Does Outlander get any better?
 

I'm suffering through the first book (70% in), trying to figure out if I should continue. I like the environment and characters but the whole story line doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Considering its ratings, I had assumed it would be an excellent romance/adventure but I'm finding on the contrary, that I dislike the entire thing.



Are the remaining 7 books like this too, or does it improve? I'm looking for the light at the end of the tunnel here.

My friends love the serie but like you I also found the first book pretty bad so I called it quit after and never read the rest. One of said friends love female nurses as protagonist. I also read The Lions of El-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay right before reading Outlander, and it was so good I cried at the end, and it also has a female doctor as one of the 3 main protagonists. So yeah...

I haven't been attracted towards reading this series so will not comment specifically. What I would say is that if you are 70% through the first book and don't like it don't persevere. Life is short, books are cheap and plentiful and if you read for the whole of your life you would still not get through even all the books you would love. Give it up and move on.

I was lukewarm towards the first book but felt they got a lot better quickly.

My wife loves it. That is why we have subscribed to STARZ video service so we could watch the series. I tried to read it, but couldn't get past a hundred pages or so. To be fair, while we both like science fiction and fantasy, she has no appreciation for my love of military SciFi and "space opera".

FWIW, I've found the TV series to be far more palatable than the book.

I'm a little bit surprised at the lack of defense of the book. Goodreads has many fans of the book. I guess readers here are more discerning. I myself came close to reading it, but feedback like this have steered me away from Outlander.

I abandoned the first book pretty quickly. The complete lack of any historical accuracy or apparently any knowledge of Scotland was too much for me.

I'm quite sure Outlander has its fans here, but I suspect they prefer not to engage in a thread which is weighted against it.

Recommendations are dicey. I'd say the bias (and I don't mean that negatively, just as a statement of fact) at MR favors sci-fi and fantasy, with mystery also strong. Those of us with "fringe" interests need to look elsewhere for relevant or substantive judgments. Which is not to say that you can't be a fan of both sci-fi and science, for example, just that you're likelier to find critical mass in one area and not the other.

If you're really interested in opinions on Outlander, it would be worth floating a question in the Romance thread in the Deals forum, where you might get a more informed or nuanced reaction from those knowledgeable in its category.

Most romance fans dislike this series because of the cheating. There are some who love it but I find more romance readers against it than liking it.

I read the first book many years ago. I don't remember loving it or hating it.

Sent from my XT1528

What is the Deals forum???

Romance thread in Deals Forum
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=282247

Sent from my XT1528

Check your k.

Big Outlander fan here, not prone to argue though because everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Individually I do have issues with every book, but overall love the series. :)

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I can't defend it to people who can't get through it, because I couldn't either, the first time I read it. However, several years later, I came across some of its sequels at my local bookstore, recalled that I had already purchased the first one, and I gave it another try.

Now it is one of my favorite series -- I own the first five books in trade paperback, all nine books in both epub and audiobook format, the blu-ray and soundtracks for both seasons of the TV series, and I follow one podcast that analyzes every tv episode, as well as a (discontinued) podcast that analyzed the first three books -- but I don't think I could convince anyone else to give it a chance when they don't want to.

Like pdurrant, I can't abide "historical" fiction that's so hopelessly inaccurate when it comes to its depiction of the era (and place) it portrays.

Sent from the chair in my office.

I never really understood why some hold "historical" fiction to a higher accuracy standard in how it portrays "the way things were", than say how (in)accurately contemporary fiction might represent "the way things ARE."

If it's just an "I'm infinitely familiar that subject and the liberties taken and/or anachronisms bug me" kind-of thing; then that's one thing. But I get the distinct impression that many seem to believe that fiction set in it the past shouldn't be able to take the same liberties with "reality" as say fiction set in the present (or future) gets to.

Annoyance, basically. In novels set in 18th century Scotland, I expect Scottish geography to have some correspondence with reality, and characters to behave and speak in a manner appropriate to the 18th century. Neither is the case in "Outlander". To me that shows that the author just couldn't be bothered to do her research into the subject matter she's writing about.

