never shows any real urgency or drive to figure out what's going on and get back to her own time. Everything happens TO Claire, rather than her acting as a driving force within the narrative in order to move the plot along.

Nancy wrote: "On the recommendation of a dear friend I bought this book and tried so hard to read it. I gave up about 1/3 of the way in, consoling myself with the realization that my friend will probably still b..."

YOU'RE SO NOT THE ONLY ONE! Thanks for posting this.

I got interested into the book because I kept seeing so many sexy/sweet gifs on my tumblr dash, so I wanted to check the source material.

At first, it was a decent read, though I got to admit that I was a bit disappointed because I though the sex scene were pretty tame and lame, more of the "fade to dark" kind. I also felt a bit annoyed by the way rape and violence were (gratuitously) over used, especially regarding Jamie's back story : I thought it was too heavy handed, used as plot devices to make him look so great and cause sympathy because of what happened to him. But I was more or less going along with the story, moving with the flow, even thought I was yet to be really impressed either by the plot or the characters. I kept wondering "why are so many people gushing so much about this book?". I mean even the time travel/magic part isn't even THAT gripping...

And then, ****SPOILER*** THAT scene/plot happened. The b*** scene. And that was it for me. I didn't gave up, I kept reading, but now, I couldn't read about Jamie and Claire without thinking "that man the author wants you to root for is a w*** b*** who enjoyed b*** his wife and tried and guilt her into thinking he did it for her own good and was justified". And it worked so well that you get many, many people "justifying" this one way or another : historical "accuracy", "Claire's fault", "Claire deserving it", and on and on and on. I. JUST. CAN'T.

For instance, that "historical accuracy" argument is just SO NOT convincing. 1st of all, just because a book is 500 + pages long of lengthy descriptions of a certain period in time, of the way people spoke and wore their clothes or the swords they were using (or some version of it), set the story in the middle of some specific historical and political events, doesn't make it "historically accurate".

2ndly : the fact that in a certain period women's condition was in many ways worse than now doesn't make it "ok"; nor does it mean that it was the case for every woman to undergo what Claire underwent; or that it wasn't frown upon by many. You know what is also "historically accurate", even by 18th century standard : men who didn't do to their wife what Jamie did to Claire, men and women who thought such behaviour was horrible, men and women fighting against such behaviour. Check this post about the very same subject : http://mediaeval-muse.tumblr.com/post....

3rdly : this scene was so unnecessary. Like what was the point of it, really? Why was is needed? The thing is (and that's make it even more problematic), the author wanted it to be a pivotal point, so she made it on purpose, she dramatically changed the dynamic of this relationship deliberately choosing to use violence against woman/domestic abuse to make her point, which seemed to be: NEWSFLASH !!!! Some men used to beat their wives in the 18th century and many (the majority) didn't think it was bad, they even justified it. END OF NEWSFLASH. Also "see, poor Jamie was beaten too, which adds to the very long and ridiculous list of everything poor Jamie had to suffer, so see, you should root for him and love him, isn't he hot?".

This isn't just a lazy writing choice ("using violence/sex/rape and such to "shock" your audience), it's also heavy handed manipulation (the way this abuse was "justified", 'cause there as no inevitability in that choice).

It was just the last straw to me after some other stuff bothering me(like the cartoonish serial rapist sadist bisexual villain who just happened to be the spitting image of his great great grandson that the author doesn't want you to have any sympathy for).

It definitely ruined the show for me, and it pisses me off, 'cause, apart from the fact that I think this book feeds into many problematic tropes regarding abuse/ domestic violence/violence against women, I was really, really looking for enjoying the show and the hotness that is Sam Heughan. And now, I can't enjoy him as tv Jamie, 'cause tv Jamie is very much based on book Jamie. And even though I read that this part may be skipped or re-written ('cause Starz may have realized it put Jamie into a very bad light), the tv show is so much associated with the book (and I also read the author is very much involved into the production and she's been quite dismissive of the legitimate critics of the way she handled all that) that it doesn't sit right with me to support it even indirectly.


Also now I have to filter my tumblr dash from people I really like 'cause they keep blogging the show and I can't help but side-eye them some...

I've just started the first book. About halfway through, and still not interested. Actually, I find it rather off putting, and there are many, many things about it that bother me.
1. The writing is pretty terrible. That's what jumped out at me early on. It's flat, bland, and repetitive; I mean, good Lord, how often must we read about the (apparently) abundant heather, and Jamie's big hands...
2. The characters are boring, and lack actual personality. Most of them, had their names not been mentioned, would be impossible to tell apart from one another, and the characters that are a little more colorful have personalities that are ridiculous, over the top, and cartoonish.
3. Jamie's backstory is ludicrously horrible. It is as if the author thought of every bad thing in existence, and made all of those things happen to him.
4. The belt beating. Sorry, there is no way to romanticize or excuse that behavior, even if it was more commonly accepted at the time. Just no.
5. Claire's emotions seem so shallow, and her responses to the situations that she is thrown into feel unrealistic. I've decided she must be a sociopath.
I don't think I can finish this book, even though I feel obligated to, as I've paid for it and have invested time getting this far into the story. The writing is just too juvenile and clumsy.

