Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Great review Chelsea! I really enjoyed this book, but your points are spot-on (I often enjoy books despite some obvious issues that would normally make me see red - I think because other things in them more than make up for it?).

I certainly noticed that Gabaldon has some kind of obsession with spanking. Her characters - especially Jamie - kept going on and on about being spanked. It kinda stuck out for me :)

I can see some of the things people liked about it - Claire was a strong character, and time travel is flat out awesome when it's done well (that's why I read the book in the first place). And Jamie is supposed to be hot and strong and desirable.

The spanking thing really ruined it for me.

I am currently reading this book. Several different people assured me that I would like this book because they know how much I enjoy historical fiction and how much I enjoyed reading Pillars of the Earth, World Without End, The Other Bolyen Girl, etc. I am now 500 pages in (right around the spanking), and still can't help but think of this book like "Dr. Who meets the Viking Harlequin Romance." I am still waiting for something redeeming to occur. I WILL finish this book but doubt that I will be in a hurry to pick up #2 in the series. So many good books to read and never enough time....I can't wait to be finished with this one so I can move on......

The fact that most people on the planet like this book means that most people have different taste in books than I do. Nothing wrong with that.

I picked up this book because people told me it was well written, and because I like books that incorporate time travel - no one handed it to me and said, "man, wait til you get to the spankings and gay rape, they're awesome." So, yes, I had problems with those parts, and yes, I think they took away from what little I liked about the rest of the book. But more importantly: not well written, and 400 pages too long.

It's nice for you that you enjoyed the book, and that you're lucky enough to have five more of the same in front of you. I didn't like it, and I said so. Gabaldon published the book and I paid money for it (though, I bought a used copy, so she didn't see any of that money, ha ha), so I get to say whatever I want about it. That's how it works.

I do like writing snarky reviews, especially when the book warrants them. Do you enjoy leaving cranky messages on people's reviews?

Just to add, somewhat snarkily, to Chelsea's mild-mannered reply: how do you know you don't like a book until you've read it? And I don't think she was objecting to strong language etc. per se, but that she didn't think it was handled realistically.

Personally, I love snarky reviews, even when my own is quite the opposite :) If Chelsea doesn't mind that I enjoyed this book, why should I mind that she didn't?

Touché, ma soeur!

It would be a boring world if we all liked the same things. I love the Outlander series, have read them all and recommend them to friends, but don't expect everyone to like them.

Kayla wrote: "I thought the spanking thing was hillarious! Especially the part leading up to it.

It seems as though your modern sensibilities are tainting your ability to understand that thats the way things..."

Oh, Kayla, I find several things worrisome about your comment: 1) that you think a series of novels about a time traveling know-it-all nurse is realistic historical fiction, 2) your take on gender politics, historical or otherwise, and 3) your definition of "modern", because unless Gabaldon is a time traveler herself, this book comes from the same time period as me, the reader, so how do my modern sensibilities cause such a big problem in my enjoyment of the book? And for that matter, why don't yours, if that's the issue here?

I'm very sorry if my disliking this book somehow hurts your feelings. :)

And if you're into spanking, who am I to judge, right?

I've read the first four books in this series, but I had to stop at that point; I just couldn't motivate myself to finish the series.

I didn't have a big problem with the spanking scene. In fact, I thought it was handled rather well. Too often, romance fiction tends to modernize characters from historical periods. In 1742, a husband would have been well within his rights to physically discipline his wife. As this Wikipedia entry for makes clear, there were far worse punishments for women at the time. (If you're interested in the scold's bridle, wrote an amazing essay on them.) While the scold's bridle wasn't used all that much in the eighteenth century, it is evidence of the kind of punishment afforded to women.

If Jamie had been kind and understanding, talking to Claire calmly about what she did wrong, without physically punishing her, he would have been much more anachronistic.

Personally, I have to admit that I like the fact that Jamie (at this point in his life) was willing to admit that he was sexually aroused by the violence, but chose not to act on it. Throughout the book, Gabaldon continues to explore the connections between sex and violence and punishment.

