49 replies to this topic

[Errant Bard]

Some time ago, in a forum not far away, there was a a thread dedicated to fangirling over a specific character of a series that shall not be mentioned here. Deaf to common sense and receptive to the siren calls of procrastination, I jumped in. What ensued was not truly worthy of a tale, but it ended on the comment that romance was out of my comfort zone and that if I dared try reading a romance book picked for me, in exchange my counterpart would read whatever I told her to (What I gave her I chose... poorly, but this isn't the subject at hand.)

The book that was picked, almost consensually by the ladies in that thread, was Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. It was agreed that once I was done reading it, I would post a review, so here I am.

So, Outlander, what is it, what did I think of it? First a warning: Not being familiar with the genre the book is classified in -I think it's romance but I'm not certain-, I don't really have any point of comparison there, so I'll have to keep it simple and about what I got from it.

Outlander, in a slightly spoilerish nutshell, is a book about a woman who finds herself thrown through time into 18th century Scotland, where she meets, marries and fucks repeatedly the perfect man. Although the sex scenes take a not too unsignificant share of the writing and are actually among the most important moments, in various ways, the bulk of the novel deals with what happens in-between those scenes. A sort of reverse time-travelling-viking gambit, if I remember some discussions around here.

As my be surmised from the above, the story is not truly about action (not that kind of action), nothing really interesting ever happens on any grand scale, the focus is almost exclusively on the heroine and her interactions with her hunky Scot; I would ever go as far as saying that there is no story at all beyond that.

The feelings I go from it are mixed: on one hand, it's fairly well written and easy enough to read, on the other hand it all felt very boring with the occasional offensive bit, even the sex.

I had planned to recap the good things I had gathered about it, but thinking about it, I cannot really come up with anything noteworthy. The historical parts were nice enough touches, but it really felt somewhat superficial, all in all. I liked to read about emotive heroes, too, for once, the feelings in the relationship, at least in the beginning, were truly nice to read. There even was a good dose of sensuality at times.

I fear all the good parts might have been offset by the (subjectively) bad parts, to leave me in some mild indifference about it. However, the bad parts did stick with more me, as they are a bit more specific in my mind than whatever qualities they play against.

So let's speak about what made the read a chore and wrap it up. I don't feel that strongly about most, but it's a few things that made the read a slog.

To start with something relatively benign: The heroine is a Mary Sue. I know this is an abuse of the term, but it does convey what she is. She isn't at Jaenelle Angeline's level, but it really turns out that she is perfect, never wrong, and her “failures” happen exclusively as a result of bad luck (otherwise named authorial fiat). She's faithful, sexually liberated, hypercompetent, extrovert, polite, charismatic, altruist, coincidentally had knowledge in everything needed for a 18th century field trip (and what she doesn't know, like knife-fighting, she learns in a matter of days), and get the love of about anyone she meets, even the women. It was slightly irritating, though you could see it coming. She's also the most beautiful woman in scotland, speaking of that, but that's par for the course, yes?

On the same note, the “hero” (though he's more of a supporting character) is so perfect as to be totally unrelatable. This was actually more of a problem for me, as a perfect girl I'm used to seeing, but a guy who could be expected to be sent to scale mount Golgotha a few pages down the line is more unusual. He's in the uncanny valley. Had I read Twilight, I would compare him to the vampire lead: he's not supposed to be a character, he's just a fantasy to drool over. Normal men cannot compare: they cannot read minds, be sex gods on the first night or have a mindset mostly 200 years ahead of anyone, among other things. They can on the other hand be tall dreamboats speaking several languages, be badasses in a fight, have a troubled past, while staying the most moral, kind, honest and faithful of people, but that's still kinda rare.

While we're on characterisation, I should quickly mention that if the head couple suffers from being too perfect, the villain, and actually everyone else, suffers from not being them: everyone else is flat, flat, flat. Imagine a photograph of a cast, only the focus is made on the couple of stars in the front, and there is a load of people behind but you can only see blur. It's like that. Those characters, sure, they exist, but they hardly do more than that. I mentioned the villain, for there is one (the almost rapes won't happen magically, you know), but even him feels one-note, just a vessel for antagonism and hardship for the heroes, not really a character at all. He becomes a bit better in the end, but it's too little too late.