What about present day fiction that takes geographical liberties with reality? Or characters that don't behave or speak in ways congruent with today's social norms? Same standard?

Depends on the circumstances, DD. As a reader of fantasy and SF I have absolutely no objection to the depiction of a world that differs from our own. But when a book is described as historical fiction, I have a not unreasonable (IMHO) expectation that the "history" part of it will have at least a tenuous connection to actual history. When I read, say, Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall", I am reading a believable depiction of life in the court of Henry VIII. When I read Outlander, I'm reading something that presents a completely inaccurate picture of 18th century Scotland. Mantel did her research; Gabaldon patently did not.

I read Outlander. I didn't like it all that much. I read it because a then GF read it and liked it. But I found it to be chick-lit and not even good chick-lit at that.

See, I DO see that expectation as being a tad unreasonable. You're getting hung up on the word "historical" in the two-word descriptive label and thinking it needs to be "immune" from the second word to be considered a competent work. Why? People don't (typically) hold the "history" portion of "Alternate History" to such a high standard.

I simply don't understand why anyone would expect ANY fiction to be more nonfictional than any other. Nor do I understand having rules about which portions of fiction are not allowed to be as fictional as the other parts.

Maybe there should be a separate "Historical Nearly Non-Fiction" subgenre for clarity? :D

To clarify: I have no problem with someone preferring their "historical fiction" to be carefully researched and as historically accurate as possible. I just don't think all works in the entire (sub)genre need to live up to those exacting standards to be considered worthy of the title.

That's OK. I'm explaining why these books don't appeal to me personally, not demanding that all books are written to my personal specification :). I don't expect you or anyone else to share my standards of judging books.

I hope you managed to listen to Ronald D. Moore's podcasts too. :D

This raises an interesting question. As a reader if I find a book not worth finishing it is rare for me to read anything else by that author, at least knowingly. But of course writers change and hopefully develop with subsequent works. Do you think it is a case that the Author simply got better with subsequent books? Should people having trouble with the first one read a later one, with the help of spoilers or a plot summary of the earlier book or books? Also, having read some of the later, possibly better written books in the series, do you think such a reader might then come back and actually read and enjoy the earlier book or books in the series?

Like probably most of us, I tend to do most of my reading in a few genres, of which historical fiction is not one. However, I do not of course confine myself only to those genres. I tend to agree with Harry. If something is described as historical fiction I expect that at least some effort will have been made to make the book reasonably authentic. It is not that I could not potentially enjoy a work which did not. It is simply that I would not usually choose to read such a work. I loved Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series, which was extensively researched. It brought Rome alive to me in a way that classes at School never did. It made me wonder if even an historian specialising in Rome would not learn from such fiction and enjoy it, not only in picking out things the writer did get wrong or the validity or otherwise of her extrapolations of unknown events, but for seeing the attempt to put real personalities into the Society.

When younger I read a lot of Leon Uris's fiction, most of which was set in more recent history and revolved around historical events, often in the middle east. Exodus dealt with the founding of the state of Israel. Mila 18 dealt with the Warsaw ghetto and was harrowing reading indeed. These books also involved significant research, though not to the extent of Colleen McCullough's books. The books were hardly balanced, and had little positive to say about the Arab world, but nevertheless were compelling reading and I think gave some valuable insights into the politics and events concerned.

Books which make no effort at historical accuracy are disappointing to those who believe that this is an essential element of the genre. Books not doing this may still be enjoyable as fantasy, though perhaps not be chosen. Having picked them expecting such accuracy, it would be hard not to be disappointed.

Thankfully, we are all different. I now know that I don't intend to read Outlander, though I nevertheless acknowledge that if I did I may well enjoy it. Perhaps starting with Book 2?

Yes, that's exactly my view of the matter, too. I have an expectation (however unreasonable some may consider that to be!) that historical fiction will accurately reflect the historical period in which it's set.