All that said, none of this makes it "OK" that Jamie spanked Claire. I really don't think readers are supposed to enjoy that scene.

Agree with Nan, if all historical fiction was written for "modern" tastes, it wouldn't be historical fiction, it would be modern feminism fiction. I liked this book because it was well written, beautifully detailed and the characters were fascinating. I find "romance" boring and although, I could do without the sex scenes, I'm glad Diana Gabaldon did not put a modern Harlequin formula in her series.

Some people have trouble thinking outside the 21st century box. While I was reading the series, I actually thought Jamie was ahead of his time and better at dealing with a 20th century Claire than she was in dealing with 18th century Scotland. Sometimes Claire annoyed me but it would have been a great culture shock. I really liked the books because I enjoyed all those picky little picky details of culture and history.

The spanking scene is what made me quit reading this thing! It was revolting! Well said in your review.

I did make it past the spanking scene, but just barely. I couldn't finish it. I really tried, as several friends told me how great the book was. I've thought about going back and trying again, but there are so many other books I would rather spend my time (and money) on.

you have to remember, that was acceptable in that time. It would not be acceptable a few centuries later. Women were property not individuals. I personally don't like a woman being forced in any century but it done in that era.

I have to say that I am thankful to find other readers who feel as I do about this book. I just figured my taste in novels is very different than 90 percent of the population. I suppose people enjoy this for the titillation factor. I am halfway through and not sure I can finish it. I do have to find out what the water horse has to do with it....unless you guys can just tell me. :) does the water horse spank anyone?

I read the first four in the series. I won't repeat what I heard but Diana made a comment at a writers conference that was overheard (by one of the writers in my writer's group) that caused me not to want to buy anymore of her books. I enjoyed the ones I read; however, I pefer Christian Fiction where I don't have to worry about spankings (except for maybe a bratty child), etc. Isn't it great that we all enjoy different thing about books. Sry 4 typo's. Someone spilled coke on my keyboard but haven't been abe to get all of it out. (I don't drinks sodas)

I love the reviewers that call this book "dirty, smutty, and violent" among other things, but then they go and list Twilight, Hunger Games and Fifty Shades among their favorites.

Agree and disagree with various aspects of the actual writing, seems the readers are the ones obsessed with the spanking. Acceptable only back then? Lol. How naive.

I really don't understand the whole fuss over this. It's a BOOK, a fictional story. If you dislike it, then no one is forcing you to read it. Find something else that is "worthy" of your time. Also, when you say.. " I honestly find it hard to believe that there's five more books of this, and that people read them." Yes, people read a lot of things that you may not like, why are you so shocked? Should we all dump our books and follow your personal reading interests? I'm sorry, but if at any time you felt bothered by this book, it is you who is quite silly for continuing to reading it, and then wasting your time with a review.

Kayla, your initial comment was spot on.

Nyree wrote: "I really don't understand the whole fuss over this. It's a BOOK, a fictional story. If you dislike it, then no one is forcing you to read it. Find something else that is "worthy" of your time. Also..."

Hi Nyree.

It's hard to know if I will like a book until I read it, that usually why I read them in the first place. I generally finish books I start, since most authors deserve the benefit of the doubt.

If my not liking this book somehow ruins your day, I'm not sure how to fix that for you. Maybe don't read negative reviews of books you are emotionally attached to? I'm not even being sarcastic, that's how I operate. I realize my review was short, but I think you're quite silly for reading it and then wasting your time on a comment. :)

Kayla wrote: "Chelsea wrote: Oh, Kayla, I find several things worrisome about your comment: 1) that you think a series of novels about a time traveling know-it-all nurse is realistic historical fiction, 2) your ..."

Oh hey, Kayla. If that's been festering for the last three years I am super sorry. You should spend more time on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, you're sure to find someone you like more than me to talk to!

I was left wanting more and am an avid fan.. I got to the end of the 900 pages and had withdrawal.. Different strokes..

I completely agree with your review.

I totally agree on the spanking part... Really bothered me but also I know that woman in that time received far far far far worse punishments but still I was annoyed over that scene

Read this - then 50 Shades of Gray might not be so shocking!

