-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
February 2013: Diana Gabaldon: Outlander
- Thread starter Landslide
- Start date
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Not sure how much to say at the moment. Of course, I've read it before, but did a reread last week. How are spoilers handled? Should/could we treat the thread as though anyone that is here has actually, in fact, read it? Or disguise plot points at first?
One thing I wondered about was if anyone has actually been to the area in which the book takes place.
One thing I wondered about was if anyone has actually been to the area in which the book takes place.
zen
New Member
i have read this series, some time ago now.. i classed it as a romance, and avoided it like the plague, which is how i treat all romances.. till a friend told me to at least try the first book.. i actually enjoyed the historical/adventure side to it, and went on to read the rest regardless of the romance tag. i liked Gabaldon's writing style...
pontalba
Well-Known Member
zen, I've read the entire series as well, and while it does have it's ups and downs, in general, I loved them. Romance in general is not my genre at all, but these seem to defy all description.
It's interesting, the manner in which she came to writing. Evidently the first one was in a way, an experiment. She wanted to see if she could write a story/book. No one knew just how the heck to classify it.
It's interesting, the manner in which she came to writing. Evidently the first one was in a way, an experiment. She wanted to see if she could write a story/book. No one knew just how the heck to classify it.
Ronny
Well-Known Member
I put off reading the Outlander books because I don't like romance too, but I did really enjoy them. I think because they are much more than just a romance, adventure or time travel story and she is one of the few authors that strikes that perfect balance of description that takes me into the story but doesn't bog it down.
katniss 119
New Member
O.K. so I read this series a while ago but the first book has always bothered me. So, SPOILER ALERT cuz I'm gonna unleash here.
So...Jaime's captured. Fine. He's tortured. Also fine, I'm O.K. with a little craziness. Then she took it WAY TOO FAR!! Was I the only one screaming at my e-reader "take it back!!!". She basically ruined him. He'll never be the same so what's the point since he's the one character I completely love.
Oh, but never fear! Clair will just throw some stupid, ridiculous, unclear of what is actually happening séance and voilà!!! Jaime's good as new!
Is it just me or did she completely cheat on that one? I was so upset just because I really did love the first 3 quarters of this book!
Good news is that in the next (what 7 books or so) no repeats of any similar situations but I still just want her to go back and take back the grotesque violation and leave it at just the brutal torturing so she doesn't have to invent some invalid way out of it.
Anyone else find that or am I just the one lunatic who falls into the stories she reads and gets way too passionate?
So...Jaime's captured. Fine. He's tortured. Also fine, I'm O.K. with a little craziness. Then she took it WAY TOO FAR!! Was I the only one screaming at my e-reader "take it back!!!". She basically ruined him. He'll never be the same so what's the point since he's the one character I completely love.
Oh, but never fear! Clair will just throw some stupid, ridiculous, unclear of what is actually happening séance and voilà!!! Jaime's good as new!
Is it just me or did she completely cheat on that one? I was so upset just because I really did love the first 3 quarters of this book!
Good news is that in the next (what 7 books or so) no repeats of any similar situations but I still just want her to go back and take back the grotesque violation and leave it at just the brutal torturing so she doesn't have to invent some invalid way out of it.
Anyone else find that or am I just the one lunatic who falls into the stories she reads and gets way too passionate?
kelstan
Member
Clair didn't throw a seance - by using opium, scent, touch and sound, she tricked Jamie's senses into going back to that night and gave him a chance to fight off his attacker, which is a common method used in treating trauma. By giving him a chance to fight, he regained a sense of control over what happened to him - sort of a chance to right some of the things he did wrong. You might want to reread that part, because my take on it is not the same as yours.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
kelstan,
Good take on the incident. Jamie was suffering from a sort of what I suppose must have been post-traumatic stress......not being able to fight back and suffering such awful injuries. Claire, using the methods of.......oh drat, the witch....what was her name. Not home now, and can't remember her name, anyhow, her method for conjuring. It was a little confusing though. But the scent and rough talk by Claire was enough to bring Jamie back to that time.
The part that also was a bit TMI was when she was reconstructing his hand. Gosh, that was graphic.
I almost felt sorry for the wolf though.......
Good take on the incident. Jamie was suffering from a sort of what I suppose must have been post-traumatic stress......not being able to fight back and suffering such awful injuries. Claire, using the methods of.......oh drat, the witch....what was her name. Not home now, and can't remember her name, anyhow, her method for conjuring. It was a little confusing though. But the scent and rough talk by Claire was enough to bring Jamie back to that time.
The part that also was a bit TMI was when she was reconstructing his hand. Gosh, that was graphic.