Which brings me to: The world is sanitized and bland. It's not that it lacks worldbuilding, it's in the real world so worldbuilding is superfluous (and besides I kinda agree with MJ Harrison), it's that what is there is not used. Nothing exists truly besides the main couple. From the beginning to the end, there is only one chapter making that era inconvenient to be transported in; for the rest, the heroine finds at every corner people ready to give her shelter, food, prospects, rank, succor, and even power over their life as they appoint her doctor in chief right away and without question. It doesn't feel like the real world. Forget about 18th century, it wouldn't even feel right for the present. It's only faintly removed from carebear-land, if only for heroine.

Which segues into the next point: Almost rapes, rapes and almost rapes again. Maybe it ties with the “Mary Sue” point too, but it seems that in order to have tension, the danger has to jump between nothing and rape in a binary fashion. The good point is that it's not reserved to women this time, the bad is that it doesn't feel like there is any other danger than rape around (even in a chapter where the girl is almost burned at the stake/drowned), almost-rapes are the rule for heroine, and it happens way too often. And the way it's written... I'll come back to this later.

I have to mention here the few scenes that made no sense at all. The most egregious one is where the heroine decides that to heal rape trauma, she has to reproduce the exact circumstances of the rape; and she does it; and he takes her, believing to rape his aggressor or something; and it works. Sexual healing. Was it because there was a new cardboard decor of an abbey around them and we were just told that god was real? I have no bloody idea.

In the end, one theme emerges somewhat out of all this, though: the author seems to push the idea that the woman should be submissive and devoted to her man. He knows better, and power over his wife is absolute. In one telling occurrence, the heroine, instead of staying near a river, fell in the river and got captured, dreamboat rescued her, and then after apologies still spanked/beat her. The heroine was angry but lo, she wasn't angry about the beatings per se, she was angry because she thought she didn't deserve it. It boggles the mind, it was actually condoning the idea of beating someone as long as the offense deserved it. But wait, there is more: as it turns around, the guy tells her some story and she ends up agreeing that she did deserve it. What? Of course you know what follows. Actually, if you haven't read it I'm not sure you have the exact idea: yes it's make-up sex, but as it turns out it pretty much starts as marital rape. She likes it rough and the guy has mind-reading somehow so in the end it's not like that, but once again the message is that if your husband wants to screw you when you tell him no for whatever reason, then you'd better want it. The theme is repeated again and again, and not only in relation to sex. It works out well in the end because the couple does has chemistry, but the implications are really really not nice, as I see it.


Reading this book felt like hard work. I can imagine why some people other than me could like it, but I will not read anything in this series again. I don't know what conclusion I should form on the genre at large, since this was supposed to be a taste of what it's like (I think, might it have been an horrible prank?), this being said. Is this thing representative of the romance genre? Is the gender-stereotype-reinforcing (did I mention the heroine became hysterical when thinking her husband might have looked at other women?) inherent to the genre, because self-affirming women not subject to a man is not romantic? Is the lack of action tied to the genre too? Would I get bored if I read, say, The Southern Vampire Mysteries? I don't know. I just know that if I have to ever say something about this book, I'll say it was thoroughly mediocre at best.

And I thought liking stuff like A Civil Campaign meant I could enjoy sappy love stories...

[Chataya de Fleury]

I think it maybe just wasn't to your taste

That said, you have plenty of valid criticism.

[Nukelavee]

I don't think I'd enjoy the book, either, but I enjoyed the review quite a bit.

[Sci-2]

Yeah, this sounds like creepy trash. Makes me feel bad for Bakker getting shit.

[kurokaze]

Errant Bard, on 22 April 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Is the lack of action tied to the genre too? Would I get bored if I read, say, The Southern Vampire Mysteries? I don't know.

