Seems it's not for quite a few people, but the fact that Starz is bringing it to TV as a series later this year says it must be for somebody.

It has been posted (I think I read it on Diana Gabaldon's website) that the TV series will not have the same beginning as the book. Instead, Claire will be shown in her role as a nurse on the battlefield in France. Maybe they are trying to correct some of the inconsistencies with the dates that are being pointed out?

Interesting possibility.

For those who did finish the book, was there a favorite moment that sent a chill down your spine? Mine was this one, from the end of the witchcraft trial:

Even though I didn't like the book, I think it will translate well to television.

Count me as one who abandoned the book, and who rarely abandons books (put several aside indefinitely, but rarely abandon).

Only 15% in. Male.

I should say that I have read romances previously. It isn't that I hate the genre. But this one had too many factual errors. Those then made me examine the rest more closely, and I just couldn't believe the lack of problems with language and culture in general.

I enjoyed the book and thought that it was a fun read. In fact, I moved right on to Dragonfly in Amber, the second in the series. But I had to be very determined about ignoring the lack of language and culture problems. Connie Willis addressed both those issues in Doomsday Book, which we read last year.

Reading the bold part of the above quote caused me to think: well, isn't that just the sweetest thing... :) I don't believe my own gender, generally, to have purer motives than men. We may, however, be more convincing at disguising our most base motives.

I didn't finish it but I' might try this book again later on to see if there is some reason for the five star reviews. Personally, I just didn't find it to my taste and the writing was often overdone. I suspect that it is largely stage-Scottish.

Spanking!!?? :eek: :eek:

Even worse, I read that she got the Gaelic by running English through Babelfish, or maybe it was Google. Later books she got a real Gaelic speaker to do the translations.

I try to give her some leeway. She states that she wrote her first novel for practice, to see if she could write one, while raising three young children and working full-time as a university professor (in science, not history). She never thought anyone would read it. No doubt she wishes she could go back and change a few things. I find her writing improves in subsequent books and probably also the amount of time she had to devote to research.

A friend of mine loved this book so much that it inspired her to write (she's had 3 books published by Penguin), but I've never gotten further than 100 pages in when I've tried to read it.

Oh what to say about Outlander...

I finished it weeks ago but couldn't decide what to write about it, but I'll give it a go now. I didn't like the beginning at all, but once I got past hundreds of pages to about the halfway point it did pick up for the last half. Not because it necessarily became good, but because I gave into the ridiculousness of it all and let myself enjoy the over-the-top plot twists.

I will give it this - it wasn't predictable! I won't be reading any more of the series though; I didn't enjoy it enough nor am I interested enough.

Some faults I had with the series - Claire gets to (mostly) act like her 20th century self in the 18th century and get away with it without many real consequences. She may have gotten an S&M spanking from Jamie that I think she secretly enjoyed anyway, but she didn't, say, get punched by some guy she was mouthing off to and lose teeth or anything that might've happened back then.

I also have objections with the negative gay characters. While I was surprised that Gabaldon wasn't completely cardboard with her characterisations, she wasn't much better either. And not only was Randall gay, but so was the other man who visited the castle at some point who also wanted Jamie. He wasn't portrayed as evil per se, but he was portrayed as repulsive. While I don't have any problem with an author portraying people reacting negatively to gay people (as would've often happened in those days as well as even today), I do have a problem with an author presenting it so one-sidedly and portraying it as if the author could also agree with the characters who are repulsed by gay people. I could even forgive that if the book were written a long time ago, but this was published in the 1990s.

I have heard that Gabaldon heard the gay criticism and tried to assuage it with her later books, but it still stands that this singular book comes off very badly on that front. I remember many people objecting to us reading Ender's Game because of the author's views on homosexuality and some possible anti-gay content in the book. I've now read that book as well, and while Card may be much more vehemently and vocally homophobic in real life, there is no doubt that Outlander is a much more homophobic book than Ender's Game. I suppose the only argument in Outlander's favour is that more of its audience probably has their views already formed anyway, while young boys reading Ender's Game may be much more susceptible to influence.

Anyway, mostly I found this book preposterous. And I would say I didn't like it, but I do like the character of Jamie, and I did enjoy some of the scenes in spite of myself, so I'd come away from it saying it's good enough, with the large caveat of for a particular audience. The Romance selection from last year, A Town Like Alice, I found to be better written and a better story overall.

I don't know how many of you peruse goodreads reviews, but I found a gem for Outlander. It's a bit mean, but I laughed so much reading it, so I'll share it for anyone interested: Link to funny review/"interview"

How do you guys read books? do you read on ereader? I read paperbooks,I cannot image touch 3000 times on kobo touch