Am I the only female who has a problem with Outlander??

[flyingiguana]

Half my book club is totally enamored of these books.  When they explained why, I decided I didn't need to read them.  Nor did I need to support these sort of publications by buying them, or even increasing the demand at the library.  I don't see any reason why violence against women needs to be marketed as porn disguised as literature.

 

So, yes, there are a number of women who apparently find this a turn on.  The way it was explained to me, it's not that they find it interesting from a historical or psychological perspective or whatever, but that the violence actually increases the character's charisma/sexiness.  This was actually said to me -- not something I just assumed.  I'm guessing this is not an isolated view. 

 

There may be plenty who read the books DESPITE the violence, but there are a significant number who read BECAUSE of the violence (and I only happen to know the latter).

 

And sometimes I wonder why I haven't found a book club that doesn't focus so much on literary porn.  (Well, I know why -- it's because I feel it's a way to stay in touch with what's going on in our neighborhood.)  But I don't read the books that are picked out by certain people.  They are almost invariably porn masquerading as literature.  It's not that I find porn offensive, but I think it is cutting into the literature market to the point where literature won't even exist anymore (even fantasy, which many probably don't qualify as "literature").  I don't feel right supporting the demise of actual writing either.

[madteaparty]

I'm not sure what the "better stuff" is either. I mean, of course there's better stuff - they're light entertainment. I read a lot of better stuff... But I get why people find them compelling.

Tell me! I really want to read lighter stuff, I don't need substance because I don't watch tv so I need the light, end of day reading :) but I cannot make it through this book for the writing.

[flyingiguana]

I tried Pillars of the Earth.  Couldn't finish it just because it never really went anywhere.  Each chapter was just an excuse for another violent scene without (as far as i could tell) any plot to tie it together.

 

Once again, it looked like a great idea, but great books just aren't getting published anymore.  Instead, they're just great ideas with a lot of sex and violence to sell to a large crowd.

 

If someone wants to put violence and sex into a great book, I could change my mind about this trend, but I just don't think it's going to happen.  The sex and violence are catering to a particular subset of the reading population -- a subset that is probably bored by an actual plot and actual characters.  Unfortunately, the big publishers only want to publish books that sell in the mega millions.  They can't be bothered with good books that don't sell as much -- they'd rather cater to only one large market, rather than that large market and a smaller market on the side.

 

That's my take on it, anyway.  To disprove my thesis, I'd have to read a lot of books that have come out in recent years.  Unfortunately, though, I've just given up reading anything new. 

 

One of these days, I'm hoping someone with marketing expertise and a vision is going to come along and change this.  (I mention this here in hopes that someone reading is that person, but that they just need someone to point it out....)

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't care for Outlander, I read the first one and it was ok I just couldn't get through the second book. I may watch the TV series but I don't have cable, it just depends on whether or not it is on Hulu. 

 

I did not like Pillars of the Earth. I seems like he goes down a the list of character archetypes and then just checks them off the list when he uses them, then when he starts the next book he goes down the list of archetypes and makes sure he uses each one again. I also read World Without End. I was stuck in an airport when I read Pillars of the Earth, I was so  astounded that such a formulaic novel was popular that I felt compelled to read another, World Without End seemed like the same book. Does he use the same outline for all his books?

 

I don't care about the spanking, she nearly got them killed. I think the chick in that 50 Shades of Grey was probably spanked quite a bit more but I have not read that novel so I cannot say for certain. I am less offended by the spanking than I am by the "strong willed woman behaving badly and needs a dressing down" thing.

[Slartibartfast]

Not a fan of the bible then?

 

What does this mean?

[Erin]

I wouldn't say either is my favorite, but I've read and enjoyed both the Outlander series and Pillars of the Earth.  

My husband has read all of the latter's series, while I only made it through the first.  But Outlander is more history-ish, my thing, while Pillars is building/designing, Trap's thing.  
Personally, I didn't find Outlander all that hung up in abuse or sex.   Maybe I have it framed in the context of the entire series, though.  

For that matter, I didn't think Pillars really was, either but I listened to that one, rather than reading it.   I've noticed a story tends to flow(?) better when listening, whereas reading I dwell on different aspects more.  