I almost felt sorry for the wolf though.......
katniss 119
New Member
I've read them all. I know it changed his character for sure. All I meant is that the particular part where Diana did the whole "healing" ritual felt a little unconvincing before Kelstan explained that this is a common thing in trauma situations. I can't assume most people who haven't had first hand experience with this sort of thing would know about these particular practices...at least I sure didn't. Now that I know it makes a little more sense though. Just breaks my heart that Jamie had to go through that...I just wish she wouldn't have taken it "there" is all I'm saying. I guess that's my complaint.
I hate that it happens and I hate to read about it. (spoiler alert for the other books!) 3 of the main characters had situations that while maybe not quite as violent, were still disturbing. I would have enjoyed the series more if she could have...well...not went there. Regardless how common it was back then. No one wants to read about that...or at least I sure don't.
I hate that it happens and I hate to read about it. (spoiler alert for the other books!) 3 of the main characters had situations that while maybe not quite as violent, were still disturbing. I would have enjoyed the series more if she could have...well...not went there. Regardless how common it was back then. No one wants to read about that...or at least I sure don't.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
I suppose it boils down to how realistic one wants their fiction. Gabaldon does take it to the limit sometimes, I have to agree. OTOH, that is exactly what makes her fiction/characters so vivid. They love, suffer, sometimes horribly, but they persevere. They survive. I consider that a valuable lesson, in any time frame.
I know,some say fiction is supposed to be entertaining, not necessarily instructive. But. Isn't it better when it manages both?
The way Gabaldon presented the intense conflict in Claire's emotions regarding Jamie and Frank were done realistically I thought.
Can you all imagine how she felt when she first saw Jack Randall??
What did you think about the way DG handled the time displacement "emotions" Claire felt?
I know,some say fiction is supposed to be entertaining, not necessarily instructive. But. Isn't it better when it manages both?
The way Gabaldon presented the intense conflict in Claire's emotions regarding Jamie and Frank were done realistically I thought.
Can you all imagine how she felt when she first saw Jack Randall??
What did you think about the way DG handled the time displacement "emotions" Claire felt?
I think she did a great job with time displacement emotions. Each time I read these books I imagine what and how I would feel. I'm guessing it would be different for each person but I can believe how Claire is feeling and even more so with Dragonfly in Amber and the impending war.
About Jamie's trauma. From a story line point, it absolutely moves the story ahead and plays into side storylines. Not all books are happy all the way through. Bad and sometimes terrible things happen to good characters. It brings realism into the story. if everything went fine and the characters always escaped int he nick of time, to me the story would be a cheat and uninteresting.
About Jamie's trauma. From a story line point, it absolutely moves the story ahead and plays into side storylines. Not all books are happy all the way through. Bad and sometimes terrible things happen to good characters. It brings realism into the story. if everything went fine and the characters always escaped int he nick of time, to me the story would be a cheat and uninteresting.
katniss 119
New Member
Lol! I see what you're both saying for sure. For me though, when it happened to Clair it almost felt like I was going through it with her which effected me more than I would have thought. I read because books become real to me...it was like I was there with her watching and couldn't do anything to help. I read some disturbing grotesque books and am not one of those people who needs everything to be all butterflies and rainbows but she could have used secondary characters telling their stories after the fact and I feel that would have achieved the realism without being so first hand. Probably what I felt is what she was trying to achieve though. I'm not saying it was poorly written at all! In fact, I'm saying the opposite...maybe it was written too well! Lol! Just a little too real and too first hand for my taste personally is all I'm saying.
I think she did a good job with time displacement. I do feel a strong, proud, 20th century girl would have held a grudge a lot longer after "the spanking" incident, but other than that it was very believable! Lol!
As for Jack Randall...no kidding right! To have such an evil man resemble so closely someone you once loved! No, I can't even BEGINE to imagine!!!
I think she did a good job with time displacement. I do feel a strong, proud, 20th century girl would have held a grudge a lot longer after "the spanking" incident, but other than that it was very believable! Lol!
As for Jack Randall...no kidding right! To have such an evil man resemble so closely someone you once loved! No, I can't even BEGINE to imagine!!!
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Oh, man.....I'm with ya! Deal breaker.
However, that is my personal reaction. It made my blood boil.
But. He did save her from being burned as a witch, I suppose that'll have to be compensation. :banghead6mx:
For the characters and the time in which it took place, the spanking made (grrrrr) sense. Jamie had to have the men's respect, and if he couldn't control "his own woman", how could he lead them in any battle.
Unfortunately that was the way of the world then.