I think this is probably true of many authors* and I would say it is the case with the Outlander series. There are a few errors that I noticed, but anyone not familiar with Scottish customs/traditions would be unaware and it doesn't spoil the story for me.

(Spoiler: Stovies are not, and never have been, small dumplings! )

In later books the author acknowledges people who assisted with some details so it's not all her fault. It happens with film and tv as well as books - people with a deeper knowledge of medicine, police work, handcrafts, hunting - any subject really - will pick up mistakes.

And for a series that begins with a 1940s nurse travelling back in time 200 years ... well, at least the author got those details right ;)


*even the great Terry Pratchett didn't think Colour of Magic was as good as his later Discworld books.

I tried, but for the second season, he seemed to be just chatty and didn't talk about the show at all and I gave up about halfway through the season. I guess I thought it would be more of a commentary on the episodes than the conversations that it turned out to be. I plan to try again when I re-watch the season later, as long as they are included on the discs.

If you know you don't like the book, just don't bother with it. It isn't a literary classic, it isn't historical fiction, and it doesn't stick with you when it's over.

When I first tried to read it there was too much set up at the beginning -- a problem that I have with a lot of beginnings for fantasy, sci-fi, and other not-quite-my-reality setting books -- when I was in the mood for something quick. Seeing the additional volumes later reminded me that I had it and I was able to get back into it then.

I don't think that the Outlander series is worth the analysis that it is being given here. I don't consider it historical, although it is obviously inspired by historical places and events; the elements that make time traveling possible are too integrated into that world to consider it to be the same as ours. However, these discoveries/explanations are not in the first book -- they are gradually revealed in the later books.

As a fan of 'Alternate History', I expect the history to be as accurate as possible up to the point of departure, and that subsequent changes to history culture, landscape, etc., be supported with a story logic I consider reasonable.

In a sense, "Outlander" is an alternate history novel. In my eyes, when a person travels through time to the past, that person DOES create ripples that will change the future (but NOT the past prior to the time traveller's arrival in the past). The historical inaccuracies between 'then' and 'now' are a logical result of the time travel itself (or should be) I didn't read enough of 'Outlander', or know enough about Scotland in that era to know how outrageous the historical inaccuracies are. I found the book not to my liking as a story.

For Historical Fiction, there is a fine balance between historical accuracy and the telling of a good story. For me, I assume I am somewhat ignorant of the time and place in which the story is set, so I also assume the author is interested enough in that particular time and place that he or she has done a reasonable amount of research so that the research can support the story.

I don't really care if a dumpling has the right name, or not, but I DO want to know that the broad strokes of culture, language, politics, and geography are reasonably accurate. I don't want the hero to be in Paris one moment, and crossing the Mississippi 3 days later. AND I want the story to be entertaining.

It's hard to do, but I also try to not let the story in question help influence my current political and cultural beliefs. And I try to NEVER buttress a political or social argument with 'facts' I learn in a novel! That just leads to embarrassment.

Zorro - never happened!

Why do you think we have a different standard for other genres? I hold historical fiction to the same standards as other fiction I read: the bits not intended as fiction should match reality as closely as possible, and characters should react according to the personality and background, and not just like the author.

It is true that breaking that standard is rather more obvious with historical fiction. But I'm perfectly happy with the fictional parts of Hornblower or Poldark. I'd be happy with the time-travel in Outlander, as that's clearly a fictional device required for the story. It was the glaring historical errors that ruined it for me.

It might be possible to save it if it turned out that she was not actually visiting the past, but some fantasy realm conjured up from the heroine's ideas about Scotland's history. But I don't think the author intended that, nor afaik has that be retconned into the series. If the author is too lazy to get the non-fictional bits right, I find myself unable to appreciate the fiction at all. C.f. that space opera by Jack Campbell where physics was ignored so the spaceships behaved like sea ships.

I'm glad you hold everything to the same standard, but I think many people hold historical fiction to a different standard because, quite frankly, many people DO hold it to a different standard, in my experience.