 

To the spanking in particular, I think it adds to the entire series.  Jamie is supposed to be a forward-thinking guy of his era, but this gives us an idea of what that actually means.  However, as the series progresses, we find him adopting more and more of Claire's modern ideologies, to the point of 20th c. modern.  The grandpa we meet in the last couple of books, is a different person than the young man of the first.  

I've enjoyed seeing that growth.  

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I like the books. I read them knowing the time frame, so I'm not offended when actions occur within that context. Do I approve of the behavior? Of course not.

 

I enjoy the journey Claire and Jamie are taking together through life, I enjoy the historical back ground.

 

You could take out the descriptions of sex and still see their journey. But how they approach intimacy in their relationship does help with character development. It needn't be graphic though,

 

Removing the violence would distort the story, physical punishments were the norm. Violence of some kind was a way to settle disputes. Sports and recreation were often violent in nature as well.

 

I don't care if someone dislikes the books. I do take offense as being told I don't like books with character development and plot. I prefer it, I just don't get hung up on descriptive sex scenes or violence either.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

What does this mean?

I assume it means the Bible contains a great deal of sex, rape, and violence.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I didn't get a whole BDSM vibe from that scene or from that book for that matter.   I haven't read that book in a long time, but, as I recall, Claire did something that endangered the entire company (didn't she try to get back to the ruins that got her in this time period? Or am I confusing this with another part?)  The expectation was the Jamie was supposed to "discipline his woman" or he would have lost the respect of his group.  I never got the sense that he enjoyed it, but that it was the culturally expected treatment in this situation.  She didn't like it - she was infuriated. I certainly didn't get the impression that she was immediately "oh, isn't he just dreamy" after that, but very conflicted about her feelings for him.  She began to see things in their cultural context and that is when she was able to put that behind her.  The only BDSM vibe I got was when her modern-time husband's ancestor/look-alike raped and tortured Jamie.  And that wasn't for the titillation of the readers ... it was supposed to horrify.  She later invited a beating from Jamie as part of the witchcraft/exorcism of those painful associations from his torture.  

 

I didn't like those parts and certainly didn't like that whole witchcraft thing, but on a whole, I didn't get this unhealthy vibe from their relationship.  But, then again, I didn't read any further books because several friends told me that the first one was the best and the others were "don't bother."

[Slartibartfast]

I assume it means the Bible contains a great deal of sex, rape, and violence.

 

Oh, I didn't know what it was in response to so it seemed random. :lol:

[Erin]

But, then again, I didn't read any further books because several friends told me that the first one was the best and the others were "don't bother."

 

Oooh!  I thought the first was the weakest!

 

[Farrar]

Tell me! I really want to read lighter stuff, I don't need substance because I don't watch tv so I need the light, end of day reading :) but I cannot make it through this book for the writing.

 

I just mean, I read a variety of things and some of them are quality classics or things I would call real literature - and perhaps that's "better" but that's not why I read Outlander.  Outlander is light and silly.  The writing is okay - I feel like it ranges from cheesy to overly detailed to good - basically it's uneven.  It's just sort of fun.  But if it's not your sort of fun, then there are other sorts of light and cheesy books.  I feel like YA is usually a good bet for light read and sometimes YA books are classics worthy as well.

[DragonFaerie]

Why does Claire's "punishment" have to be spanking?  If it had been a man who did what she did, would Jamie have also spanked him?  I highly doubt it. The fact that her punishment was spanking makes it more sexual and less "punishment," IMO.  I think I would have understood the punishment idea more if he had actually hit her as he would one of his men.

[bolt.]

I think that the first book really developed from a fan-fiction-ish set up for a sexy story with emotional involvement... Passing through being a formulaic romance novel, including the obligatory sequence of increasingly graphic/intense scenes, and the manditory scene with spanking, violence or consent issues (because many women find that 'intense' as a reader)... And finally coming out the other end as a tolerably good historical semi-Sci-Fi book where the sex just happens to be more specifically discribed than the norm for that genre.

 

As such, Jamie needed to shift from being a bodice-ripping product of his times into a stronger, more respectable character. This shift is cast as part of his growing up into manhood, and very much due to his exposure to (and respect for) his wife from more enlightened times.