I whole-heartedly agree with the breakdown of why this first novel is such a disappointment. Claire is so incurious about anything, unconcerned about her husband or getting back, accepts her beating as being deserved, etc.etc.etc. Maybe the tv series is better. I like the whole premise of the books—just poorly executed in the book I could barely get through.

The subject and premise held so much potential and it started out in such a riveting way. But I grew weary of Claire's petulance and disregard for the people around her. She has been a war nurse and yet sometimes behaves with astonishing immaturity. While she is supposed to be intelligent, I find it remarkable that she does not ponder the effect of her traveling back in time might or might not have on the future. She can be remarkably thick. Jamie, while likeable, admits to being a sadist, once he knows what it is.
I watched the TV series -- season one -- and found that I got bored with the plot repetition and lack of any truly interesting insight into history, time travel or even human relations. So I decided to read the book (listen actually). I like the voice of the reader and while I found it interesting for a bit, I've grown tired of both Claire and Jamie just so totally focused on getting into each other's pants... Sigh. I wish it could have been more.

I read the first 3 books years ago, before the tv show (grew so bored that I just gave up), and did try watching the show at first but couldn't get into it. I decided to try reading again recently and am disliking it more than I did the first go-round.

My issue was, and still is, a deep-seated disgust with everything about Claire. I can handle reading books whose protagonists have less-than-adorable personality traits; Scarlett O'Hara isn't someone most of us would choose as a BFF, after all. But in over 4 decades of avid reading across every genre, I've yet to come across a main character with such a collection of arrogance, willful obtuseness, ignorance, pridefulness, selfishness, immaturity, and utter lack of self-awareness.

Her self-congratulatory "humor" is not winsome; it's appalling. Her observations are steeped in a presumption of kindred feeling from the reader which we do not share. This time, I made it to just about the point in book 2 where her arrogant, reckless behavior put herself, Jamie and Jared into mortal danger dockside. When I realized that I was almost hoping Jamie would rescind his promise never to take a strap to her again, I decided enough was enough.

On the domestic violence issue, I find that I am not as appalled by the inclusion of an incident that is, sadly, perfectly plausible within this context - and it does our female ancestors no justice to deny it - as I am at how it was handled. The idea that a young, hubristic, hotheaded, and easily-swayed new husband would allow himself to be pressured into such an otherwise out-of-character assault is dismal but relatively reasonable. That he would then try to justify it with tales of being disciplined by his father as a child (in ways that, even then, were considered on the stern & strict side); and that any woman would accept such treatment with a smile and a warm welcome back into her bed ... No. Just no. Even at the time, being "disciplined" by your spouse - however accepted the practice was or wasn't - would never have resulted in some ridiculously romanticized coming-of-age moment within the marriage.

Just take the example of Jamie's father, who wouldn't even discipline Jamie that way once he was even near to being a grown man; and who I cannot imagine EVER raised an angry hand to Jamie's mother (nor would Jamie have been willing or able to stand by while she was mistreated so). Or Granny McNab, whose story of braining her husband in retaliation for the one and only time he ever struck her, we are invited to find humorous and justifiable. Are we really meant to believe that Jamie - product of a rare and long-lasting love match - grew up seeing the ladies in the Fraser/MacKenzie families treated so? Would Colum ever have had his WIFE belted in Hall? Not without needing a food-taster to avoid being poisoned at every meal thereafter, for the remainder of his considerably shortened life.

As others have observed, it was just incongruous, unbelievable, disingenuous shock-value storytelling, which completely takes the reader out of the moment (assuming they ever got into it in the first place), and - like most of Claire's bumbling and shoving her way through every pickle her arrogance gets her into - turns what could have been a truly wonderful series into an absolute farce.

So I work in a book store and everyone kept telling me about how much they LOVED this book, so as part of my job I decided to try giving them a shot. Obviously I started with Outlander, I got through the first two chapters of the book before giving up because I was so bored. It actually wasn't until the show came out that I decided to give it a real shot. The show I fell in love with which is so not like me. I usually hate the tv shows. However because of the show I fell in love with Outlander. One of my favorite series. So of course I decided to try the book again, I skipped the chapters until she got transported back. I have still yet to make good progress through the first book but from what I have read it sticks pretty well to the book. I know so many people are going to be mad at me for saying that but its true. But overall the first few chapters are enough to make me never pick it up again.

