lettered | Outlander

Crossposts: http://lettered.livejournal.com/177496.html

Outlander

I had four different friends from four very different corners of my little world telling me Outlander is one of their favorite books. This was what persuaded me to read it, even though the premise is not my cuppa. The premise was described to me as, "Married nurse goes back in time to 1700s Scotland. Meets some hot guy. Has adventures." All of this actually did sound like my cuppa, except for the implied adultery. Two out of four of these people said, "Weeeeeeeeeeeelll, but she kind of made the adultery okay."

Usually when I hear recommendations from a bunch of different people it's still from the same corner. It's fandom, or people at work, or people I knew back in Texas, or it's young people, or it's the media. It was strange to hear so many different people have such intense love for this book, so I decided to try it. I had to stop after the first three chapters. It was intensely boring.

But then another friend I had got super into it, so I started reading again. And then I got pretty interested when I heard Ron D Moore was doing the show. I love DS-9 and BSG, so this is fairly excited me.

Now I'm about halfway through this book, and I feel like I'm going to throw up. I wanted to know if other people felt the way that I do about it, so I looked at Goodreads and accidentally spoiled myself for the rest. I'm going to trudge on through, because I promised my friend I would, but seriously? I don't just find this book bad; I find it upsetting. It's like some unholy combination of Song of Ice and Fire (which I think is awful) and 50 Shades (which I don't think is awful, but I haven't bothered to read it. What I do know is that it seems to have a lot of S&M which isn't handled as nearly as carefully and deftly as half the fics in fandom).

But seriously, I want to know--am I just a hater, or is this book really as extremely homophobic and misogynist as it's coming off to me? Inquiring minds, guys.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm fascinated that you've had it so highly recommended to you because everything I've ever heard is that I don't want to read it? I don't really know the details because I've never bothered seeking it out, but I've always understood that yes, there are some deeply problematic aspects in it.

I've never heard a word said against it, although two of the four (my rl friends as opposed to my fandom friends) seemed a little embarrassed by it. I thought that was because it was a romance and must have a lot of sex in it. I didn't think it would have a husband beating his (unconsenting) wife because she did something "wrong" and the wife deciding that it was okay and she deserved it and that it was amusing that he got off on it. And then about 20 pages later husband raping said wife while she tells him to stop and then deciding it's the best sex ever. Seriously, I thought Twilight and 50 Shades set feminism back 30 years, but I thought everyone KNEW they were bad and it was just guilty pleasure stuff (which, I mean, should be okay, but THERE IS MORE QUALITY FAP FIC OUT THERE I'M JUST SAYING) but this!!!!! Admittedly it was written almost 30 years ago, but I HATE that it's popular now. It infuriates me in a way 50 Shades doesn't--I guess because I've never met anyone who thinks 50 Shades is actually any good.

holy crap, I knew it had issues but I didn't realize it was THAT bad. WOWWWW.

(and unfortunately the impression I get is that plenty of the people enjoying 50 Shades don't realize there's anything problematic about it either. There are a lot of people in this world who have never been educated about consent and don't know how to recognize when a narrative is lacking it.)

the impression I get is that plenty of the people enjoying 50 Shades don't realize there's anything problematic about it either.

That's the impression I get, but since I've never actually MET those people, I can pretend.

There are a lot of people in this world who have never been educated about consent and don't know how to recognize when a narrative is lacking it.

Yeah. And I know you know this, but it's not that there has to be consent. It's that if there's not consent I want the narrative to treat the situation as though consent has not been given. Noncon is not my thing (it is, in fact, the opposite of My Thing), but I can totally deal with it if the text addresses or even just acknowledges the issues.

But anyway don't even get me started on the homophobia. I just feel really gross right now, and I'm only halfway through.

I have unfortunately met one woman who, although she didn't actually LIKE the book, also didn't think there was anything problematic about its portrayal of things.

Yeah. And I know you know this, but it's not that there has to be consent. It's that if there's not consent I want the narrative to treat the situation as though consent has not been given

Oh, yes, absolutely - and in fact that's what I meant to say, I just wasn't explicit enough about stating it, whoops.

I'm sorry you feel obligated to finish reading this book when you find it so upsetting!

The only reason I felt the need to make the correction is that so many people don't seem to understand that my problem isn't having rape in your book, it's condoning rape in your book. But anyway you are obviously not one of those people.

oh absolutely, and no worries.

YIKES. I have no recollection of that!

Bleargh.

I'm sure that some people would not categorize that particular scene as rape, but it read that way to me.

Spoiler for the second book and adultery: In book 2, he gets thrown in jail in France and she has some seriously awful sex with Louis XIV in return for his freedom. Ooonce again, he gets angry and spanks her for cheating on him, and she's okay with this. I remember being quite indignant that he wasn't in any way grateful to her for saving his sorry ass.