 

I don't think we are meant to "approve" of everything he does, yet he remains the romantic lead. And that's, ok with me -- so far. I'm not finishe the series yet.

 

As someone who quite likes fictional history and Sci if with time travel -- I do read less sexy stuff, and like. However, I'm also someone who likes some steamy contrived fan fiction, just for giggles. I'm surprised to find both elements in the same series, but it doesn't bother me.

 

(Note: finding thorny issues 'intense' as a reader is not the same as lacking a real-life understanding that the realities of consent, abuse and rape in real life. It merely acknowledges that no persons were actually assaulted by setting pen to paper, and that fantasy is just not the same thing as reality. Actual writing about actual assault has absolutely nothing in common with the kind if writing one encounters while reading a 'bodice-ripper' novel.)

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Why does Claire's "punishment" have to be spanking? If it had been a man who did what she did, would Jamie have also spanked him? I highly doubt it. The fact that her punishment was spanking makes it more sexual and less "punishment," IMO. I think I would have understood the punishment idea more if he had actually hit her as he would one of his men.

I guess they could've flogged her, whipped her publicly, punched her around, or even just executed her instead of taking a leather belt to her.

[DragonFaerie]

I guess they could've flogged her, whipped her publicly, punched her around, or even just executed her instead of taking a leather belt to her.

 

No idea.  It just would have been less gross to me if she had been punished in a way similar to a man would have been punished, albeit it still could have been done in private to protect her or whatever.

[bolt.]

I doubt that "at the time" the ways women were punished would have been similar to the ways men would have been punished. It was a differentiated society.

 

But there is later info I think involving belt spanking (in public) as a normal punishment for young males -- not soldiers, though.

 

Married women, having no public standing (no direct relationship to 'the public'), would have been considered a husband's private responsibility to manage. Brutality would have been more acceptable than non-management, but public display would have shamed the husband. Therefore (in the contrived situation) the resulting punishment is cast as similar to the response of a 'reasonable' father of those times: measured, formal, private, etc.

 

Note: it's still the author that set up a situation requiring her heroine to be 'punished' by the romantic male, in the day and age where beatings happens to be normal. She wanted to tell that story, to set the spanking where it would be titaltaing but not diaristically offensive. You see that a lot in the romance genre: the situation is manipulated to make thorny things happen without them seeming 'too wrong'.

 

The whole set up is one of, "How can I send a modern woman somewhere where she can fall in love with a romantic man who is a little brutal around the edges, and they can have lots of interesting intense sex?" -- it's exactly what she set out to write at first (in my opinion).

[scrapbookbuzz]

I've never read a Dianna Gabaldon book and won't because: she was the guest speaker at a local library (a PUBLIC, FAMILY venue) and she chose to read from her newest novel. What she chose to read in this public venue was a scene of oral sex between non-married adults. Anyone's child, of any age, could have walked in at any time and heard that! I was disappointed that 1) the library would allow that and 2) that the author herself didn't exercise better discernment on what's appropriate to read at a venue such as the library.

[Slartibartfast]

I guess they could've flogged her, whipped her publicly, punched her around, or even just executed her instead of taking a leather belt to her.

 

The book would have been quite a bit shorter.

[Shellydon]

Read half of the first book and thought is was dumb.  I have no idea why it is popular at all.

[Erin]

Why does Claire's "punishment" have to be spanking?  If it had been a man who did what she did, would Jamie have also spanked him?  I highly doubt it. The fact that her punishment was spanking makes it more sexual and less "punishment," IMO.  I think I would have understood the punishment idea more if he had actually hit her as he would one of his men.

 

I didn't think it was sexual at all.  

It was basically the same punishment that would have been meted out to a child.  Women of the era being only slightly more elevated than children (or slightly less, depending on company)

[Slartibartfast]

I think that the first book really developed from a fan-fiction-ish set up for a sexy story with emotional involvement... Passing through being a formulaic romance novel, including the obligatory sequence of increasingly graphic/intense scenes, and the manditory scene with spanking, violence or consent issues (because many women find that 'intense' as a reader)... And finally coming out the other end as a tolerably good historical semi-Sci-Fi book where the sex just happens to be more specifically discribed than the norm for that genre.

