Outlander Hate

[lemondrop]

At least ten people on this board would have been run off NBC for their Outlander hate. FTR, I really liked Outlander, but I'm really enjoying people being completely honest about it.

[starlily]

I tried multiple times to get through the first book and I just couldn't.

[housegeek]

I have em if you want to read them chile
Eh sorry. Somehow didn't see "past"

[moreace01]

Ha! That would be me. I tried...really. And then I found out some spoilers and I realized it really wasn't for me. There is some subject matter I just choose not to read about.

I've stuck with books all the way to the end and been disappointed that I wasted my time. So now I'm a little more discerning. There are so many great books out there that I really enjoy - I don't see the point in sticking with something I don't really care about.

[angnshaun]

I dont know why people care what other people like or dont like... i cant tell you how much shit i get for not wanting to read 50 shades or not liking Hunger Games

[msmerymac]

SPOILERS IN THIS POST

I love historical fiction. I love Scotland. I thought Outlander would be perfect for me. No. I've only been to Scotland once, and I could tell Diana Gabaldon had never been there (true). The first half was basically love/sex. Claire was a dolt. "Hmm, is this cheating on my husband? No, since he hasn't been born yet. Also, this other dude looks great in a kilt." FFS. I'm also nowhere near in love with Jamie. I know everyone says you have to read the other books to get the Jamie love, but all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit, and he was ass-raped. The end. I know I would totally get run off the old board for suggested I had a "problem" with him BEATING his wife (not even slapping, but all out belting her ass). I'd get a bunch of eyerolls and "you just don't get it" type of posts.

So yeah. I read 800ish pages of this series, was told the second book wasn't that great, but the later books were, and said "fuck it, I'm not reading any more."

END SPOILERS

FWIW, I read it because it got SO many mentions on the board and seemed to be something I would like. I was really surprised when I was not liking it at all halfway through. It ended up being a romance novel disguised as a vaguely sci-fi historical fiction adventure. It just wasn't my type of book. No hard feelings. I was one of THOSE people who posted, "Okay, does this stop being about sex all the time?" and was made fun of. Like, I should probably just stop reading it and kill myself. Helllloo I didn't read the other Outlander posts because I didn't want to spoil the book. Serves me right, I guess.

[amyb2332]

What is the little smiley face next to this post on the main page? The column where all the other posts have little rectangle?

ETA - I read and liked the first Outlander book (although it was slow at first) but I didn't like it enough to ever read the others. I always meant to and I own a bunch of them but I've never quite gotten around to it. I probably will read them at some point.

[bluelikejazz]

The thread I started over there about my outlander hate has made it back into many a new threads.

I tried to stop talking about it, but I never really felt "in" with the crowd after that post.

Meh. I tried. I lost.

[aurora]

May 16, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

SPOILERS IN THIS POST



...all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit...


END SPOILERS

You know, I do like the Outlander series but I still have a really hard time with this specifically. I know it was a different time and women really were treated as property at the time, but even the "resolution" of the event didn't seem adequate to me.

It is a good reminder that I am really glad I was born in the 20th century and in the U.S.

[lemondrop]

May 16, 2012 14:42:26 GMT -5 aurora said:

May 16, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

SPOILERS IN THIS POST



...all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit...


END SPOILERS

You know, I do like the Outlander series but I still have a really hard time with this specifically. I know it was a different time and women really were treated as property at the time, but even the "resolution" of the event didn't seem adequate to me.

It is a good reminder that I am really glad I was born in the 20th century and in the U.S.

It's hard not to let this and the ass raping stuff get to you. I still enjoyed it, but I definitely didn't love readin those parts.

[lemondrop]

May 16, 2012 14:33:56 GMT -5 amyb2332 said:

What is the little smiley face next to this post on the main page? The column where all the other posts have little rectangle?

ETA - I read and liked the first Outlander book (although it was slow at first) but I didn't like it enough to ever read the others. I always meant to and I own a bunch of them but I've never quite gotten around to it. I probably will read them at some point.

On the reply/quote page, there's a drop down menu for message icon. You can change it up to a number of different things.

[moreace01]

May 16, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

SPOILERS IN THIS POST

I love historical fiction. I love Scotland. I thought Outlander would be perfect for me. No. I've only been to Scotland once, and I could tell Diana Gabaldon had never been there (true). The first half was basically love/sex. Claire was a dolt. "Hmm, is this cheating on my husband? No, since he hasn't been born yet. Also, this other dude looks great in a kilt." FFS. I'm also nowhere near in love with Jamie. I know everyone says you have to read the other books to get the Jamie love, but all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit, and he was ass-raped. The end. I know I would totally get run off the old board for suggested I had a "problem" with him BEATING his wife (not even slapping, but all out belting her ass). I'd get a bunch of eyerolls and "you just don't get it" type of posts.