50 Shades of Grey was the worst piece of **** to ever be written. I have to plant a tree to replace the paper that was wasted to have that horrific literature upon it

^^ EXACTLY how I felt!!! Lol, love the tree planting idea to make peace with the reading of it.

Thanks :)

I don't see that anyone made the comment that it made sense for the scene. She caused a problem, the men were passed, not addressing it would have made things 10 times worse for her and Jamie with the men. Do I agree with spanking/beating a woman? Nope. Not at all. But she is in a different time. Women were property. Doesn't make it right, but it still happened. Pretending it didn't helps no one. So it is good to put that knowledge of the scene in the book out there so others can avoid it that want to. I enjoyed the book over all but definitely not this scene. But I do see it as historical accuracy.

Kelli wrote: "I don't see that anyone made the comment that it made sense for the scene. She caused a problem, the men were passed, not addressing it would have made things 10 times worse for her and Jamie with ..."

I just finished this book, cruelly lured into it by the toothsome Sam Heughan and the Starz series, and couldn't agree more with Chelsea's review. For those arguing that the wife-beating and subsequent rape-tastic sex scenes are simply realistic:

1. The author chose this specific aspect of 1743 to focus on, out of all the many that are historically accurate. Why didn't she explore in detail the equally historically true fact that Jamie very likely had terrible rotting teeth?

2. Have you ever read a work of historical fiction and said to yourself, "Gee, that's too bad! This novel would have been perfect, if only there had been a realistic wife-beating scene!"

3. You can't have your historical cake and eat it, too. Sure, wife-beating happened in the 18th century. OK, throw it in. But to be historically accurate, you can bet that none of the 18th-century wives so treated regarded their marriage as a perfect eternal love affair between two equals, either. Claire, inexplicably, does. This is where all realism (historical OR modern) takes a hike and Gabaldon indulges in goofy romantic slop the likes of which I have only otherwise encountered in sexist romance fiction like Clan of the Cave Bears.

4. It's not about Jamie, it's about Claire's reaction to his behavior.

5. Like a touch of spanky-spank in your novels? Great! No problem! Just don't pretend it's something other than it is.

I really wish that 3/4 of this book had had a plot, a severe editorial haircut and any first-person narrator other than the bizarrely incurious Claire.

Agree!!!! How bout all the oral shenanigans!!! You throw in some historically correct beating, and forced sex, but in a time where hygiene was not particularly prevalent... I'm sure he didn't taste (nor would she) like cotton candy and sugar snaps. She coming from the time she did, would actually have been repulsed by him (and his rotten teeth) The 30 year old virgin that was magical in bed (talk about inaccuracies) who beat her, and essentially raped her.... Her reaction??? "Oh wells! I love him (never mind that pesky husband I have in my real time. I think later, I'll rescue him from torture and some rape of his own. I shall use COWS!!!" Rubbish.

Kimberly wrote: "Agree!!!! How bout all the oral shenanigans!!! You throw in some historically correct beating, and forced sex, but in a time where hygiene was not particularly prevalent... I'm sure he didn't taste..."

hehehehe loved your comment!!

Thanks... I truly despised this book. Lol

The wife beating scenes are horrific. The rape scenes are horrific. The man on man rape scenes are double horrific in their detail.

I picked up the book looking for some fun, kinda kinky sex with men who go commando in the heather and was confronted with some of the most uncritical and graphic descriptions of rape as social control, sexual sadism (handled with shocking homophobia,) and spousal abuse. Every time I point it out, I'm called a prude. Nope. Not a prude.

I hope it's not poor form to reference my own review in your thread but wanted to do so because we both had different horrified reactions. You brought up an excellent point in mentioning the book's reputation. It's fairly horrifying to me that it is so frequently promoted as edgy feminist erotica light. There's nothing feminist (unless the fact of women having any opinions at all is what passes for feminism now)about it and its eroticism is anything but light. How are people reading this and not getting that?

I really liked the "spanking" scene because it was realistic. Considering that Claire almost killed them all, in that time and in that place, she got away lightly. This isn't feminist litterature, though Claire tends to be quite fiesty.

