Does Outlander get any better?

[Witty Username]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Funnily enough, this example of author error is mentioned over and over in many reviews. It did say that in the original publication but has been edited in later editions/ebooks. The book now begins in 1946, it always was in Inverness and the goods on the shelves are now described as 'sparse'.

But that is not (IMHO) a 'glaring' historical error; that's a minor mistake like describing stovies as dumplings. A glaring error to me would be a documented historical event being changed to a different time and place to suit a plot point.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Witty Username

But that is not (IMHO) a 'glaring' historical error; that's a minor mistake like describing stovies as dumplings. A glaring error to me would be a documented historical event being changed to a different time and place to suit a plot point.

Ok, here's one for you then: the story is set in 1743, but involves the protagonist being tried for witchcraft. The Witchcraft Act of 1735 made it illegal to accuse anyone of witchcraft, so a witchcraft trial in 1743 is just plain wrong. That is a documented historical event (the Witchcraft Act) being changed to suit a plot point.

[Witty Username]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ok, here's one for you then: the story is set in 1743, but involves the protagonist being tried for witchcraft. The Witchcraft Act of 1735 made it illegal to accuse anyone of witchcraft, so a witchcraft trial in 1743 is just plain wrong. That is a documented historical event (the Witchcraft Act) being changed to suit a plot point.

Yes, I'll give you that one Gabaldon has acknowledged that she shouldn't have made it an officially sanctioned witch trial at that date. I'm sure persecution of suspected witches continued after 1735, especially in remote rural areas, so she could have had an angry mob instead.

[pdurrant]

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.

I thank Harry for being willing to delve into the book again, but I don't think I could bear to at the moment. Apologies.