I just need a nudge to start my rant against Outlander. Here it goes.

I started this book with a lot of expectations and excitement, mainly due to the TV show, but was utterly disappointed, that I skip-read and mostly DNF it.
The author makes a mockery of a beautiful relationship that is love. I don’t think whatever was there between Jamie and Claire was love. I can’t even call it erotic literature, as all the so-called sex scenes lacked passion and because of the excuses the author makes for the numerous sexual encounters between the leads , that it was legally and religiously binding !

All those who loved Outlander and found Claire strong, loyal, feisty, clever etc, Congratulations to you! Because my edition of the book surely had a different heroine who had none of these positive qualities. I despised Claire, who had the emotional range of a teaspoon (taking Hermione Granger's words, with due respect to JK Rowling).

This was written in first person, still it failed to bring out her anxiety on how she would go back to her own time, nor did it show the sorrow or any emotions about missing her husband and others from her own time. Even when we are privy to her innermost thoughts, there is a lack of depth. We don’t get to know how she feels being in a different era. We know more about Jamie than about Claire though this is from her POV.
The author writes so many pages explaining the scenery, plants, animals, medicines of the 18th century, she fills so many pages explaining each and every sex scene, rape and rape attempts. But couldn’t write a few lines describing Claire’s feelings.

She just makes half-hearted attempts to return the 20th century and seems least bothered about the strange situation she is in.
She just had a bizarre experience when she touched the stone. Got almost raped 2.5 times. Met men in period costumes talking in Gaelic. She doesn’t panic. When she was molested the second time, all she says is ‘Not again’. She doesn’t protest when Dougal molests her. Oh, yes, this is what the author’s 'authentic' research shows that raping was a done thing in the 18th century, so our ‘strong’ heroine accepts this as a part of life.

Her behavior is really cheap and slutty. Some examples -
1. On her first day in the 18th century, she thinks of Frank and starts crying, sitting on Jamie's lap. Jamie consoles her and she thinks if she were a horse she would let him ride her.

2. On the 4th or 5th day, in the gathering she is flirting with Jamie, feels jealous when she catches him kissing his contemporary (Does she think of her husband then? oh no, who is he?)

3. She didn’t have the presence of mind to know when to shoot her mouth and when not to.

4. The villain in this book, Black Randall, who is Claire's Great (6 times) grand father-in-law is trying to rape her. He looks so much like her husband Frank (mind you, she had already forgotten Frank by then). For a moment seeing the Black Jack up close, she is reminded of Frank and she is ready to open her legs for him. I almost puked here.

Now, to the most important issue of domestic abuse that she suffered. She accepts the beating saying it was her fault that put the clan in trouble. This was too weird to me. She had been trying to go back to the stones when all these happened. Why did she even care what happened to the clan. This should have made her very angry and made her resolve stronger, because her attempt to escape was thwarted and she was beaten to an inch of her life. But no, Claire, being strong and virtuous and all that blah… she accepts it meekly and carries on with her great sex life.

When Jamie finds out that she is from the future and gives her an option, she chooses to stay back. Her most important decision making ‘algorithm’ is literally covered in HALF A PAGE.
This from the author who spent atleast 2 pages where Jenny explains how she has because extra sensitive and sensuous during her pregnancy, virtually showing all this in front of her brother and sister-in-law. (why is everyone so cheap in this book?)

Coming to the life changing decision she makes. First she thinks rationally, starting with the modern amenities she would miss. THEN emotionally where Frank is mentioned in passing. Then about her muddled wedding vows. Oh ! Really ! I felt extremely sorry for Frank with whom Claire was married for 8 years and he came next to the plumbing and hot water baths in the order of priority.
I felt Frank was better off without Claire. It was not his fault that he resembled his evil ancestor.

I would have found Claire’s apathy acceptable, if any of the below reasons were behind her decision to stay back in the 18th century

1. She had an extremely unhappy and abusive marriage with Frank. – But that was never the case, Frank was very loving. Infact, her marriage to James was abusive

2. She suffered severe PTSD after seeing the horrors of WW II and the holocaust, that she found the discomforts of the 18th century more acceptable.

3. She was sex-starved and was desperate to have Jamie, forgetting the huge leap in timelines. I would have really appreciated that storyline.

4. There was a really really strong event, that made Claire fall in love madly with Jamie and forget Frank, her friends, and all the comforts from her own time. That event was not the escape from witch-burning, as she had already forgotten Frank by the 2nd day of her arrival in the past and happily doing it 5-times a day with Jamie.

5. she had an undiagnosed medical condition which stopped her from showing any attachment to the 20th Century.