It's been a long time since I read those (well, some of them: I trudged through 3 or 4 before I gave up in disgust). I definitely remember the homophobia, but I don't recall thinking the misogyny was particularly unusual for a historical romance.

I admit that one reason I stopped reading was that I got bored with the sex, and as they went on, the books became more and more about the Hot!Sex! and less and less about an actual story. Also there are some deeply stupid characters and plot points that really upset me.

I suspect that they're so popular because they scratch a particular kind of fannish/romantic itch. But if it's not your itch, they're not going to do it for you.

I don't recall thinking the misogyny was particularly unusual for a historical romance.

I don't think it is, really, but with the time travel there's the possibility for someone to actually talk about feminism. Though I guess she's from the 40s which isn't quite the same as being from modern times, but still.

I remember when my mom gave me Whitney, My Love by Judith McNaught when I was a teenager and I told her I was interested in historical romance. I was horrified, but after that learned to expect that sort of thing from historical romances written around that time. I just didn't expect that of this since it's popular now, but ugh.

The problem is that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM if Claire decides she wants her husband to take a whip to her. I also have no problem if she thinks it's problematic but considers how deeply misogyny is ingrained in the culture and realizes that if she just digs her heels in instead of working on it a little bit at a time, she won't do any good. BUT THIS IS APPALLING. Ugh I just feel gross.

Huh. I ...started the first book in that series, dropped it after two chapters, and apparently made myself forget it almost entirely.

Maybe that wasn't just me.

The first two chapters were incredibly boring, though not offensive. Definitely would have dropped it, though, if it had not come so highly recommended.

Well, hey! I forgot that you're in Boston, too. Stultiloquentia may have mentioned this--I'm going to be in Boston for work, and I would love to meet you two beautiful people for dinner or a day or something or other! Are you free around the beginning of April?

I can make that work! (Eeeeeeee.)

Did Stulti mention her truly epic hawk scream of joy upon hearing you'd be in the area soon? You are well loved in our household. :o)

Oh god. Somehow or other, a copy of that showed up at the family cottage (everything shows up at the family cottage sooner or later), so I picked it up and yowled my way through the first few chapters and then skimmed the rest. Squickity squick squick. I had the same reaction to Song of Ice and Fire, except I didn't even bother skimming.

I had the same reaction to Song of Ice and Fire,

Ugh. Thank you. I just. Trying to talk to people about George R R Martin breaks my brain.

Also! I have to come to Boston for work in early April. Are you still around those parts? Possibly meet up for dinner and drinks or something?

jjhunter, who is on the opposite end of the couch, will verify that I just SHRIEKED. Yes. Yes, make sure you tell me when you'll be here, and we'll meet up. :D :D :D

YAY. Let me figure out the ticket situation. We're actually going to Woods Hole, but we have to fly into Boston. I might stay an extra day; idk how that will complicate my work schedule. What days of the week are you generally free?

I can make any evening work, though Thursdays would take rearranging. Sat and Sun I'm free all day.

Will this be your only trip eastward this year? I'm going to Con.txt and Wiscon.

K and I have agreed we're going to Con.txt, but we haven't actually registered/bought tickets/planned it yet. I'd love to go to Wiscon some day, but it probably won't happen this year.

That book was also recommended to me, and I also found it super boring, super conservative and super offensive when I read it in maybe 2006 or 2007. However, because I am a person who often enjoys fictionalized rape and noncon, I did shamefully enjoy That Scene toward the end (the m/m one? not sure how much you're spoiled for), which is now almost all I can remember about the entire book. "Shamefully" because there were so many ways it could have been done without the raging homophobia.

But mostly I am stuck on: Ron Moore is doing a TV adaptation?! That should be interesting.

I am a person who often enjoys fictionalized rape and noncon, I did shamefully enjoy That Scene toward the end (the m/m one? not sure how much you're spoiled for), which is now almost all I can remember about the entire book. "Shamefully" because there were so many ways it could have been done without the raging homophobia.

The m/m rape scene is what I got spoiled for on Goodreads. And I totally get liking fictionalized rape and noncon, and it doesn't always need to be problematized, because for some people that takes the enjoyment out of it. But just as you said, what I'm hating about it is how it's handled. There's this scene where he (Jamie) beats his wife (the main character, Claire) because she did something wrong. This could be okay with me in SO MANY WAYS but instead Claire comes across as a victim rationalizing her wife-beating husband's behavior and like . . . this is okay. This is what we want for her.

Ron Moore is doing a TV adaptation?! That should be interesting.

The story that I heard is that his wife is in love with these books, and so he wants to do them justice. I'm super interested in what he comes up with, and yet I don't really want to support more stuff like this book. UGH. But MOORE.

It definitely has evil queer problems, though later it attempts to make up for this by introducing my very favorite character in the series.

