Outlander was one of the very first books I downloaded onto my Kindle (Wirelessly! 656 pages in less than 60 seconds!). Everyone and my mother had mentioned reading it, so I thought I would too. (My mother didn't like it, but then again, she didn't like Lord of Scoundrels either.)
Anyway, I WANTED to like it. And I really, REALLY tried. I did! But it took me three months to get through the first two chapters. It was just so... DRY. I would read a few pages and try to get into it before giving up, but this book spent most of the summer collecting virtual dust in the archives of my Kindle. I didn't go back to it until I realized I was spending too much money on books and needed to read something I already owned.
That was about two weeks ago and I've now read something like 4,000 pages of the Outlander series. I'm about to start book five.
Outlander is one of those novels to which readers have a STRONG reaction, much like one's reaction to cilantro. LOVE or HATE. Nothing much in the middle.
I loved it.
I mean, honestly? It's a romance novel with time travel, Scottish history and men in kilts. How could I NOT love it? And then there's the added perk of having the voice in my head pronounce most of the Scottish accents in this book in either the voice of a drunken Sean Connery or like that SNL skit: "If it's not Scottish, it's Crrap!"
That being said, it really bugged me that I had such a hard time getting into it. It's rare that I start off NOT liking a book and then end up TOTALLY AND UTTERLY ADORING IT. So, being a wanna-be-novelist my own self, I set about figuring out why.
Now for the most part, I'm not overly critical of writing style. I'm interested in a good story, no matter how it gets on the page, (Hence my utter adoration for Charlain Harris's Sookie Stackhouse books, Twilight, etc.) but when I broke it down, page by page, the problem turned out to be simple:
Gabaldon takes the cardinal rule of fiction entirely too seriously. SHOW DON'T TELL is all verra well and good, but it shouldn't be employed at the exclusion of character and/or common sense.
It's also the reason this book is so. damn. long.
** Spoiler Alert - there are some quotes here, but I don't think they're much worse than what you'd read on the back of a book jacket **
For example, Claire, our bonny protagonist, a 27-year-old English nurse who accidentally time-travels back to 1743, has just found out that she's been summoned for questioning by an English Captain named Jonathan Randall. Claire knows this Captain to be a sadistic torturer. He is the most terrifying specimen of humanity the woman has ever encountered. When Dougal, the leader of the Scottish Clan that's been keeping Claire safe, informs her of the summons, this is her reaction to the news:.
I must have looked truly alarming, for [Dougal] jumped to his feet and came over to me.
"Put your head between your knees, lass," he instructed, pushing on the back of my neck, "'til the faintness passes off."
"I know what to do," I said irritably, doing it nonetheless. I closed me eyes, feeling the ebbing blood begin to throb in my temples again. The clammy sensation around my face and ears began to disappear, though my hands were still icy. ...
And while that is a perfectly lovely, not to mention medically accurate, description of hyperventilation, it might have been nice to know what Claire was THINKING. How about: I WAS SO SCARED I COULDN'T BREATHE. For a novel written in first person point of view, there is an awful lot of distance between the narrator and the action.
Another example:
We were nearly at the bottom [of the hill] when lack of food, the remnants of a hangover, and the general stresses of the day caught up with me. I came to lying on damp leaves, my head in my new husband's lap.
Wait. What? Oh... After the wedding ceremony, she promptly passes out! THAT's what happened. Why didn't she just SAY SO? Again, no mention of how Claire feels. I can't tell you how much it BUGGED me to only find out how Claire felt about something AFTER it happened to her. I wanted the pleasure of being inside her head in a more connected way. I mean, the reader doesn't learn that she's even attracted to Jamie until AFTER she marries him and then she admits that, well, the thought of doing the dirty with him HAD crossed her mind...
Because I knew this was a romance, I kept waiting for the hero to appear and when he finally did, I felt bad for spending something like 300 pages with the poor bloke without knowing he was The One. I wanted that first rush of attraction to be on the page and it wasn't. The reader sees the action through Claire's EYES, but we aren't necessarily seeing it through the filter of her EMOTIONS. The good thing, though, is that you don't have to care about Claire much or worry about the writing style to LOVE this book.
