Does Outlander get any better?

[sakura-panda]

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.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

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!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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

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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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.

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.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

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.

[Blossom]

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

[pdurrant]

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.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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

[DiapDealer]

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).

[ekbell]

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).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Blossom

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.

I'm perhaps missing something, but why shouldn't a Duke own a coffee table? Coffee's been a popular drink in England since the mid 17th century.

[Witty Username]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It was the glaring historical errors that ruined it for me.

Can you give an example of some of the 'glaring historical errors' please? I only spotted what I would consider to be minor errors.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm perhaps missing something, but why shouldn't a Duke own a coffee table? Coffee's been a popular drink in England since the mid 17th century.

Because coffee tables didn't exist till the late 1800s and we're not really around till early 1900s. I'm pretty sure that tea tables were not low like a coffee table where the Duke could rest his boots and books on.

Sent from my Nexus 7

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Because coffee tables didn't exist till the late 1800s and we're not really around till early 1900s. I'm pretty sure that tea tables were not low like a coffee table where the Duke could rest his boots and books on.

Thank you - I didn't know that .

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Can you give an example of some of the 'glaring historical errors' please? I only spotted what I would consider to be minor errors.

One example: near the start of the book, Claire, the main character, goes into a shop in London in 1945, a few months after the end of WWII, and comments how wonderful it is that all the shelves are fully stocked again after the austerity of the war. There were no fully stocked shops in London in late 1945 - rationing of pretty much everything was actually worse after the war than during it, and continued until 1953.