I haven't read Outlander but from the description it doesn't sound like it's anything like Southern Vampire. A traditional romance novel, which it sounds like Outlander is, is essentially defined by what is referred to as a HEA ending (happily-ever-after), which means all of the couples' problems with one another get resolved and from what I've seen, all too often this means that the heroine submits her will to the hero's, that her journey is to trust him to save her, that his morals are the right ones.

Being the protagonist of a series and thus completely lacking a HEA, Sookie holds tight to her determination to keep her own dreams and her own morals. That's not to say that there isn't conflict on that axis, or that the series is completely lacking in that uncomfortable female-gaze-yet-women-are-lesser perspective that seems to emanate from certain pockets of the romance genre, or that the series is even particularly good. But from your opinion on Outlander I see no reason why you'd necessarily hate Southern Vampire.

Quote

And I thought liking stuff like A Civil Campaign meant I could enjoy sappy love stories...

Romance genre novels are closer to Shards of Honor. (And, contrary to popular belief, often with as many explosions.) A Civil Campaign is an anomaly.

[Aoife]

sciborg2, on 22 April 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Yeah, this sounds like creepy trash. Makes me feel bad for Bakker getting shit.

Why?
It's not like there's a finite amount of criticism in the world.

[kurokaze]

Luisa Aoiftrazzini, on 22 April 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Why?
It's not like there's a finite amount of criticism in the world.

Do you know that there's not?

What if, one day, we woke up and we couldn't say anything bad because the Bakker threads used up all the argue allotted for our species?

[Sci-2]

Luisa Aoiftrazzini, on 22 April 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Why?
It's not like there's a finite amount of criticism in the world.

Fair enough.

[Aoife]

kurokaze, on 22 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Do you know that there's not?

What if, one day, we woke up and we couldn't say anything bad because the Bakker threads used up all the argue allotted for our species?

What a horrifying thought!

[Marjie Eilie Myatt]

To the original reviewer, wondering about the romance genre, there was an excellent study of them published in the mid-1980s called "Reading the Romance" by Janice Radway.  She doesn't just analyze the texts herself but also conducts focus groups and surveys AND brings in a psychoanalytic perspective to the genre in one chapter, and a materialist/economic perspective in another chapter.  She's talking about Harlequin romances and their other "pulp" contemporaries, but anyone who thinks Outlander doesn't have some of their classic tropes is in denial.  What always surprises my college students about the genre (when I have used Radway's book in "Media & Culture" class) is the trope of the rape of the heroine by the soon-to-be-hero that somehow gets forgiven later as a misunderstanding ---Luke & Laura, anyone?-- and all the other rape/threat of rape in the stories, which at some point the analysis chalks up as "a safe place" to play out women readers' fears of real rape and their real experiences with sexual assault.  yeah, whatever.

I actually hated a lot of what you hated about Outlander (such as the sadomasochism and the sexually liberated conservativism and the "science" of the time travel that is deduced in later books).....hated it the whole while that I read every book in the series.

There's much that I can't stand about ASOIAF books.....hating those aspects the whole while that I read every book in the series.

[matt b]

kurokaze, on 22 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Do you know that there's not?

What if, one day, we woke up and we couldn't say anything bad because the Bakker threads used up all the argue allotted for our species?

Maybe they'll let us pay for another 5 minutes...

Edited by matt b, 22 April 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Aoife]

That sounds like an interesting book. I'm more familiar with Beyond Heaving Bosoms, written by the two women who founded Smart B*tches, Trashy Books (censored in case of webfilter).

Outlander definitely has some of those same tropes in it, which more modern romances -- written more recently, not necessarily contemporary settings -- have moved away from. I'm not entirely sure when Gabaldon started writing it, but it was published in.. 1991? So I'm not surprised that some of the mores common in some of the romance novels of the 80s stayed in. Nor that people notice them (and object to them) more now.

Eloisa James makes reference to another possible cause in her article for CNN here, and it's one I've heard as recently as when Twilight came out -- it's not just a safe way of dealing with one's own past assaults, but with any sort of overwhelming (and usually sexual) feeling, particularly if/when society is saying that such feelings are not normal or good.