I read it through, skimmed it, and enjoyed it. I thought my wife would enjoy it and we are reading it aloud as a bedtime story. This way, with more attention to detail, the anachronisms are glaring. I won't dwell on the two-dimensional characterisation, the indulgence in sex. But here are a few of the things which caused both of us to blink and grimace.
1. in the capture scene, Claire is tied to the saddle's pommel. Saddles in Scotland in the eighteenth century did not have pommels. They were a nineteenth century American invention for cattlemen, expressly for lariats. English (British, & Scottish) saddles even now do not have pommels.
2. In the preparation for the wedding, First Ned Gowan is holding the wedding dress, then suddenly it is in the hands of the innkeeper. Within two consecutive sentences.
3. Jane decides to lie on a bed when she is ready to give birth. Excuse me? Birthing Stools? Lying down in labour was something imposed first on Marie Antionette by her doctors, and fashionably spread during the nineteeth century as midwives were sidelined in favour of doctors. Few women would do so by choice.
4. Jane leaves her newborn baby to gallivant in search of Jamie, and returns in order to breastfeed. No wetnurses in a Scottish tenantry?
These are just the four that stick in my memory at the moment. There are more. The story is a rattling good read, but that's all.

I was feeling bad about myself, like maybe I'm a moron or something, who knows(?), because I absolutely HATED this book. I love the story ; hate the book. The unnecessary details about a lot of the stuff was gratuitous, and the stuff that should have been more gratuitous, just... wasn't.

And... as bad as I hate to say it....

The TV show is much, much better than the book. (Because as I mentioned, the story is awesome.)

Well same as everyone I read the books with an influence from the TV series .. Jamie and Claire were amazing
But as I went through the book some chapters we're intriguing and relevant but the overdose of rape scenes and sex really put me off .. by the time I was on the end chapters I actually felt more like a painfull duty to complete this book .. the end where Claire helps Jamie from his misery was way to unbelievable ... I won't recommend this book until you are a die heart fan of intense repetitive historical fiction

I haven't even read the book all the way through (Chapter 16) and I can already tell all the things that are wrong with it.

This girl travels in time and somehow is used to that way of living like its nbd. REALLY? Chamber pots, castles, uncomfortable clothes, 18th century! and nothing, not one goddam thing about how weird it was for her and how she managed with it all.

The one thing I hate the most about it though is the Twilighty/50 shades of Gray feeling about this book. Shitty plot line, one dimensional characters, a and anything to make girls fall in love with Jamie. Its the same old story; calm, cool, collected hunky man who has very little emotion. All the girls love him but he wont give anyone his time of day. Then you find out he has a dark past and it makes you "love" him because "aww, he is sensitive"

Then you have the girl, who the book portrays, as a strong female lead but really in between the lines they are helpless dumb-asses (because if a woman wasn't what men would love her) and the guy has to save them over and over again. They don't think much of the guy at first and don't give him time of day then fall in love with him and become his little bitch.

You see what I am talking about. I am done. I don't think I will read any more. This is not fantasy. This is romance. Thats a bad thing.

Physical abuse is damaging. Physical abuse followed by justification is more damaging. The character Jamie has the right to historical justification for his actions. The character Claire justifying his actions just displays that she has been mind f***ed, as state that abusers count on so they are not held accountable.

I read Outlander when it first came out. I was younger and not as discerning. I re-read it when the series was made. It was much worse than I remembered it. I admire the author’s success. Wish I had thought up a vapid, trashy time travel novel myself. My husband and I watch the show to banter our color commentary. The Fraser’s are really so annoying.

I am so relieved to see I'm not the only one who hasn't been impressed or sucked into these books. Jamie is stubborn and while I love a good, racy romance the overuse of bodice ripping scenes are tiresome. Also does Jamie never ask her about the future??

Nancy I can't understand why this book is so popular, but kudos to Diana Gabaldon for her success. I'm more impressed that she was an academic with a PhD in zoology who later forged a successful career as a writer.

Well I thought Outlander was a pretty awful read. Probably one of the worse books I've read since the Notebook (now that was a badly written book!). I did read Outlander (or rather Cross Stitch - which is what it is titled in my part of the world) in it's entirety and it was a struggle. It got slightly better for a bit then returned to being less than impressive.

I also had little preconception about the book when I started so my expectations weren't too high. I had watched the first episode of the TV series, liked it, and then read the first book.

To begin with the book was quite badly written and you could tell that the author was a novice. As for the plot it was generally odd with information dumps, silly conveniences (like Claire not being too fertile.. wouldn't want to dampen the romance with a pregnancy). I didn't like how Jamie beat Claire and nearly rapes her. The whole rape re-enactment scene was a load on nonsense too... suddenly Jamie's PTSD is fixed (yay!).