They allow contemporary fiction to be as silly, fluffy, and inaccurate as it wants (with nary a critical word), but sticking the word "historical" in front of "fiction" suddenly means (for many) that the work needs to be as painstakingly researched and geographically/historically/socially accurate as a college history textbook. It somehow NEEDS to be a vehicle that one can use to gain academic knowledge about the period in which it is set.

If you're not one of those people, that's great. :)

In my opinion, the fact that some people wish to learn about real history via fiction does not actually obligate authors of historical fiction to be history teachers or scholars.

There are errors in all writing, fiction or non fiction, no matter how well the author knows the subject.

An occasional accidental anachronism is OK, if not too egregious. A deliberate anachronism can be a bit of fun between author and reader, if noticed.

But since contemporary authors are part of contemporary culture, it would be hard for contemporary fiction to be as bad as some historical fiction.

If an author writes about a contemporary place they don't know well, they need to do their research just as much as authors of historical fiction need to research the time they are writing about.

No-one expects historical fiction to be a history book, nor contemporary fiction to be a travel guide.

But some historical fiction is the equivalent of setting a story in Manchester (UK) in January, and having a key scene set at an outdoor BBQ party, where attendees are in shorts/sandals and the host is reminding people to 'slip, slop, slap!' because the sun's a bit bright. :)

Maybe I can give you a insight?

99% of historical romance is not historically accurate. After 2000 it's gotten to the point most historical romance are called wallpaper historical romances because there is little to define the era.

I hold Outlander as a romance because that's where you find it at the store. I don't expect it to be completely accurate.

If I was to hold a historical romance as accurate I'd have nothing in the category to read but maybe a bookshelf.

Let me give you an example. There is one book where the Duke of Wyndham has a coffee table, eat muffins and owns a bread box. This Duke also has a housekeeper who cooks, has no valet and when he asks for more lemonade instead of pulling a bell rope she travels down multiple levels to the kitchen to refill his glass. A Duke. It's set in the regency period. It was published by Sourcebooks.

This book was also a bestseller and this author has now written over 50 books. I can't say if she has gotten more accurate as I never got past her first book.

Romances do not have high standards when it comes to accuracy.

Sent from my XT1528

I'm happy for those whom it doesn't bother to enjoy these books.

To be fair to it, I don't remember Outlander being quite as outrageous as the book you describe, but perhaps time has mercifully blurred my memory.

No it's not but that's an extreme case of how a historical romance can be inaccurate and still be a bestseller and favorite. The book being describe isn't Outlander. I'm just saying most romance readers don't have high standards to historical accuracy so most romance authors get by with pretty much anything these days and still get published.

Sent from my Nexus 7

I only get chuffed when an author takes liberties with a subject with which I'm quite knowledgeable. And even then, I don't really blame the author for not knowing as much about said subject as I do (or think they need to do more research). I just see it as being unfortunate that the author chose that particular subject to to write around. I actually prefer fictional settings (both geographical and chronological) to be vague enough that I don't have to worry about "(in)accuracy." I'm perfectly content not knowing if something is a "fictional tool" or a "mistake" (when reading fiction, mind you).

It seems that a critical mass of readers of historical fiction have a strong interest in history and thus are annoyed when they notice historical errors.

Apparently fewer readers of other genres have a special interest/knowledge in whatever field the author happens to be mucking up. I know that mystery readers can and have been upset if they don't think that the author 'played fair' with the mystery (at least for certain subgenres) and that science fiction readers can care about the science although they might be more likely to quarrel about the 'hardness' of the science. As noted before romance readers care about such things as cheating and I would expect they'd care about other aspects of the primary relationship.

I personally am the sort of grumpy person that grumbles when I come across any bit of horrible inaccuracy not excused by genre convention (ex. any test done in a police procedural will take less time then in real life, the 'science' behind many of the faster-then-light ships in science fiction ...) and genre conventions for historical fiction have been formed by the fact that a critical mass of readers care about a certain level of accuracy (although people tend to be healthier and doctors much more effective then strict historical accuracy would allow for).