Outlander

The year is 1945. Claire Randall, a former combat nurse, is just back from the war and reunited with her husband on a second honeymoon when she walks through a standing stone in one of the ancient circles that dot the British Isles. Suddenly she is a Sassenach—an “outlander”—in a Scotland torn by war and raiding border clans in the year of Our Lord...1743.

Hurled back in time by forces she cannot understand, Claire is catapulted into the intrigues of lairds and spies that may threaten her life, and shatter her heart. For here James Fraser, a gallant young Scots warrior, shows her a love so absolute that Claire becomes a woman torn between fidelity and desire—and between two vastly different men in two irreconcilable lives.



This is going to be difficult to review without making some people angry with me. People seem to feel very strongly about this book, one way or the other. When I gave it a 4/5 on GoodReads, I had one person exclaim that they would have given it a 10, and someone else was, like, "Really? That high?". It's a tough one, because I really do see both sides of it... anywhoodle, on to the review.

I really can say I liked this book, I was thoroughly entertained through it's entirety even though it is a comparatively long book. I did feel like it really should have been published as two books though. It seemed like two stories to me. In the interest of attempting to avoid spoilers, I feel that there was a distinct change in tone from the time where Claire was hiding her situation from everyone, to when Jaime found out. I don't have any problem with long books (I like big books and I cannot lie...), but I think they can be very intimidating to many people. Cut it into two books and it easily could have appealed to more people.

I enjoyed the interesting premise of the novel, I mean, time travel is nothing new, but I found the approach to it very intersting and thought provoking. Is what Claire did what I would have done in her situation? This book is escapism at it's finest. 

Now, for the dirt.

I really find Gabaldon's hyper-attention to detail frustrating. On some occasions it is justified, but I am fully capable of creating a scene in my head without her attempting to tell me every single detail. I do not need to know exactly how many pine-needles are on that tree thanks, I can imagine it without that kind of info (Ok, that is a slight exaggeration, but you get the idea). But there is one particular scene where things happen really fast, yet her giving me every single detail about the scene made it seem like it took forever. There are things that the person that was involved wouldn't have noticed because she was taken by surprise, but we are informed of every detail as if you were staring at a painting for hours. It's just unnecessary, and results in the loss of the scene set up and tension. It interrupted the flow of the novel, and I found that really frustrating.

I struggled with the treatment of women in this book the same way I struggled with how women were treated in the TV series MadMen. I know that this is a different time period and women didn't have as many rights as they do now, and this is why women fought for the rights we have, but it is still so damn frustrating! There are so many times I wanted to smack Claire and tell her to value herself, and spit on Jamie and point out that he should have more respect for a woman who may (and does) mother his children... but... as I said, it was a different time. We'll just say that there is no way I would survive longer than a week if I got thrust back in time and had do deal with all the sexism and abuse. I am also fully aware that changing this in the novel would make it horribly historically inaccurate, and thus, bad... but UGH! I was so livid at some points!

This book definitely isn't for everyone, know what you are getting into before you start, but it has the potential to be your favourite book in the whole world, or you might hate it and quit part way through. It's kinda a toss up!