Other than that for a good chunk of the book nothing really happens and I agree that the plot gets lost at times. Another thing I thought odd was Claire asking Jamie endless questions about himself and Jamie never really asking Claire about herself. It was too one sided and unnatural and to top it off those conversations got pretty dull.

I was hoping for more to do with time travel or magic or something (anything) interesting. Instead we got someone travelling from the future, obsessing about local politics and a bit of shagging and snogging thrown in. I guess in a nutshell the book was just lacking, given it potential. There was no twisty time plots, no pagan magic. Only a nothing too special romance and some violence.

Get the May 2nd-3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal
In the review section is an article on DNA
called the Prehistory of Us.
You will find we are all not purebreds but a combination of everything.
So hating one nationality is saying you hate yourself.

I struggled through the book. I had seen the tv series before though and quite enjoyed it. I found the book was not very well written. Amercanisms and bad grammar or spelling. The second book drags on and could have been half the size. I won't be reading any more of them. I have read better in that genre.

You are not alone. I read it last week and the more I think about it, the less I like it. At first I chalked it up to a matter of taste, but it kept nagging at me in the most bothersome way. I finally wrote a review here on Goodreads last night, figuring that would get it off my mind. But when I saw your post just now I was immediately like, "YOU ARE NOT ALONE!" Haha.

As I've said before, though, I always appreciate rule-breaking romances, and Outlander gets plenty of credit from me on that front. But then, I get a sour taste in my mouth knowing that Gabaldon considers the "romance" label such a grave injustice, as if no other romance has ever been so radically subversive or rebelled as much against the formulas of the genre. SMH.

(Will continue to watch the show, though, and I'm optimistic. A prestige series in the Golden Age of TV could very well do wonders for this early-90s artifact, especially with so many feminist commentators watching closely.)

I didn't finish it. It just didn't do it for me. It's rare when I DNF a book, but i did it with this one.

I got the audio book because I had heard about the
TV series and it seemed like an intriguing plot. I have gotten more than half-way through, but it bothers me for the reasons it bothered others: Claire is not at all curious or dismayed by her change of living circumstances, not even mentioning not having deodorant, or tampons, or electric lights, or coffee or ANYTHING. That is not at all realistic. And it took like 24 chapters before Claire finally seemed to miss Frank just a tad bit. She didn't blink an eye at marrying Jamie or having sex with him, but randomly felt a twinge way late in the game. And so little angst about how he was doing or how she would get back... it's all just too facile and boring and unrealistic... And that's not even getting into the punishment/rape scene! I'm still hanging in just to finish, but I definitely wont try the other books. Overall very disappointing. I think I'll try the TV series though, because it seems to be better to most reviewers.

I have never done this before: halfway through the first Outlander book, I ripped the paperback in half and shredded it into the recycling container. I didn't even want to give it away for others to read. Yuck! Was told the series was really good and have just viewed Episode 1. Very pretty star with affected, shallow acting ability; creepy husband who turns into creepier ancestor. Lovely images. I think Episode one shows me everything interesting I remember from the book - which then became just dreadfully boring and rife with sex. Not my cup of tea. Happy I'm not the only one who is, um, unimipressed (by the way, I won't be watching any more episodes...) Tamara

You're not the only one. I thought the first book was cheesy and boring when it wasn't sexist and trite. The only interesting characters were Dougal and Geillis - and they were decidedly secondary. I hear the series is better, but am honestly not willing to give it a try, as I hated the book so much. I still haven't completely forgiven the friend who constantly recommended this piece of trash to me for over a decade, lol.

I'm not a OUTLANDER series liker either. The books are 20 or so hours long. And I don't have the patience for that long of a book.

I've read all of the books - twice! The first time was 20 years ago, and then she lost me with The Fiery Whatever. But I picked it up again and held my nose when I heard they were making it into a TV series.

I am a writer myself (full disclosure.) I really don't like her writing, for a few reasons. She had kind of a good idea. She can write well, when she has the discipline, but she's all over the place. She creates characters and then just dumps them. It's like she indulges herself with "the idea of the day" and goes off into the weeds, dragging the reader along. In her later books, I found myself skipping entire chapters, and wondering why she didn't have a talented editor. Ego?

Another aspect of her writing that bothers me is her obvious misandry. She seems to delight in torturing men or casting them as twisted individuals.

I tried watching the series and enjoyed the first few episodes (I know this is a little off topic, but apparently she has a lot of control over the production) but then I became disgusted, just as I had with the books. This began as a romance novel, and devolved into something horrendous. What happened to the love?

So, ultimately, I felt somewhat used as a reader. I kept hoping she was going to fulfill the potential she showed early on, but it all dissipated into, in my mind, just playing with herself.

I spend a lot of time in Scotland, know the history, and have many dear friends there. She just skims the surface.