Jamie Fraser makes this book worth reading.
He's perhaps my most favorite romance novel hero of all time - smart (multilingual even), morally noble without being self-righteous, stubborn, tortured (figuratively AND literally) and verra verra nekkid under that plaid skirt. Also - a virgin! He marries the good lass for three reasons: 1) to keep her safe from Black Jack Randall, 2) Because "Perhaps it's just that I want to bed you. ... Did ye think of that?" and 3) for luuuuurve:
"There was another reason. The main one."
"Reason?" I said stupidly.
"Why I married you."
"Which was?" I don't know what I expected him to say, perhaps some further revelation of his family's contorted affairs. What he did say was more of a shock, in its way.
"Because I wanted you." He turned from the window to face me. "More than I ever wanted anything in my life," he added softly.
I continued staring at him, dumbstruck. Whatever I had been expecting, it wasn't this. Seeing my openmouthed expression, he continued lightly, "When I asked my Da how ye knew which was the right woman, he told me when the time came, I'd have no doubt. And I didn't. When I woke in the dark under that tree on the road Leoch, with you sitting on my chest, cursing me for bleeding to death, I said to myself, "Jamie Fraser, for all ye canna see what she looks like, and for all she weighs as much as a good draft horse, this is the woman.'"
I started toward him, and he backed away, talking rapidly. "I said to myself, 'She's mended ye twice in as many hours, me lad; life amongst the MacKenzies being what it is, it might be well to wed a woman as can stanch a wound and set broken bones.' And I said to myself, 'Jamie, lad, if her touch feels so bonny on your collarbone, imagine what it might feel like lower down...'"
Och, Jamie, dinna fash yourself, lad, ye had me at hello.
I am reading book 2 right now and LOVE. IT. Totally agree, the character of Jamie makes the book. I was telling Jonniker last night on Twitter that I picture him as the Scottish, 18th century version of the red-haired doctor on Grey's.
I'm at the point now where I've become an overzealous advocate of the series. People are starting to look at me crazy when I evangelize it. :) so, glad to see someone else who loves it!
Posted by: Rebecca (Bearca) | October 23, 2009 at 02:41 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Rebecca, it COMES UP HERE. HOW FUNNY.
Oh, Amanda. I hated it. I TRIED. I TRIED. And then there was the sex. Look, I can get down with a good sex scene AND a good romance, but I can't get down with crazy woodland sex with what HAS to be lice-laden pubes (SORRY SORRY SORRY).
And if he called her Sassenach one more time I'd have killed myself. I TRIIIIIIIEEEEED.
Posted by: jonniker | October 23, 2009 at 02:56 PM
And Amanda, I'm not laughing at your love for the books -- my friends LOVE them. Like, ALL OF MY FRIENDS RECOMMENDED THEM TO ME. I just couldn't get past the sex. And it's only funny because Rebecca and I had this conversation yesterday. Yesterday! After the conversation about what I should read when I finish the Sookie Stackhouse novels, which I LUUURRRVE.
Posted by: jonniker | October 23, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Jonna, the funny thing is that I thought there wasn't ENOUGH sex in this book. Sure, there's a sex scene every ten pages, but often (not always), I felt like I was carried to the bridal suite only to have the door slammed shut in my face before anything happened. This has been a pet peeve of mine since I read the Twilight books, where you read three volumes of teenage sexual angst and then get to see absolutely ZERO details of the wedding night. It's a bad case of ... the next morning syndrome - as in, "it was our wedding night and he kissed me and ... the next morning." GAH! TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED. Even if it IS gross and lice-riddled and itchy. I still want to know!
I love books like this where people have strong reactions one way or another. I judge fiction mainly by its ability to distract me from my regular life and this book did that better than most. Hence the five stars. Although at least one of the stars is for the kilts.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, <typepad@sixapart.com> wrote:
Posted by: Amanda P. Westmont | October 23, 2009 at 04:37 PM
I'm solidly in the love camp, and have read up through #5. It's been a long, long, time since I've read books that invoked the kind of emotion in me that these books have. I sobbed wildly at the end of Outlander, despite knowing they would see each other again. Duh, there's 5 (now 6) more books! I think that after Outlander, Voyager has been my favorite.
The last paragraph of The Fiery Cross really sums up the series for me. Once you finish, I'd love to hear if you feel the same!
Posted by: Jaime | October 23, 2009 at 06:49 PM
I loved the books, too, but I had a damn hard time getting into them! The first few chapters took me fooooorrrreeeeevvvveeeerrrr to get through. I had checked it out from the library because I won't buy a book until I know I'm going to love it. I had to renew it twice before I could get through the first few chapters. By the 10th chapter, I was at Barnes and Noble buying the series.
Posted by: Laurie | October 23, 2009 at 07:23 PM
I'm on the newest book (#7 - An Echo in the Bone) and it's still good!
For me, though, Fiery Cross was a HUGE hiccup. That book just plain pissed me off - she took the "describe everything" rule too far, and she lost me. Hated it.
But, 1-4 are great, as was 6.
Posted by: Refinnej | October 23, 2009 at 08:25 PM
I have a weird theory about the Outlander books. Here goes:
People who get into them right away aren't romantics. They are not fiery-tempered, passionate people. The way they think, and feel, and process external information is a little slower & more labored, more clinical. They are Claires.
(um, I'm a Claire. Bizarre analysis tip you off?)
Romantics tend to stop and start the books until Jamie, a character who IS truly romantic shows up. In romances, often the eloquent person with easily available feelings is the female protagonist, and so Claire's voice can feel a little jarring.
Jamie is the hook. I don't believe there is a better romance novel hero out there. And the series holds up remarkably well as it goes, IMO.
Posted by: Zelda | October 24, 2009 at 12:53 AM
It's all about Jamie. I want him to come to life so I can run away with him. And I usually hate romance books. Hate Twilight, won't touch Danielle Steel, if Fabio is on the cover I won't pick it up. My bookgroup chose this. I was not excited but now I'm hooked.
Posted by: Becky H | October 24, 2009 at 07:54 AM
I haven't read the books, but I'm so glad you are back, I've missed you!
Posted by: denise | October 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I'm in LUUURRRRVVE with Jamie. I accidentally read the 2nd book first, and I didn't have the trouble getting into the series like lots of others. Maybe the 2nd book picks up with the action faster?
Posted by: hydrogeek | October 26, 2009 at 09:27 AM
Giiiirrrl - When I read your second paragraph and thought you didn't like the book I was prepared to abandon your website forever! Whew. Good thing you liked it. hahaha. I'm one of the ones that emailed you and recommended this book. You're very right that Jamie is the reason the whole series is so good. I'm reading Echo in the Bone right now and there's not enough Jamie in it for me so far.
Diana Gabaldon (it's pronounced "GAH-bull-dohn" - rhymes with "stone" - I pronounced it wrong for 6 years) was a guest at the Decatur Book Festival about a month or so ago and I went to listen to her. She was a hoot. She talked so fast I could barely keep up and she was hilarious. I was afraid to go listen to her because I was scared she might be a snob or something but she was a total delight, very down to earth and funny. I've seen some interviews with her on youtube if you're interested in hearing how she decided to write a novel.
Posted by: Mitzi | October 26, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Okay, here I am. The one person without a strong reaction. I read Outlander years ago. The only reason I picked it up was because I was going through books so quickly that I had hope this one would last a while. I didn't love it and I didn't hate it. I enjoyed it. But not enough to read any of the others. My sister read it after me and now it's her all-time favorite series. Maybe I should go back and try again...
Posted by: stephanie @ chocolateandwhine.com | October 28, 2009 at 09:07 PM
LOL. I loved your review. I'm reading #3 and loving it. Totally <3 Jamie. I want to run away with him. I was disappointed when I found out they were "old" in the later books, but he's still hot in his forties.
Posted by: Yvette Adams | February 05, 2011 at 04:57 PM