(For example, lots of societies tell girls she has to stay in control and say no, because the boy will take whatever he can get and just can't help himself, etc., yet Edward is the one who has to remain in control, letting Bella explore whatever she wants and not making her feel bad for it. There's plenty beyond that to criticise in the books, of course, just as there is in rapey, old-school romances. )

[Errant Bard]

Interesting, so romance, or at least a good chunk of it, would be inaccessible to men because they don't have the insecurities tackled on with the books, and in any case cannot identify with the character defusing those fears, right?

I'll read more about this... tomorrow

2661eire, on 22 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

What always surprises my college students about the genre (when I have used Radway's book in "Media & Culture" class) is the trope of the rape of the heroine by the soon-to-be-hero that somehow gets forgiven later as a misunderstanding ---Luke & Laura, anyone?-- and all the other rape/threat of rape in the stories, which at some point the analysis chalks up as "a safe place" to play out women readers' fears of real rape and their real experiences with sexual assault.  yeah, whatever.

Such dissonances are not exclusive to Romance though, even if the rape angle is. I wonder if there is a parallel to be made with "boys" literature, where for example violence is judged entirely differently depending on who does it.

Quote

I actually hated a lot of what you hated about Outlander (such as the sadomasochism and the sexually liberated conservativism and the "science" of the time travel that is deduced in later books).....hated it the whole while that I read every book in the series.

There's much that I can't stand about ASOIAF books.....hating those aspects the whole while that I read every book in the series.

Haha. You know, it's not that I hated anything for real, there were sticky points, but in the end there also was something entertaining about it. The reason I didn't continue reading it is that I found myself totally uninterested with it, with what would happen to the characters afterwards or what would come of whatever thread that were left hanging. The only reason I finished was that I had promised to do that review, it's probably the first book that I take more than a month to finish, I always had more interesting stuff to do, like watching paint dry, at times.

Hate would be what I felt for some elements of Wheel of Time, while I continued to read the books I had bought. I still cared, even when there was a burning ball of anger in my stomach induced by whatever was written on that page. Here it's just disinterest. As Chataya said, it must not be my thing (which, if the analysis of the Romance genre as security blanket for women is right, is probably somewhat related to my gender, I guess.)

In any case, it's always interesting to try reading new things.

Edited by Errant Bard, 22 April 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[kurokaze]

Errant Bard, on 22 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

the Romance genre as security blanket for women

It's not the romance genre, it's certain tropes within it. The only really all-defining trait of the genre is that the heroine and the hero are together at the end for an implied rest of their lives. It's not fair to dismiss the entire genre because you can't relate to the rape-with-implied-consent thing (which seems to be obsolete and I have not actually encountered it that I recall) or the more modern overcompetent-overprotective-alpha-male thing (which is what I find I can't relate to - though I think I'd have no trouble if it were reversed!). Because those are not in every book. It would be like dismissing fantasy because you can't relate to a prophesied hero because prophecies are stupid. Valid criticism (I maintain that 'prophecies are stupid' is an objective fact), but there are plenty of books without prophecies and plenty of books with prophecies where there's lots to like despite the prophecy.

That said, I definitely have a much lower success rate finding decent reads in romance, and anything with a chesty man on the cover is pretty much guaranteed fail.

Edited by kurokaze, 22 April 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[Datepalm]

I read "Reading the Romance" a while back (er, during the whole Viking Sheikh thing. I take parody really, really seriously.) but i've read criticism of it too, (really seriously) as being too denigrating of romance and rather dated. (It's from the 80's, based on research conducted a few years before, with regard to books published before that. So like late 70s at the earliest, I think.) IIRC, she was really critical of romance reading, viewing it as that whole escapism-vs-escape issue wrt to women in a patriarchal society. You can't change your husband, but you can daydream about the perfect man you can change to get over it.

Romance really seems to operate in a fairly rarefied way. It makes sense that theres not much of a plot or minor characters - thats not what people are reading for. It's like an extreme case of the plot vs. character debate from the sci fi character thread. (mind you, I couldn't get past the first quarter or so of Outlander. I felt bad for her husband and found him infinitely more attractive than the scottish dude.)