I'm not one to leave bad reviews, preferring to let writers find their own ways, but this disturbs me, because it's just pop literature, haphazard, and receives too much recognition.

I got through it, It was Ok. Expected much more, since the TV show is popular. I don't plan on reading the other books in the series.

Oh boy, I am so glad I am not the only one. I tried to read the book many years ago, but it was so drawn out and did not capture me, i stopped. Then with the TV series, i was tempted to do it again, but recalled the 'boring bits' of the author. So while commuting to work I listen to the book. And I can say, I can't stand Claire. she is selfish, without any regards for rules. She endangers constantly others. Yes, I understand, she is in th past and it is culture shock, but seriously, she of all people should understand the past better than anyone. I was hoping to gleam more interesting parts to the story, something to fill in the gaps in the series, but I am thinking, that the TV series is pretty much the highlight reel of the book.

This series was recommended to me in 1995, and I hated it, tried to read it a dozen time since that time and I failed to get into it. It was recommended to me over and over again, and I just rejected the premise as bizarre and the story telling weak. Then in 2015 I picked it up again, bored and desperate, and I found it in a box I was packing. Suddenly it clicked. Oh believe you, me, it isn't great literature but it is total estrogen fueled brain candy and it has a very distinct formula that, as a writer, I envied. I have subsequently watched the tv programme ( I also hate television and don't own one) and liked the adaptation, again, it tickles my guilty pleasure and need for romantic drivel. If we don't over intellectualise the premise its decent writing, and well researched and makes more of an effort to be authentic than many fantasy cum romantic shite on the market. It triggered a genre for christ's sake. Give Gabaldon her due, she struck a cord with a host of female readers, one, as a writer, I am grateful for. I'd read her over that Grey shite any day but its unfair to put cherries next to crab apples ...

Soooo glad I'm not alone. I generally breeze through books fairly quickly, but I have been trying to get through this book for A MONTH. I will pick it up and read several pages, then get extremely bored. It's like 90% of the content is unnecessary. Is there even a plot?? Claire doesn't even seem to care most of the time, or the least bit curious about her situation. The middle of the book was GREAT when she was accused of being a witch and I thought holy shit this book is actually going somewhere!! And then of course maybe 30 pages after that it fell back into the same. boring. pace. Great idea, seems like a decent story overall, but it is just so poorly executed I don't even think I can finish the 1st book and I have 73 pages left. I simply do not care about what happens to the characters at all.

I was thinking about this again after having a discussion about the horrors of 50 Shades. The problem is I can't recall specifics, as I read this book years back -- but I remember really enjoying it, up til the later sex scenes. I loved the concept and several tropes, and it grabbed me fast and held me, so I managed to read far faster than some other books. But I just remember something about the later sex scenes feeling... gross. And uncomfortable. I don't remember why, and I'm sure part of it was because I was younger (well -- 19ish, I'm a late bloomer in terms of the NSFW world) and my exposure to sex scenes back then was mostly fan fiction (which, honestly, is usually better written then half the crap I read in published works now).

But I distinctly remember going to my mom, who also read the book, and asking her if this is was what "loving sex" was like, because if it was, I wanted NO PART.

I'd like to revisit these scenes again with the knowledge and experience I have now, but I always see and hear so much praise for the sex in this series -- while I was left feeling extremely put off rather than turned on.

Well, I'm reading through all of these posts in an attempt to find my tribe of "People Who Don't Like Outlander."

I watched the show up to the wedding episode, then stopped and tried reading the book. I have since abandoned it, for many of the aforementioned reasons. I teach literature (Faulkner, Ishiguro, Orwell, Shakespeare, etc.) which has probably ruined me for reading authors like Gabaldon.

BUT, I really just wanted some fun time-traveling romance ~ some dessert reading, if you will. Reading this book is not fun, though.

Maybe I'll just finish watching season one.

Clearly, you are not alone in your hatred. One of my biggest peeves was that it was clear she had done SOME historical research, and so her setting was fine. In Scotland, at least. Gabaldon didn't exhibit any knowledge about 1940s Britain (I would know, I'm a historian), but really it was that her ideas about the sexuality of rapists was WAY off base, and so the sections of the book that were supposed to be so powerful were undermined by not being believable. Good concept wasted on a bad story, that's what I can't stand.

This is my third time trying to get through the first book. I don't know what it is but I am bored to tears. The core of the story is wonderful so I'm content with skimming and still feeling satisfied. But DG...I've read countless interviews of her being snarky and unkind to her fans. That is a total turn off to me. Instead of being grateful that she had so many fans, she is unkind and impolite. I just can't get past the author's nasty personality. I can see her beady little eyes glaring at her PC while writing and I'm honestly turned off by her.

