Outlander

WHAT
A historical romance about a compassionate nurse out of her place and time and a gallant young Scots warrior. Caught in a war of England and Scotland, not fully trusted by either side, Claire is torn between the love for her husband, and Jamie, for whom amidst the chaos she forms a bond too strong to resist. Religious traditional romance lovers beware, this books contains logic, adultery and some fantasy.

TLDR
+ plot is organically developed, things make sense, scenes have plausible outcomes
+ good understanding of human nature
+ fully fleshed out, relatable, likable characters
+ incredible attention to details without over doing it
+ minor humor bits that made me laugh
- it's still just a romance, no exceptional elements
. many sex scenes, some brutality
. little to no fantasy


ANALYSIS
Time travel. That's as much as you'll get of fantasy in this book, as it is not important to the story overall. You will however experience a time travel effect as you'll be transported to 18th century Scotland and find yourself in the middle of a war with England.

This is not my kind of book, it is a romance, a genre of heavily emotional stories. I'm a fan of fantasy, which is by definition the opposite of ordinary. I don't like ordinary stories, and nothing is more ordinary then emotions. Most romance stories I know, through books or movies, favors love over reason and are full of “roll my eyes” and predictable moments.

The first thing that sets this book apart is the exceptional quality of the writing. Diana Gabaldon is a pretty talented writer, she structures her sentences intelligently, and kept me interested in the book in a way that only Marion Zimmer Bradley could. And that is without the arthurian mythos behind it!

The plot and the individual scenes makes sense, the sequence of events are cohesive and logical. Given the premises of a given situation, a very sensible course of action is taken. For instance, at one point Claire was prevented from going back to her time simply because she was a long way from the place she had to go. It may sound ridiculous, but she was a woman in the 18th century, alone, with no survival skills, no way of transportation. Many other reasons were given as the plot evolved, and they all felt natural and integral to the story.

The love between the protagonists is another example of an unavoidable consequence. The story was built in a way that gave them no other option, from the moment they first met to the point they are forced into being together by forces outside their control. Everything is explained and conceivable.

Sometimes I got worried the plot was going to take a wrong turn, but the author pulled through and kept the quality rising. I was going to give this a 3 star, then after reading over half of the book I decided it deserved a 4 and I had to hold on giving a 5 just because in spite of all, it is not an intellectual challenging premise. The sex scenes are very well exposed, the desire Clarie and Jamie felt for each other was palpable, the tenderness of their relationship came through really well. But its just not interesting for me by itself.

Finally the characters are convincingly brought to life through their virtues and vices. The protagonists are throughly described and side characters are given enough attention to make them matter.

Jamie is the perfect representation of the knight in shinning armor, and also a typical stubborn hot headed Scotsman, an educated barbarian, a naive young man, a natural born leader, a humble and loyal servant to his Laird. His love and devotion for Claire is moving and awe inspiring.

Claire is pragmatic, compassionated, strong willed, sharp tongued, “take not shit from men home”, plucky, and opinionated. The author draws a nice conflict for the reader by making her seem a bit cold when she is trying to escape Jamie to go back to her time, even tough he has wholeheartedly given himself to her, at some personal cost as well.

Randall is cruel, ruthless and duty bound. He doesn't appear much but plays a major role, even when not present. You'll learn of what he is capable of throughout the book and by the end of it, you will really hate him.

On a side note, I thought the plot was going to develop in a different way. Claire learns at the beginning of the book that Randall is some sort of spy, and when she finds out he resembles her husband, I figured he would be a love interest for her, and consequently they would form a love triangle with Jamie. This would work in so many levels! For a long time I believed that Randall was faking being cruel to put himself above suspicion.

Among the things I didn't like too much, the story did focus a lot on common day events, but I would say that was more or less acceptable for the purpose of bringing up immersion. Also, the story felt stretched out towards the end. Although I liked Lollybrook, the book could have ended before it and it still would have been great. The prison arc though was a little less convincing. Here my suspension of disbelief was somewhat shaken, but I took it to add to the adventure feel of the book.

To conclude, this is a deep and moving love story, about two characters that are completely devoted to each other, that found love in an unlikely situation and had to face many trials to be together.

Addressing some of the review's criticisms here at GoodReads:

The story is trash: Nonsense. I hate romances, I love good plots. Never would I consider reading this book, or let alone continue reading it as it is a very long book, if the story wasn't really good. There is a little of everything here, intrigue, heroic deeds with consequences, humor. Maybe it could have more of those, but I didn't feel necessary, the story felt pretty authentic the way it was told.

The story is an excuse for adultery: one of the claims is that the little amount of attention given to the protagonist's husband makes this book a cheap excuse for adultery. For me the conclusion is different: it means the book is not about adultery. It is about a woman out of her time (not in a time travel sense) that given the circumstances makes the best as she can, inadvertently falling in love in the process. The plot clearly describes a gradually growing and unavoidable relationship. Adultery plays little role in comparison to this.

Another complaint is that the time travel also is a bad plot element and a cheap excuse for adultery as well. That holds no grounds, the protagonist husband being in a different timeline is only a detail. Time travel is irrelevant in this book, it could easily have been replaced by “in a distant land, unable to go back home”.

This kind of criticism stems from people who are religiously conservative and/or have zero tolerance for fantasy. What would be a good excuse for adultery? Your standard “my husband does not appreciate me, beats me up and cheats on me?” Time travel is the perfect excuse because it is logical and interesting. The discussion with father Anselm in the end of the book tries to show some arguments in favor of the so called adultery. At the very least it shows that Claire does care about the issue.

The time travel aspect is so insignificant for me that this book does not even registries as a fantasy. You have a woman in an impossible situation. For some, this spells “she wants to cheat”, as there is no such thing as impossible situations, there is only reality, and it is harsh and you're stuck with your dead beat husband for whom you swore your obedience until your dying breath.

Rapey: hmmm... no. The book is very graphical, everything is told in great detail. The author makes you see and feel everything she is writing about. You are actually teleported to this backward Scotland, where things are not like present day America. The book has many mentions of rape. Guess what, people are mean, they actually do this kind of stuff. There is only one scene I think though, and it was very sick, gruesome and integral to the plot.

Abuse-apologist: really not. Morality is not black and white. If you ask a bully why he beats up someone he will not say “because I'm mean”. The author describes the reasons the characters behave the way they do in an incredible realistic style. It shows great depth and understanding of human nature. This is not apologetic, its storytelling. Regarding the wife-beating scene, the woman in no way validated the abuse. She in fact fiercely maintained her disapproval despite all his explanations. She said she would kill him if he ever laid his hands to hurt her again.

And if that sounds weak and apologetic, remember that although this is “not quite the Dark Ages but they were a far cry from modern women's rights” (this is from other reviewer). By the way, did this upset you more then the witch burning? Why? Because that was normal in those days, but beating up women wasn't?