END SPOILERS

This is the reason I chose not to continue. I didn't care for Claire as a female character and I don't really care to read about violence against women (and the fact that readers felt it was justified was beyond me...). It's...the one thing I won't read or watch movies about (and after Girl with a Dragon Tattoo - I make sure to read the book synopsis before I start a book).

[charlatti]

Isn't Outlander another one of those where you're supposed to read 100 or so pages of boring before it gets good? I haven't read it or even tried, but as I said in another thread, I have trouble with that concept. I suppose it doesn't bother me as much with classics.

[msmerymac]

May 16, 2012 14:42:26 GMT -5 aurora said:

May 16, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

SPOILERS IN THIS POST



...all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit...


END SPOILERS

You know, I do like the Outlander series but I still have a really hard time with this specifically. I know it was a different time and women really were treated as property at the time, but even the "resolution" of the event didn't seem adequate to me.

It is a good reminder that I am really glad I was born in the 20th century and in the U.S.

For sure. I have a degree in history, which makes it pretty hard for me to think of another time or place in which I would have wanted to live!

I guess my problem was that we ARE supposed to like Jamie. And yes, people did that back then. Times were very, very different. But a lot of the rest of the book reads like a more modern romance novel. Then the author brings up this random blast from the past. And Jamie doesn't seem to feel that conflicted about it. Don't get me wrong, it's usually nice to see that a hero isn't completely good, or that only the "bad guys" do bad things. But just because something was common 250 years ago doesn't make it "okay." So I'm supposed to like Jamie in spite of that. Even though he wasn't really sorry and didn't see anything wrong with it. Because it was what he was taught and what everyone around him did. Well, that seems like some great moral fiber he has, there.

ETA: It's like how, for as great as Thomas Jefferson was, he was a slaveholder his entire life. He did question it. He felt bad. Just not bad enough to free his slaves during his lifetime. And despite his other accomplishments or the fact that people thought he was a decent guy, I feel like nowadays, no one is apologizing for the fact that he owned slaves, you know? It's like, "Yes, the man who was our 3rd president and a founding father of our country, writer of the Declaration of Independence which proclaimed that all men were created equal was a slave owner. Pretty damn appalling, huh?" Not "OH HE WAS A PRODUCT OF HIS TIME! What an awesome dude!"

[sparrowsong]

Spoilers ahead:

I don't hate the books, and I certainly don't mind that other love them. When it comes to Outlander I'm mostly just fascinated by my own disinterest in them. They are so exactly my style of book. I love historical fiction. I loved giant never-ending books. I love time travel. I love burly Viking-like men with accents. I love medicine women/healer stories and spunky redheads.

And yet these books I've been trudging through for three years now like reading is suddenly a chore and something I put off to do other things. (I'm stubborn and like to finish what I start.) I'm currently on Drums of Autumn which is book 4, I think? Or is it only 3? It's the one where they are up in the mountains of Virginia or N Carolina having near death experiences in snow storms and saving the lives of Indians. I started it in March of 2011. I finally just moved it to my "unfinished" list on Goodreads and admitted that I had better stuff to read. But I do think I'll come back to it at some point.

I briefly was really into the story around the point when they were in the Caribbean on a sugar plantation. I got through that book pretty fast. I also enjoy the parts about her daughter falling in love with that historian guy. But it doesn't seem to expand on her story very much. I'm hoping there will be more about that in the next two books. But then every else kept saying those were the parts they hated, lol.

"It gets better! I promise! Keep going!" That what that board would always say. But it all seems like a big "meh" to me. Maybe I'll be done with them by 2020.

[5kcandlesinthewind]

Yeah, I didn't see what was so amazing about Jamie. At all. And I never got why Claire would want anything to do with him after he beat her. I don't care that beating your wife was ok at that time; she wasn't from that time! You'd think she would have been all "peace out, I can't deal with your caveman nonsense no matter how hot you are."
But then again, Claire was as dumb as a rock. Around about the time she got captured for a third time (I think it was) in the first book, I knew I was out.

[qbert]

I read the first book and really didn't get what the love was all about. *shrugs*

[falada45]

I read it and hated it.