I haven't re-read for over ten years, and I was way less attuned to consent issues then, plus I imprinted on as a teen when I was reading a lot of romance novel-style dubcon. So I can't speak to the rest.

I kind of like them in spite of myself? But given your reaction so far, take it from a slight Internet acquaintance that the end of this book is going to be deeply upsetting to you and you should really not read it, promise to friend notwithstanding. (Oh, wait, I see you spoiled yourself--but I recommend against it.) Well, anyway, you definitely won't like any of the rest of the series.

later it attempts to make up for this by introducing my very favorite character in the series.

Do you mean there is a positive gay portrayal? Because this would make some things better.

Well, anyway, you definitely won't like any of the rest of the series.

Yeah, I'm still gonna finish, but I'm not gonna read more of it. Although I gotta say, rape that is written as rape--where something NOT OKAY is happening to you (even if you're kind of enjoying it)--is just fine with me.

Yes, though the jury's out on whether he ultimately gets a happy ending because the story's not done yet, but he's great and he gets his own side series.

And it's not just the rape but the rape recovery bit, which never worked for me even at the time.

STOP NOW before you get any further into the book; the climax really will make you hurl.

I read about five of the Outlander books when I was a teen, and a lot of people in my parish did as well. At the time I had a pretty strong stomach (I also read ASOIAF and Wheel of Time) so I loved the historical and medical detail, though the spanking always annoyed and/or confused me (I remember the moment I intellectually realized that nonconsensual spanking is a kink some people have, and went, "Ohh, that's why it was in the book!" because otherwise I was like, author, why you do this to people I want to like?

The same author has another series in the same world/timeframe that are mysteries with a gay protagonist. I bounced off them, and soured on Outlander.

Edited 2014-02-14 01:33 (UTC)

I know you read these a while ago--but for anyone who might be reading the comments--"spanking" seems like a relatively tame term for what happened there; he held her down and beat her with a leather strap, and she couldn't sit comfortable for three days.

I intellectually realized that non-consensual spanking is a kink some people have,

This is okay with me, but there are so so so many better ways to do it. So so many.

The same author has another series in the same world/timeframe that are mysteries with a gay protagonist.

Ah! I have looked them up. I actually feel slightly better about this now, though. For one thing, I have some really good friends who are into these books and I just couldn't see how they could possibly get into something that feels so homophobic, and it made me sad. I wonder if the misogyny issues get any better . . .

he held her down and beat her with a leather strap, and she couldn't sit comfortable for three days.

Whooooa that one slipped my mind. I only remembered the later episode, where he used a gorse bush. O_O

The misogyny issues are so variable. Like, that first book also gives us Jamie's sister, who is so absolutely amazing I want her in everything ever. It continues in a kind of seesaw thing, tempting the reader along with women being awesome on the one hand and them cramming in misogyny with the other. It was when an unapologetically feminist character showed up and got ground under by the plot that I was finally like, "Nope, can't take this anymore."

Isn't that written by Diana Gabaldon, the woman who said that writing fanfiction is like raping the original author?

A former friend loved the books so I read them so we could talk about them together. Except that I really dislike the main character and wanted someone who was a little more aware that 1700s Scotland was a terrible place to live. You'd think almost getting condemned as a witch might have been a clue, but no...

I haven't read Outlander, but I have read most of the stories and books starring Lord John Grey, the gay protagonist. And the thing is... they are homophobic too.

Most of the time, it's a subliminal thing that can be easily explained away by the time the book is set in. Homophobia is ingrained in this society and in the attitudes of everyone in it, including the gay people themselves. However. There is one aspect of the books' homophobia that is so inexplicable and disgusting that, in the end, it made me stop reading the series.

The thing is: Lord John is completely and inexplicably obsessed with, fascinated by and more than a little in love with Jamie, who appears as a minor character in several scenes. There is never any conceivable explanation for John's positive feelings towards the man; I was left with the impression the author simply assumed everyone would naturally be in love with this particular character because he is the author's favorite and just that awesome period, no in-character explanation or reason required.

Jamie, in his turn, is deeply, viscerally and openly disgusted and offended by John's homosexuality, and even more so by John's attraction to him. John goes back to see Jamie several times in a doomed bid for his approval, and Jamie showers disgust, revulsion and hatred on him. After the last instance of this, John runs out and desperately brings himself off, overcome by the enchanting vicinity of Jamie.

This was the point at which I just could not read any further. The level of self-hatred this narrative implies for John seems entirely unintentional on the part of the author; John is never otherwise self-loathing. It's not that John has a humiliation kink, either. It's just extremely bad storytelling. I don't have an explanation for it at all, but it reads as horribly homophobic in context.

Sorry for the rant; I feel rather strongly about this issue, as you may have surmised. ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Outlander

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject