Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
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?
|
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.