I'd heard so much about it and it seemed right up my alley (time travel, romance, etc.). But I never liked Jamie even a little bit. When they introduced him they kept referring to him as "young Jamie" or something....so I kept reading and thinking "Okay.....so when does HOT Jamie arrive?" But, alas, he never did. I think I gave up at about page 500 and skimmed the rest (it really bugs me not to know how something ends) before I tossed my copy in the trash.

[secretlyevil]

May 16, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

SPOILERS IN THIS POST

I love historical fiction. I love Scotland. I thought Outlander would be perfect for me. No. I've only been to Scotland once, and I could tell Diana Gabaldon had never been there (true). The first half was basically love/sex. Claire was a dolt. "Hmm, is this cheating on my husband? No, since he hasn't been born yet. Also, this other dude looks great in a kilt." FFS. I'm also nowhere near in love with Jamie. I know everyone says you have to read the other books to get the Jamie love, but all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit, and he was ass-raped. The end. I know I would totally get run off the old board for suggested I had a "problem" with him BEATING his wife (not even slapping, but all out belting her ass). I'd get a bunch of eyerolls and "you just don't get it" type of posts.

So yeah. I read 800ish pages of this series, was told the second book wasn't that great, but the later books were, and said "fuck it, I'm not reading any more."

END SPOILERS

FWIW, I read it because it got SO many mentions on the board and seemed to be something I would like. I was really surprised when I was not liking it at all halfway through. It ended up being a romance novel disguised as a vaguely sci-fi historical fiction adventure. It just wasn't my type of book. No hard feelings. I was one of THOSE people who posted, "Okay, does this stop being about sex all the time?" and was made fun of. Like, I should probably just stop reading it and kill myself. Helllloo I didn't read the other Outlander posts because I didn't want to spoil the book. Serves me right, I guess.

He beat her because apparently she would have gotten a "worse" punishment from the clan if he didn't. Not saying I agree with the book or I'm trying to persuade you to love it. I'm just saying that Jamie was trying to protect her, in a really warped - are you fucking kidding me? way.

Also, the first one was wicked graphic. By the time he was rescued by the sadist Randall, I had serious doubts about reading anymore. The torture was just so horrifying. Big wimp here, do not watch horror movies or anything that remotely looks "scary." I approached the second book very cautiously and thankfully none of the others were nearly as graphic in detail as the first one.

Some of the series is a big fat disappointment, she's very inconsistent with her plots, etc. Some of the books are just awesome and then there are those that just suck big twinkies and you wonder - why? The problem is there isn't a pattern either so you don't know if the new book in the series will be phenomenal or just grueling.

[lemondrop]

May 16, 2012 14:49:11 GMT -5 moreace01 said:

May 16, 2012 14:32:47 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

SPOILERS IN THIS POST

I love historical fiction. I love Scotland. I thought Outlander would be perfect for me. No. I've only been to Scotland once, and I could tell Diana Gabaldon had never been there (true). The first half was basically love/sex. Claire was a dolt. "Hmm, is this cheating on my husband? No, since he hasn't been born yet. Also, this other dude looks great in a kilt." FFS. I'm also nowhere near in love with Jamie. I know everyone says you have to read the other books to get the Jamie love, but all I remember from the first book is that he hit Claire because she was his woman or someshit, and he was ass-raped. The end. I know I would totally get run off the old board for suggested I had a "problem" with him BEATING his wife (not even slapping, but all out belting her ass). I'd get a bunch of eyerolls and "you just don't get it" type of posts.



END SPOILERS

This is the reason I chose not to continue. I didn't care for Claire as a female character and I don't really care to read about violence against women (and the fact that readers felt it was justified was beyond me...). It's...the one thing I won't read or watch movies about (and after Girl with a Dragon Tattoo - I make sure to read the book synopsis before I start a book).

I'm not sure people think it's really justified. I know the NBC board is quick to defend it. I think it's more that it happened back then and was historically accurate, which is a weird thing to consider a book based on time traveling.

I also thought it a bit odd that Claire was perfectly fine with it. Of course, wasn't she from the 40s, so women weren't all that powerful then.

[BravoBravo]

I didn't really like it and did not continue with the series.

[sporklemotion]

Spoilers ahead:

I'm slogging my way through the second book (from the library) because so many people said this series was awesome. I keep switching away from it to other things, though, because it's not really holding my attention well. Plus, I don't love books that have mostly mainstream romance but then all of a sudden there's some major historical event and then back to the character-driven romance, if that makes sense. So the whole Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites element isn't really working for me-- I'd rather read non-fiction about it or skip over the Claire/Jamie parts.