[Marjie Eilie Myatt]

I think Radway wasn't as critical of the act of reading the romance, or of the women themselves, as one might conclude.  She wanted to do a real study, instead of just condemning the genre out-of-hand as feminists were doing at the time she started the project--feminists who just took the text at face value.  (i'm not saying that i'm not a feminist).  I mean, I kind of felt like she was an apologist for the fans, trying to understand what they got out of it, on their own terms, at their own level.  I haven't read it in a while.  As you say, it's dated.  I praise it for the methodology, and even she tried to state clearly that this was research on a relatively small cohort of romance fans who were centered around a particular bookstore in pseudonymous "Smithton" or whatever the town was called, considering there were millions of readers.

Gabaldon claims to be doing a bit of genre-bending, or she sometimes creates the impression that she's almost blind to genre, as it were, but I'm not totally convinced.  However, I am definitely not one to condemn a whole genre of anything anyway.  Except maybe that genre of movies known derisively as "torture porn."  Just kidding.  I've never seen any "Saw" or "Hostel" or their ilk.  Couldn't really say what there is to recommend the genre or not.

[Chataya de Fleury]

Honestly, the books get better as they go along - and the John Grey novels (mostyl whodunnit novels) are pretty good, too.  The first one was the most traditional romance-y.

Now, I'm not going to say whole cloth that they are perfect books or anything, but they've helped me while away an airplane ride or two

[Grack21]

I just helped a dealer at a booth at an anime con with a riot and a gas leak and other fun things so figure me if this comes of harsh.


How can people read this shit? The main character gets raped until she likes it. What the fuck. And don't give me the "it isn't rape" bullshit. It fucking is. You can ignore it or selective memory it all you want, but this shit is fucking creepy.

The main "love" interest sounds like Scrooge McDuck.

The main villain is a GAY RAPIST.

sciborg2, on 22 April 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Yeah, this sounds like creepy trash. Makes me feel bad for Bakker getting shit.

Sciborg you are the winner of the Grack Person of the Month Award.

It boggles my mind how popular this series is. I'd rather read NEW Goodkind.
Also it seems to be a hit with feminists....which makes me think at some point I got hit on the head and this is all a nightmare.

Whoever reccomended this to you....rec some STanek back at them.

[Serious Callers Only]

The only romance books i can stand are "romance+something else".
Like the Tide Lords series "romance + crazy immortal mages"
Or the Skolian Empire series "romance + clashing empires and cool planets and crazy secrets and pew-pew"

And cut the romance (sex, hot sweaty sex) to 2-3 chapters please.

Edited by Serious Callers Only, 23 April 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[Datepalm]

2661eire, on 22 April 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I think Radway wasn't as critical of the act of reading the romance, or of the women themselves, as one might conclude.  She wanted to do a real study, instead of just condemning the genre out-of-hand as feminists were doing at the time she started the project--feminists who just took the text at face value.  (i'm not saying that i'm not a feminist).  I mean, I kind of felt like she was an apologist for the fans, trying to understand what they got out of it, on their own terms, at their own level.  I haven't read it in a while.  As you say, it's dated.  I praise it for the methodology, and even she tried to state clearly that this was research on a relatively small cohort of romance fans who were centered around a particular bookstore in pseudonymous "Smithton" or whatever the town was called, considering there were millions of readers.

I don't remember it as well as I might either, but I thought she was pretty...well, if not critical, then almost condescending. Her analysis of the texts themselves and drawing out the functions of emotional catharsis and removal of guilt about sex and so on, (rather than just going 'clearly, these brainwashed ninnies want to be raped') is interesting, and I can see that it would have been a change of pace for the time. But her ultimate conclusion still seemed to be something like...if these women were living fulfilled, feminist modern lives (possibly with, ahem, academic careers) and not housewives in some midwestern someplace, they wouldn't need to be reading this stuff.

I saw some stats just the other day that Romance sells more novels in the US then all other genres combined. More than 50% of the entire book market. Clearly, theres something there that appeals, and that popularity isn't declining with changing roles for women, and young women read romance as much as their mothers and so on.

I would join you in dismissing torture porn, but I actually saw the Saw a few years ago, and...it was pretty good.