 

 

 

I heard Dianna Gabaldon admit on NPR that she writes Supernatural fanfiction. :lol: She wouldn't say which ones were hers.

[Farrar]

Why does Claire's "punishment" have to be spanking?  If it had been a man who did what she did, would Jamie have also spanked him?  I highly doubt it. The fact that her punishment was spanking makes it more sexual and less "punishment," IMO.  I think I would have understood the punishment idea more if he had actually hit her as he would one of his men.

 

If it had been a man, he would have been beaten, which is said pretty clearly.  Not by Jamie, but by whoever was in charge.

 

I think the punishment is realistic for the time and not including it would be silly in a way.  It's a moment where she has to face the fact that she's in a foreign land in a way that she had not previously.  

 

On the other hand, I think everyone saying it's not sexual is being a little disingenuous.  It clearly is somewhat sexual for both of them because it leads to a pretty violent (consensual) s*x scene later on.  And while they come to understand each other in a way that means that he never beats her again and Claire remains pretty steadfastly grounded in the 20th century in this respect because she can't see that particular act as anything but abusive or wife beating, there is a conversation about husbands spanking wives in a later book that makes it clear that there is a sexual component to it for many couples (Jenny and Ian are mentioned as well as Fergus and Marsali).  Also, the way that Jack Randall abuses and beats Jamie is also clearly s*xual.  So the idea that there's no elements of beating as s*xual in the books is clearly not true to me...

[Farrar]

I heard Dianna Gabaldon admit on NPR that she writes Supernatural fanfiction. :lol: She wouldn't say which ones were hers.

 

Seriously?  Slash, I can only assume.

 

Also, what a hypocrite!  I read something from her from awhile back where she was just nasty about Outlander fanfic.  She clearly didn't seem to get it at all - I seem to recall she talked about how they were violating her rights and they were all terrible writers.  I can only assume she's changed her stance?

[Seeking Squirrels]

I doubt that "at the time" the ways women were punished would have been similar to the ways men would have been punished. It was a differentiated society.

 

But there is later info I think involving belt spanking (in public) as a normal punishment for young males -- not soldiers, though.

 

Married women, having no public standing (no direct relationship to 'the public'), would have been considered a husband's private responsibility to manage. Brutality would have been more acceptable than non-management, but public display would have shamed the husband. Therefore (in the contrived situation) the resulting punishment is cast as similar to the response of a 'reasonable' father of those times: measured, formal, private, etc.

 

Note: it's still the author that set up a situation requiring her heroine to be 'punished' by the romantic male, in the day and age where beatings happens to be normal. She wanted to tell that story, to set the spanking where it would be titaltaing but not diaristically offensive. You see that a lot in the romance genre: the situation is manipulated to make thorny things happen without them seeming 'too wrong'.

 

The whole set up is one of, "How can I send a modern woman somewhere where she can fall in love with a romantic man who is a little brutal around the edges, and they can have lots of interesting intense sex?" -- it's exactly what she set out to write at first (in my opinion).

Actually she says she never sets out to write anything in particular. She herself does not have an outline or plan for the stories. She says the characters themselves tell her the story. She can sometimes see where they are going or what's going to happen, but not always. Sometimes she's just as in the dark as the reader with what's going to happen next.

 

I even asked her personally if she ever gets in any "battle of wills" with her characters where they want to do one thing and she wants them to do something else and she essentially said no. That she always follows their lead and allows them to tell their story. Her explanation was longer but that's the short of it.

[Negin]

I had abandoned that book long before the scene you describe.  Ugh.  Obviously book quality is subjective, but... just ugh.

Me too. I honestly had to stop at 10%. 

 

[PrincessMommy]

Me too. I honestly had to stop at 10%. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I get entertained by reading the one-star reviews for this book on Good Reads.  :lol:. Like this one. 

 

 

I gave this one 2 stars so it probably won't pop up, but I find it funny that the most likes I get for a review are2 of my one-star reviews.

[Farrar]

One star reviews are always funnier and more entertaining.  I'm pretty sure everyone clicks on the one star reviews first for absolutely everything.