That said, I don't mean to criticise your review, but to just comment on the subject.

Ok, I see that my comment sounds a little disturbing, but if you think about it, if a man did what Claire did, he would likely be killed for risking all of their lives. Why should Claire, just because she's a woman, not receive a punishment?

Marte, what really bothers me about the argument that "Claire deserved punishment" is that this entirely ignores the fact that Claire was ALREADY physically brutalized and on the verge of being raped by Jack Randall. This was a direct consequence of her running away. Why is that not already a sufficient punishment for any grown woman?!

That may be, but as Jamie said, had it been one of the lads that had done it, they could have ended up dead. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean that she can get away with everything.

Marte wrote: "Just because she's a woman doesn't mean that she can get away with everything."

But that's the point: she "gets away" with nothing! She was brutalized by Captain Jack. Why isn't this enough punishment?

You think she somehow hadn't figured out by herself that she made a mistake when she was attacked, knifed and almost raped?

I simply cannot understand any justification for a woman who was just tortured and almost raped being beaten with a leather strap by her husband ON TOP of that. Nope.

No, actually, I didn't. She seemed rather cocky and wondered ALOT about why the men seemed angry at her. I still think that she got what she deserved, consideribg the time and place. And Jamie, if he had been anything like the norm back then, could have killed his wife for almost killing all of them! I'm not one of those who thinks that because she's a woman she is too fragile to receive punishment or justice. She put it on her self.

No, actually, I didn't. She seemed rather cocky and wondered ALOT about why the men seemed angry at her. I still think that she got what she deserved, consideribg the time and place. And Jamie, if he had been anything like the norm back then, could have killed his wife for almost killing all of them! I'm not one of those who thinks that because she's a woman she is too fragile to receive punishment or justice. She put it on her self.

Kimberly wrote: "Agree!!!! How bout all the oral shenanigans!!! You throw in some historically correct beating, and forced sex, but in a time where hygiene was not particularly prevalent... I'm sure he didn't taste..."

He wasn't thirty. He was in his early twenties, and he still had good teeth which if you read on, Claire was careful to preserve. He bathed regularly unlike some in that culture. These things were SOME of the reasons he was supposed to be why he was such a great catch.

Gabaldon did clean it up some but you still have to take in the culture and the times. You can't look at 18th century practices with 21st century eyes and judge. (IMHO)

Kelli wrote: "I don't see that anyone made the comment that it made sense for the scene. She caused a problem, the men were passed, not addressing it would have made things 10 times worse for her and Jamie with ..."

Thank you.

That so many women seem to love this books makes me question the sanity of the human race even more than I did before.

Anna, that you would say such a thing makes me question YOUR sanity. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else should agree with you.

You changed my mind about reading the book. Thanks a million

Everyone, as the book explains further on, Jamie himself was applied the same method by his father- obviously, the spanking/beating. As we well know, many men act like their fathers when in doubt, so I think it is understandable what happens to Claire. I'm not saying that I didn't cringe in repulsion at these scenes, and many others to come, which for a person in our century, are hard to understand, but I kind of understand why this happened and why it wasn't seen as a very big problem- divorce reason as it is now. Claire herself wasn't a modern woman, although she was more emancipated than women in 1743. I would call her independent, but I think, if her parents had lived, she would have most probably witnessed some of the same behaviour in ten, fifteen years before the action in the book in her home and would also have considered it normal. I would say that the book has a lot of well written parts, as well as a lot of scenes most people would like to erase, in order for the lecture to be easier to digest.

Anna- that's what I think about the obsessed fans of Twilight and 50 Shades. Pure trash, lousy writing, shitty plots, lucrative plot holes, and yet they've made millions when good writers are still struggling to get published.

I haven't read Outlander yet, somewhat procrastinating on it, but I wanted to read the negative reviews to see a REAL review. Reading people rave about a book doesn't prepare you or even give you an honest review; it's just a sales pitch. So that's why I'm reading the negative reviews.

I plan to read it eventually... just don't know when. I do enjoy the show, however.