I started this book against my instincts because not one but two friends that I regard as cool and intelligent just love both books and series.....I got thus far... ella dawson says it better than I could but this was very much my reaction on reading "the belt scene " I could not possibly/ would not want to read ANY more of this ! It disturbs me that anyone can see this as a romance. This is a man who takes pleasure in physical violence ! this is not romantic at all. I am now happily reading some Tove Jansson !
https://elladawson.com/2015/04/05/i-w...

I am 76 and have read books all my life Ido not read just one or two types, I read I read many many types of books. and I have to say as far as fiction’s go I have enjoyed Outlander series very much.I would recommend it to any one, But it is good that we all have different taste in what we read. We all read books and like them an others would not touch with a ten foot pole. so to each their own..

Both characters (Jamie and Claire) are quite immature.
I tried to read the book after episode 10 of season 7 of the Outlander TV series, where I couldn't understand how Claire and John could get together to “mourn” Jamie.
I couldn't believe anyone could justify them having a “carnal acquaintance” just after her husband's death, so I bought the kindle version of the book where Lord John and Claire get married and it was hard to read.
I just tried to read the extracts about the wedding and their night together and couldn't bear to read any more. English is not my first language, but even I can admit that the writing is... mediocre. And why write 800-1000 pages if the writing isn't there?

I don't know what Jaimie or Claire are like in the books (considering how little I've read) but, boy, do I wonder if, in the final season of the TV series, we'll still hear Claire shouting “Bloody Bastard” every 1 or 3 scenes...

I remember the series from long ago and knew my tastes back then. I was never tempted to read an historical fiction romamce regardless of its fantasy elements. But I love the show now and here at the end of season 4, I wanted to know what happens next....so I went to the library and picked up The Fiery Cross. Thank goodness I didn't buy it!
1) Her science facts are wrong: hawks in fact DO have binocular vision because their eyes are on the FRONT of their head. Mongolian spots can appear on anyone with Native American, Hispanic, Asian or African descent. For Claire and Jamie to assume Fanny's infidelity with a black man is both ignorant and racist in the extreme. DG needs to get her money back from NAU, she clearly didn't learn anything.
2) The writing was so tedious (useless and boring descriptions) I put the book down numerous times. PACING!! Half this book needs to be cut out.
3) How high was her editor? In one scene Jamie was bare-head, Claire waxing unpoetic about his red hair AGAIN, then a few paragraphs later takes off a hat. Then when they're laying in bed after sex (I just skip over that anymore because even their sex is boring) Jamie is laying quietly with his arms over his stomach then he's got a mysterious third hand a paragraph or so later which is placed under Claire's backside. I'm not kidding! Then of course there is the girdle v. griddle usage that finally was caught long about pg.250. There are other poor/incorrect usage that calls into doubt whether or not the book was actually edited or simply spell-checked.
4) Some of the Gaelic and French translations are wrong. The nickname they give Roger translated to “shreiker” not Thrush. I think her Gaelic source must have been having her on. Had this been the only error in the entire text, I would have ignored a phrase Germain asks Claire. I speak and read a little French and there's a big difference of baby language for “who is that?” and “Where they go?”
5) She clearly lacks an average ability with language usage because whole passages have been worked over with a thesaurus so much so that it blows up meaning and readability.
6) The plot is little more than, “this happens then this happens then this happens” etc., with twists that come out of literally nowhere that the characters seem to magically comprehend. To finish the book for the plot points I'm about 300 pages in and skimming.
7) The show is way better than the books. RDM had none of the problems adapting them that D&D had with GOT.

But in the end she's a millionaire with a tv show and I'm not.

Thank you. I just couldn't get through the book because it was just danger/rescue/humping/repeat but the show seemed promising. I got through the whole first season and I feel tricked... I kept thinking something would happen to advance the action or show historical events. All I got was very problematic storytelling.

The last bit was like Ramsay Bolton (as Capt JR) from GoT turning Theon into Reek (played by Jamie) Jamie finally gets rescued and is like, retraumatized and abused back to health? WTF. It's pretty sad when the douchebags writing the GoT series do a better job of portraying trauma and its after effects. I wish I could unsee it to be honest.

A book about sex (gay and straight) trying to disguise itself as both a time travel AND a historical fiction. I read it because it was on the GAR list. I was NOT impressed. Won’t be reading any more of them. Jordan’s Wheel of Time series is much better than this....

Multiple things made this a wallbanger for me:
(1) - Adultery is never going to be a plot device that endears me to any character (and for those who say it can't be adultery because he husband wasn't even born yet...well, what if she had, in her present time, given birth - would it mean that she was not and had never been a mother?)
(2) - The whole beating thing - um, the author controls the story and can wrangle the plot any way he/she wants - this author wanted to write a scene with a man beating his supposed "beloved". I, myself, would never put those two together, regardless of the time period. His getting turned on at inflicting pain on his "beloved" just gives me the creeps
(3) - The beaten woman is perfectly OK with this. Yeah, yeah - she holds back on offering her forgiveness, but PUHLEEEEZE! Name me any self-respecting (relatively) modern woman who looooooooooves her abuser. Gag, blech...
(4) - The whole marital rape thing - again, can't square it away with the love part.
Whole damn thing makes me feel the need to shower off.

Yep, you are ;)

The writing was so bad, it took me 20 years to read the first book. Nevertheless, I persisted with some of the others because I really liked the story on Starz. I gave up after book 4 because the writing was really tedious. Too bad she did not have a better editor. Now, the series on Starz is getting tedious. Why? Because the books they are using are really bad.

I was quite happy to find this feed. I have read the entire series so far (through MOBY) and will most likely read the final books to the series. I have actually re-read the series; however, I found myself feeling some of the same dissatisfaction in the books that are voiced here. I love the concept and I could not agree more that the relationship between Claire and Jamie is a sort of estrogen-filled brain candy high. I love dense long books but with each succeeding book after the point at which they left Scotland, and when Claire was kidnapped on the Porpoise I found the capture/rescue/sex trope so very annoyingly formulaic. I find myself more and more just skimming through the overly-detailed narrative about each medical procedure, the war and battlefield history and the seemingly inconsequential stories of characters who do not advance the plot. Credit must be given to Gabaldon for she has most definitely succeeded in creating a book that has catapulted her and her characters to international fame and resulted in a mini-series that is so very popular.

That said, however, as a fan of the first 3 books, I find myself disappointed that she seems to be writing by the pound and filling the books with less and less actual plot and constantly repeating herself with the capture/release/sex formula and more narrative that I feel I just need to slog past so I can get to the plot. I think she is a better writer than this and has done the main characters an injustice by not deepening their story with more nuanced character development. Durrell's Alexandria Quartet is 1200 pages long and so dense with character interiority, that I can re-read it again and again and I just gain more insight into the characters. The Outlander series, while wonderful at one level, fail completely to do that and I wonder whether I will care what ultimately happens to Claire and Jamie by the end of the series of books simply because I don't want to slog through yet another two-dimensional formulaic romp thin on plot and character development just to get to the final chapter and mercifully be finished with the book. Had I not become so entranced with the first 3 books many years ago, I think I would have ditched out on this completely, but what little investment I have retained in the storyline revolves around how Claire and Jamie will be treated when Gabaldon finally writes the end of their story.

What this says about me, I do not know - since I care enough about these characters to want to know the end of their story - but am annoyed by each ensuing book and feel an increasing disappointment in what feels like a tedious repetition of the same formula. I have several friends who have also been reading the books who feel the same way I do. I suppose it is to Diana Gabaldon's credit that she has written two characters that have enough appeal to enough people that not only are there die-hard fans who love every word, new people coming to the book because of the series, new fans just loving the series, but people like me who have grown tired of the worn-out formula and yet we keep coming back for more - but also a wonderful site like this where people who genuinely don't like the books are talking about what they don't like about them and wondering "how did these books get so far" - I am a fan of the story, altho a fading one with each book, but I find almost all of the comments on this sight to be insightful and reflective of my own disappointment. I was glad to find it and glad to pipe in with my own opinion.

My emotional reaction to the book Outlander was such that I decided not to keep it in my house, and not to pass it on to anyone else, because of the physical abuse in it. I tossed it in the trash.

I too didn't like this book at all. Nice to see others felt the same way. I got 300 pages in and couldn't take anymore. It was more of a Fifty Shades of Gray in Scotland, than anything. I don't think a good book needs sex on every other page to make it better. I love historical fiction, but this is not that. This is romance with a little time travel thrown in, Not for me.

I am late to this party, but am so glad I am not alone. I actually read the first 4 books several years ago, but then lost interest or got busy. I picked them up again a few months ago with the intent to read them all through to the most recent book. But I just CANNOT get into these books. I actually enjoy the first book most of all and think that the author should have stopped there. But the subsequent books, I just lose interest in the storyline and the characters.

It's a shame, because I just love a good series that sucks you in and won't let go, and this is what everyone who reads these books promises. But something is just not there for me. I cannot put my finger on it, but oh well. There are so many other wonderful books for me to dive into. I will probably once and for all put these books down and never return to them.

I found the first book SO ANNOYING that I couldn't finish it! The series was recommended to me by my adult stepdaughter, who listened to the book on tape during her long commutes to work. I've noticed some comments mention the audio version as being really good, so maybe that would have helped, but in the end, it's the writing that's a problem. I was spoiled at a young age by Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre -- which may be totally unfair to a contemporary American author -- but there you have it. To me, Outlander is just stinky cheese!