Like many of you, I have a HUGE problem with Jamie's beating Claire, and I just found him to be a bizarre character overall-- he's like super manly but a virgin, and when they first meet up they're having sex, like, all the time (and publicly) and he talks about feelings and respects her... sometimes, except when he doesn't because it was a different time and all.
The whole Jonathan Randall rape and then Claire pretending to be Jonathan Randall and helping him deal with the trauma was bizarre to me, too. I was oddly fascinated to see it play out but at the end of the day I didn't feel connected to either character.

If it's not obvious, I'm probably not the target audience here because I don't read a ton of historical fiction-- I'd rather read a classic from the era than a modern reinterpretation of it.

[thinklikeajellyfish]

May 16, 2012 14:23:22 GMT -5 lemondrop said:

At least ten people on this board would have been run off NBC for their Outlander hate. FTR, I really liked Outlander, but I'm really enjoying people being completely honest about it.

I just started reading the posts over here and I'm loving the honesty as well! Different strokes for different folks.

[alithebride]

i read the first and the 2nd. they weren't the worst books I've ever read, they certainly weren't the best either-probably not even worth an honorable mention.
i could take or leave them.
i did however like the size of them. i'm a sucker for a big book.

[MrsAxilla]

May 16, 2012 22:03:50 GMT -5 @swog31 said:

I'm an Outlander fan. Jamie and Claire are one of my favorite literary couples ever. With that said I can understand why some don't like Outlander.

As to the spoiler, my understanding is that it wasn't about how men treated women in that time. If Jamie hadn't of beat Claire, then Dougal would have because she ran to Randall's camp and endangered the entire group. The group had to risk their lives to save Claire. If one of the men in the group had of done the exact thing Claire did, they would have been beaten much worse by Dougal in punishment. That is why the men didn't speak to her before Jamie punished her. I don't think there would have been an uproar if Jamie would have beaten one of the men for the same action, but the uproar is simply because Claire is female. Her actions, placing the group in danger, was worthy of punishment despite being female.

Right. The beating didn't really bother me because of the context. Besides, he "learms" from it and never hits her again (plus she threatens to cut off his balls.)


I enjoyed the series, although it definitely has its slow spots. I don't like how she'll sometimes spend hundreds of pages on some side story and I think it will be sigficant later in some plot twist....but it's not.

[mx27]

love outlander!

[duckduck]

May 18, 2012 17:47:56 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Right. The beating didn't really bother me because of the context. Besides, he "learms" from it and never hits her again (plus she threatens to cut off his balls.)

LOL Exactly! In one of the later books, Jamie and Claire look back on that whole incident. If I remember correctly, Claire is like "Yeah, I love you and all, but you really blew it there, buddy. That is NOT OKAY. EVER." And Jamie is like, "Yeah, I was young and stupid. I still don't think it was quite as bad as you keep saying, but it was pretty bad. I would never do that now." I could be wrong, because it's been a while since I read whatever book that was, but I think that was the jist of it.

I love love love Outlander, but not everyone has to love every book. I never understood why people would start insulting other people for having different opinions about a book. As Ranganathan (old library dude) would say, "Every reader his [or her] book, and every book its reader."

[bluelikejazz]

May 16, 2012 22:03:50 GMT -5 @swog31 said:

I'm an Outlander fan. Jamie and Claire are one of my favorite literary couples ever. With that said I can understand why some don't like Outlander.

As to the spoiler, my understanding is that it wasn't about how men treated women in that time. If Jamie hadn't of beat Claire, then Dougal would have because she ran to Randall's camp and endangered the entire group. The group had to risk their lives to save Claire. If one of the men in the group had of done the exact thing Claire did, they would have been beaten much worse by Dougal in punishment. That is why the men didn't speak to her before Jamie punished her. I don't think there would have been an uproar if Jamie would have beaten one of the men for the same action, but the uproar is simply because Claire is female. Her actions, placing the group in danger, was worthy of punishment despite being female.

I stopped reading pretty much right after this incident. It wasn't because Jamie was a brute and beat Claire. I get that was a piece of the times. I was appalled that Jaime was aroused by beating her. He beat her, then proceeded to have very rough sex with her, to the point of tears. Claire called him a sadist, he asked what that meant, she told him, and he agreed. This is why I will never understand the Outlander love.

[annika]

I didn't like the series. At all. I very stupidly read almost all of them, because my friends who loved the series kept convincing me to give it ONE MORE TRY, or because I'd be stuck at a cabin druing summer vacation and it would start raining and it would be the only book around, or whatever. I don't think the story lines are interesting, I can't get emotionally invested in the characters (I HATE Jamie), and the many sex scenes which many seem to find hot I find annoying.