Scan barcode
A review by adam_z
Outlander by Diana Gabaldon
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
A few years ago Mike's Book Reviews (YouTube) posed the following question: Can a guy enjoy Outlander? He went on to talk about the first season of the television adaptation on Starz, (which I'm not going to get into here), but never really gave an answer about the book.
My answer to the question is yes - somewhat. I liken Outlander to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series in the sense that both series have attracted a lot of strong praise and criticism. I come away from Outlander with similar feelings to what I had for Wizard's First Rule (Sword of Truth book 1): It was okay. I enjoyed it somewhat. It wasn't amazing or terrible. There were things I liked, and there were things I didn't like. I get why some people love this book/series, and I also get where much of the criticism comes from as well. If Goodreads allowed half-stars this would sit right in the middle at a 2.5 for me.
It's hard to classify Outlander - I've seen it called a romance novel, historical fiction, historical romance, historical fantasy... and none of these genre tags really fits quite right if applied individually. I think if I had to pick just one, I'd probably land on putting it in a general historical fiction category, with the caveat that there is a strong romance subplot. Not so strong that it is the dominant theme of the story--first and foremost it's a fish-out-of-water story about an English nurse from the 1940's trying to survive when she is unexpectedly finds herself in 1740's Scotland--but the romance subplot is somewhat more prominent than what I'm used to seeing in the books I typically read.
For me, the romance element just doesn't land. I really don't really enjoy reading the inner monologues of characters in the throes of the puppy love stage of a relationship. It feels voyeuristic to me. It wasn't terribly sappy/cringy - it's just not what I'm into reading.
What I DID really enjoy experiencing with Claire (protagonist and sole POV character) was the feeling of newness and discovery of this strange time and culture from centuries past. Talk about history coming to life! There were times where her knowledge of mid-20th century medicine put her in an advantageous position over the methods of the 1740's, but she had much to learn in order to get along in the time she found herself in - things that a mere introductory knowledge of 18th century history couldn't have prepared her for.
I have nothing against long books in general, and will never shy away from a book based solely on length, but if I'm reading a long book I also expect the author to make the added length worth it. The mass-market paperback edition I have is 850 pages, and I feel like this could have had appx 150 pages worth of content trimmed and been better off for it.
YMMV
My answer to the question is yes - somewhat. I liken Outlander to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series in the sense that both series have attracted a lot of strong praise and criticism. I come away from Outlander with similar feelings to what I had for Wizard's First Rule (Sword of Truth book 1): It was okay. I enjoyed it somewhat. It wasn't amazing or terrible. There were things I liked, and there were things I didn't like. I get why some people love this book/series, and I also get where much of the criticism comes from as well. If Goodreads allowed half-stars this would sit right in the middle at a 2.5 for me.
It's hard to classify Outlander - I've seen it called a romance novel, historical fiction, historical romance, historical fantasy... and none of these genre tags really fits quite right if applied individually. I think if I had to pick just one, I'd probably land on putting it in a general historical fiction category, with the caveat that there is a strong romance subplot. Not so strong that it is the dominant theme of the story--first and foremost it's a fish-out-of-water story about an English nurse from the 1940's trying to survive when she is unexpectedly finds herself in 1740's Scotland--but the romance subplot is somewhat more prominent than what I'm used to seeing in the books I typically read.
For me, the romance element just doesn't land. I really don't really enjoy reading the inner monologues of characters in the throes of the puppy love stage of a relationship. It feels voyeuristic to me. It wasn't terribly sappy/cringy - it's just not what I'm into reading.
What I DID really enjoy experiencing with Claire (protagonist and sole POV character) was the feeling of newness and discovery of this strange time and culture from centuries past. Talk about history coming to life! There were times where her knowledge of mid-20th century medicine put her in an advantageous position over the methods of the 1740's, but she had much to learn in order to get along in the time she found herself in - things that a mere introductory knowledge of 18th century history couldn't have prepared her for.
I have nothing against long books in general, and will never shy away from a book based solely on length, but if I'm reading a long book I also expect the author to make the added length worth it. The mass-market paperback edition I have is 850 pages, and I feel like this could have had appx 150 pages worth of content trimmed and been better off for it.
YMMV
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual content
Minor: Sexual assault, Torture, Violence, and Injury/Injury detail