Outlander by Diana Gabaldon Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.40 You Save: $9.60 (56%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.25 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Outlander
Book Review: A Novel or a Guide to Domestic Discipline?
Summary: 1 Stars
This whole review is one big ***spoiler alert***. Don't read this if you don't want spoilers! Also graphic descriptions alert!
We have Clarie and Frank, who are married and living in 1945. They've been married 8 years, even though many of those years were spent separately through WWII. She's a nurse and he's a professor, who is called up for duty to be an officer in the military. We have Jamie who lives in the 1740's and is a small time laird on the run. Frank has an ancestor back in the 1700's named Black Jack. He's evil and a whole lot more. The story is told in first person by Claire. Claire is annoying and you do not warm up to her. You feel she is mean about her husband being scholarly. So we have the bored housewife looking for adventure and fantasy story. This is what the author is selling. Bored in your marriage? I can only guess this to be the reason for so many 5 star ratings. Readers connected with Claire magically going from a boring marriage to an exciting fantasy one.
While having a second honeymoon with her husband Frank, Claire walks through a henge and finds herself in Scotland in the 1740's. I won't repeat the story, but eventually she finds herself married to Jamie, who is a laird on the run and protected by the Mackenzie clan. Too bad they weren't Jennifer Ashley's Mackenzie clan in 'The Madness of Lord Ian Mackenzie'. No such luck. These are bores who are all out to get each other. Jamie is a Mackenzie, but his father was a Fraser. Claire finds herself married to Jamie and accepts it readily and the great sex that goes with it... despite her safe, nice, intelligent, sexy, good in bed, professor of a husband, back in the 20th century. Oh right, Claire finds the history professor husband a tad boring.
Claire does not listen to an order from Jamie to stay put in a wooded area and hide. She finds that although Jamie is kind, he will still beat her for unknowingly putting men in danger. He forces her to be face down on a bed with his knee in her back to hold her down, while he beats her bare backside with his sword belt, while she screams her head off and can't sit for a week because he blistered her backside black and blue... and he will enjoy it too. Although he does it in private, everyone knows, because they hear her screaming in a bedroom and she is publicly humiliated. Claire was trying to get back to the 20th century, got caught by the English and Jamie had to save her. She does put his men in jeopardy. Jamie is never sorry for beating her. Worse, a few days later, he tells her he has to have sex with her, after she's been refusing him and basically tells her he'll have it with her no matter what. Well, doesn't that just smack of spousal rape? Claire is given no choice, even though she's upset with him for beating her.
I disagree with others that this is historically correct. There were laws against wife beating in 1700 in England and America. Scotland is part of England, so this is a dig on Scottish men still beating their wives against the laws that existed. Did it happen? Of course. Men still beat wives, but most men did not and do not... and most men like Jamie would not. He talks about his beatings as a boy and he thinks that beating children is fine, as long as they understand why they are being punished. Claire demands he never beat her again. He agrees. This all smacks loudly of the Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD) movement agreements. The author thinks beating children is okay as long as they understand why. Putting it under the guise of history is a thin veil. Most people who beat other people in the 1700's didn't think rationally about it, nor do they today. There is a witch burning also, as Claire and another woman are condemned. In 1742, witch burning? Oh yeah, this is backwards Scotland.
Claire is saved from being burned and there is a very dull story woven around talk of how belt beatings are a way to teach children and a way to make wives obey. It goes on ad nauseum about beating children with a belt... all under the guise of history. Yes it happened in history, but not quite the way the author makes it sound and she makes it sound like the people are rational people. Jamie on the other hand puts Claire in danger when he wants to make love to her in a wooded area, away from his group. She is nearly raped and killed by other men. Jamie pays no price for it. What is good for the goose (a beating), isn't good for the gander. He gets away with this and almost exposed his clan, but she gets beat for the same thing? What? This story fits more in the 16th and 17th centuries or Medieval times, as far as public beatings and witch burning, than it does in the 18th century. Oh yes, there are public beatings also.
As for prose, please... I know this is chick lit, but there is actually good chick lit out there. This is a first person narration. There aren't a whole lot of prose in this. Claire is an annoying character, so having it told in first person, was very annoying. In fact, it's more of a reporter type writing style. Just tell the facts. I didn't get a whole lot out of the prose. I can't believe this went on for 7 novels, which I will not be reading. Why do women want this? It's a fantasy. Leave your dull safe husband and go with a highlander who is hot looking, hot in bed and get the fantasy spanking of your life, because your own husband is oh so dull and would never hit you. As far as everyone fawning over the author's guts to write something historically correct, it really isn't historically correct, for all the reasons above and more to come. Most people who beat others, were too ignorant to really think it through the way Jamie does, as if he's a 20th century man.
Some last points. There is a girl in the book. Her father brings her to the great Mackenzie hall to talk to the Mackenzie laird. He wants his daughter publicly beaten with a belt, in front of everyone, because she flirts with men. A public beating is humiliating and the father wants her humiliated to stop her ways. Instead of the girl getting beaten, Jamie takes the punishment for her. He likes to kiss her, thinks he's a bit at fault and takes her punishment for her... but not for his wife later on? Isn't he responsible for his wife's actions too? Jamie leaves Claire alone in the woods with no one to protect her. Isn't he a hypocrite? Too late does he send someone to look after Claire.
Okay, what really bothers me? The girl's father wants a good marriage for her and deems Jamie not suitable. This is before he is married to Claire. What father would publicly announce to the hall that his daughter is a flirt? What prospects of marriage will she have after that? Why is she always at the hall with her father not in sight? Wouldn't her father beat her privately to keep her in check and not announce to the whole town that his daughter is acting the flirt? Won't the men think she is ruined? If she is in the hall because she is a servant there, then Jamie is actually a good catch, being the laird's nephew. That made no sense at all and there is plenty of that nonsense in the book. Jamie does not want Claire to have children and put her through that 'pain', but gave her 20 lashes with his sword belt... and that is not pain? He's twice her size! There is a whole lot that doesn't make sense about this book.
Wait there's more. Claire has two Catholic marriages, but was only baptized in the Catholic church and nothing else. You cannot get married in a Catholic church, be a Catholic and not have gone as far as getting Confirmed. She did not do Confirmation and therefore the priest in the story is wrong. Her marriages were not legitimate Catholic ones. The priest excuses her actions and her double marriages. There is a paradox here of time travel. If Claire's first husband's great great great great grandfather is killed and supposedly he is, then Frank her first husband would never be born. Claire thinks about this, but not the fact that if Frank wasn't born, she'd not be back in the 1740's, since it was Frank that took her on a trip to Scotland where the henge is with the time travel stones! Paradox. The ending is just lovely with Black Jack or the ancestor of Frank beating and raping Jamie. The ancestor is gay, but he will have a child eventually. Okay, whatever, but don't make every gay guy in the book to be a child molester or a rapist and that is exactly what the author does.
Jamie has been whipped and beaten so many times by Black Jack and his men, that you think he's the second coming of Christ, because who else could live through all the broken bones and near death experiences. I'm surprised the author didn't have him walk on water to boot. Claire happily forgets her first marriage, because a priest tells her to. She never really feels bad about it. You don't really feel the love from her or why she loves either husband. You do feel Jamie's love, after he beats the heck out of her. Except for sex, I don't get why Claire loves anyone. She just seems to like sex. Jamie isn't the brightest of light bulbs either. His reasoning is flawed. His love isn't and if you can forget the beating, he is sincere in that regard. Claire is older than he and is a lot more sophisticated. You don't know why she'd be bored with her scholarly husband and want a barbarian. They do make Jamie out to be one in 1742. That is not the middle ages and so, the whole thing just doesn't fit. The history of Bonny Prince Charlie is glossed over. Very annoying.
I can't believe I read the whole thing, but I did and the whole thing disgusted me. I had to see why everyone thought this was the number one romance novel of all time. I cannot believe this received 4 1/2 stars plus and a RITA... and they want to make a movie about it?! Good grief. Why this book, when there are so many, that are so much better? I have no idea. This is really bad writing. Really bad. The whole thing is so unbelievable. The whole books is about beatings and torture to the point of stupidity. The author spends time on irrelevant detail and misses out on telling a better story. I've read hundreds and hundreds of romance novels and this is one of the worst. Why not 'Gentle Rogue' as a movie or any number of other huge romance hits? I expected the level of writing that was in 'Flowers from the Storm' by another author. Please, someone hand me Pride and Prejudice, because Jane Austen is rolling over in her grave.
Book Review: A Page Turner in the Best Sense of the Term
Summary: 5 Stars
I love it when I discover a new writer whose grasp of language allows her to tell a compelling story with artistry and panache. Such a writer is Diana Gabaldon. I discovered her writing in a marvelous way. A few weeks ago, in one of the common areas of Cambridge Innovation Center where I maintain office space for White Rhino Partners, I noticed a small pile of book with a sign that said: "Take one for free." The books were a paperback version of Gabaldon's acclaimed novel, "Outlander," and included a few pages of a sneak peek at her about-to-be-published sequel work, "An Echo in the Bone."
The novel, "Outlander," proved to be a page turner in the best sense of that phrase. I could not put the book down and plowed through the 800+ pages in short order. The tag lines on the front cover promised a book about: "history, warfare, medicine, sex, violence, betrayal, vengeance, hope and despair, relationships, the building and destruction of families and societies, time travel, moral ambiguity, swords, herbs, horses, gambling (with cards, dice and lives), voyages of daring, journeys of both body and soul . . you know, the usual stuff of literature."
The wonderful thing that I am pleased to report to you is that this tongue-in-cheek preview of the novel understated the breadth of Gabaldon's reach as a story teller. I love the verbal palette with which she paints. Allow me to share a brief excerpt to let you taste just how delicious is her use of visual imagery and her rich vocabulary:
"It was dark in the cottage and there was a bear in the corner of the room. In panic, I recoiled against my escort, wanting nothing more to do with wild [...]. He shoved me strongly forward into the cottage. As I staggered toward the fire, the hulking shape turned toward me, and I realized belatedly that it was merely a large man in a bearskin.
A bearskin cloak, to be exact, fastened at the neck with a silver gilt brooch as large as the palm of my hand. It was made in the shape of two leaping stags, backs arched and heads meeting to form a circle. The locking pin was a short, tapered fan, the head of it shaped like the tail of a fleeing deer.
I noticed the brooch in detail because it was directly in front of my nose. Looking up, I briefly considered the possibility that I had been wrong, perhaps it really was a bear.
Still, bears presumably did not wear brooches or have eyes like blueberries; small, round, and dark, shiny blue. They were sunk in heavy cheeks whose lower slopes were forested with silver-shot black hair. Similar hair cascaded over think set shoulders to mingle with the hair of the cloak, which, in spite of its new use, was still pungently redolent of its former owner." (Page 731)
I love that kind of vivid writing. I have plans to order the sequel, which has just been published: "An Echo in the Bone."
To the person who left that pile of free books on the 14th floor at CIC, I say: "The you for hooking me on the drug of Gabaldon's writing!"
Book Review: A Wild Adventure That I Liked Verra Verra Much
Summary: 5 Stars
I had seen this book and dismissed it several times before deciding to read it. The time travel aspect turned me off for some reason. But then I realized I read Time Traveler's Wife and didn't dismiss it based on the time travel aspect.
I recently read White Rose Rebel by Janet Paisley, which is set in 1745 in Scotland during the Jacobite uprising so it shares time and place with Outlander. I think some fans of Outlander would probably like that novel as well. White Rose Rebel piqued my curiosity about the Jacobites and that period of history and I wanted to find something else to read on the topic and I kept coming back to Outlander. So, I decided to give it a chance and not hold the time travel part against it but rather to go with it and try to enjoy the story.
Well, I dinna have to try verra hard. I think that Diana Gabaldon is a wonderfully gifted and imaginative writer. This book is so rich with details that I was impressed by page six and that's before anything even happens.
While in Scotland with her husband Claire Randall accidentally travels back in time two hundred years to 1743, two years before the Jacobite uprising, a time when there was considerable friction between the Scottish and English. Claire is clearly English and is forced to navigate the politics of the time in order to survive and try to find a way back to her husband Frank. But events unfold very differently than Claire expects and she falls in love with the beautiful and brave James MacKenzie.
Let me tell you now that I am not a fan of the romance novel, not at all. But this story is so much more than a romance.
Gabaldon has created an engaging heroine in Claire Randall and placed her at a time in history where she can illustrate the stark contrasts between the contemporary and the historical. Claire is a nurse. When she travels back in time there are no medicines, no sterile bandages, no anesthetic, no hospitals, no operating rooms. She is forced to treat her patients using plants and herbs and quite a bit of whisky. Related to this there is a very interesting portion of the book that involves witch trials and Gabaldon creates a convincing story.
I was captivated by the adventure and history as well as the characters and their relationships. I really enjoyed this book even though I could have done with a few less love scenes. Though I thought Diana Gabaldon did the love scenes very nicely. And there were a few times when I thought she pulled the story out a bit too far but still none the less I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Another novel that had read when I was in High School I might have appreciated History before my 34th birthday.
Book Review: A big book with a little bit of fantasy
Summary: 5 Stars
Length not withstanding, OUTLANDER by Diana Gabaldon will keep you reading and rereading late into the night. The first of an outstanding historical time travel epic, it has a little something for everyone. The story unfolds as Claire Randall slips through the veil into 18th century Scotland and the days before the Scottish defeat by the Duke of Cumberland.
Her characters are so vivid they walk off the pages and into your heart.
Nash Black, author of WRITING AS A SMALL BUSINESS and SINS OF THE FATHERS.
Book Review: A compelling example of how NOT to write
Summary: 1 Stars
I got this book at a book fair about a year and a half ago. All the books you can put in a bag for just two dollars! (And you could get as many bags as you want!)
I started to read it, finding the time-travel aspect interesting. At first it sets up well, giving a good context of the present day for the character and how that contrasts with the past that she winds up in.
Then it gets boring and it never stops.
Once the reader gets to the castle the main character ends up going to, they soon realize that Diana Gabaldon apparently decided that she needed to put in everything she knew about Scotland at that point in history with all of its customs, manner of dress, dialect, mannerisms, manners, celebrations, and basically any other aspect of life a person could imagine. This is commonly and appropriately referred to as an "information dump." This is exactly how NOT to write. The goal of a story is to create an experience that will connect the reader to the protagonist emotionally, not to bog down the narrative with paragraph after paragraph of details that have no actual bearing on the story. Now, certainly some details must be weaved into the story to give the reader a context in which to understand the events that are unfolding, just as a pinch of seasoning or spice may help bring the flavors out in a dish. However, Gabaldon decided to unscrew the lid and just dump the whole can in.
Anyone who needs sage advice on how to bore a reader need look no further nor take notes on any other work than this.