If you’ve been active in Goodreads, you’ll know that Diana Gabaldon’s Written in My Own Heart’s Blood is one of the nominees for the Best Books of 2014 for romance stories. Wait, wait. I’ve just found out the voting’s already closed, so, we’ll know the results soon if it won.
Anyway. So, I got kind of curious over that book and thought maybe I might like to read it. After doing some research, I learned that it was part of a series of books which begins with Outlander. Diana Gabaldon, in her website, tells the public that her Outlander books are stand alone novels. But she encourages readers to begin with Outlander. Being the kind of person who takes suggestions seriously and also, being one who must know how it all began, I read Outlander.
I’ve already read the plot summary and knew that I would be dealing with a time travel romance. I’m not really too keen with time travel stories. They just get me confused, you know. I mean, so let’s say you step into some sort of portal on November 25, 2014. Then, you step out of the portal and find yourself in November 21, 2014. Won’t it always just keep on looping? I mean, everytime you get to November 25, 2014, you always step into that portal and end up back again in November 21, 2014. Before you judge me for my “flawless” logic, know that I am not any kind of science geek. But I have digressed.
I was even more encouraged by Diana Gabaldon’s “Pick it up, open it anywhere and read three pages. If you can put it down again, I’ll pay you a dollar” statement in her website regarding Outlander. I mean, that’s really being overly sure of yourself, isn’t it? I know authors are supposed to sell their books but it just seemed a bit arrogant to me. And anyway, did she mean she’ll pay a dollar for every three pages you’ve read and then put the book down?
PLOT SYNOPSIS
It’s 1946 and Claire Randall nee Beauchamp is in Scotland with her husband Frank for their second honeymoon. Claire has just finished serving as an army nurse and has taken an interest in plants and herbs. Meanwhile, Frank is trying to trace his family tree which appears to have sprouted a branch in Scotland. Incidentally, they’ve been together for about six years but luckless in the area of conception. In one of their sight-seeings, they find this mini-version of the Stonehenge. And by mini, it does not necessarily mean the souvenir kind you buy and bring home to display on your shelf, to be looked at every now and then but gathering copious amounts of dust all the while. Nope. This mini Stonehenge is still larger than life, just not as ginormous as the Stonehenge.
After witnessing a pagan ritual performed inside this mini Stonehenge, Claire and Frank inspect the stones but find really nothing significant. Claire, however, has noticed some flowers which she did not think important until they return to their hotel and realized she doesn’t know what kind those were. So, Frank suggests that Claire could go back to take a closer look at these plants and perhaps bring back some.
Back goes Claire to the circle of stones and, before she knows what’s happening, she goes through a portal and viola, finds herself transported back to the 1743 version of Scotland where she meets Frank’s evil ancestor Jack Randall. After escaping from the clutches of the infamous Black Jack, Claire finds herself in the company of the Mackenzies and Jamie MacTavish, who really is a Fraser. Later, Claire learns that Jack has ordered one of the Mackenzies to deliver her to him for some unknown but evil purpose. But, all is not lost. If only Claire would marry Jamie, which incidentally also requires consummation thereof, she would be free from Black Jack’s unwanted attention.
Oh, but how can that be?! Claire is already married to Frank, future grandson of the evil Black Jack! Should she break her vow to Frank and marry Jamie to save herself? Or should she just give up herself to his husband’s six times great grandfather to be no doubt tortured past sanity? Will she ever return to 1946 and back to Frank? Will she survive without hot bathwater? What do Scottish men wear under their kilts? Dum dum dum!!!
So, first things first. What I liked about this book:
Let me start by saying I’ve read some pretty nasty book reviews from Goodreads about this one. It’s been called trashy by one and treated as a sin by another for which she will repent by reading lots of Dostoyevsky. I’ve read Dostoyevsky and that is not light reading, let me tell you (in case you didn’t know, but I’m pretty sure you already do.). After reading Outlander, I’m fairly certain it was nowhere near trashy or considerably amoral as to require penitence.
The story was well-written, I’ll give it that. 50 Shades of Grey is porn and Outlander is a modest love story. And the way Diana Gabaldon describes the scenery almost makes you feel like you were actually in Scotland. Rolling hills and greenery gets to me.
If the book was turned into film (but there’s already a tv series based on this book, I’m sure you know), there would be no gratuitious show of sex unlike 50 Shades of Grey. If we’re just talking about words, which I suppose I am, you won’t find yourself reading “the apex of my thighs” repeatedly unlike in 50 Shades. Please excuse me if I seem hung up on 50 Shades. Let me reassure you that I am not but merely trying to illustrate that Outlander is not trashy.
There were several witty conversations throughout the book which I also liked. They were funny in a LOL kind of way. You know, when you type LOL in a text message when, in truth, you’re not really even smiling. It’s a bit funny but you’re only laughing inside your head. Unlike the ROFL kind of funny where you actually have to stop yourself from laughing out loud lest you be thought of as positively mental.
I also liked the moral issues presented by the story. Should you break your marriage vows to save yourself? And if you should break them, should that mean that you must suffer every minute thereafter? Or do you just forget all about it and live in the moment? And, in the end of it all, if given the chance to go back and try to save your marriage vows, would you take it?
Under Claire’s circumstances, I’m not sure she was left with any choice. I mean, obviously, right? Or the story would have ended a quarter into the book. I’m not making any judgment about Claire’s character, who is a non-practicing Catholic, according to the book. But I thought the dilemma Claire was placed in was thought-provoking.
If I’m going to be particular, I’d say I liked that part where Claire was back inside the mini Stonehenge and, after realizing she still had the power to go back to 1946 and to Frank, trying to decide if she wanted to return to Frank or stay with Jamie. For me, that was the highlight of the entire story.
On the other hand, What I didn’t like:
It was quite a very long story and I felt like I could have done without some parts. It took me about five days to finish the book. Although to be fair, I was only reading it in my spare time which was usually at night. I suppose if I devoted time to just reading the book, I might have finished it in three days. But the question is, would I want to devote time just to read it? Unfortunately, the answer to that is no.
Like I said, the story was a bit too long for me and I think it developed slowly. Lengthy narrations were dedicated to Claire’s occupation with the plants and her medical practice in Castle Leoch, which I think didn’t really need that much attention in the book. Some parts also seemed pointless if not a bit redundant.
Also, I didn’t get the feeling that Colum Mackenzie was in anyway threatening. If anything, I thought Colum was ambivalent just like his brother, Dougal. I didn’t really catch the feeling that they were hatching some plan against Claire or on how best to use her, aside from being appointed as the castle’s physician, as she had several times implied, for being perceived as a probable English spy. At best, I could only say that Colum and Dougal were alternately suspicious and apathetic as to Claire.
As for Jack Randall, I found that his evilness coupled with his sexual preference and implications of incest were just a trifle too much. One person in Goodreads said in his review of this book that Black Jack’s personality had facets that were remarkable. I, instead, just saw him as an untouchable sadist who had been given his dream job. He was just, in a word, disgusting. His character is not one I’d be interested in to learn how he became the man he was. He has served his purpose as a villain and nothing more.
Then, there’s Jamie who, at first, I thought was a push-over. Dougal called him a soldier who will do anything required of him. I thought it was just a better way of saying Jamie didn’t have any backbone. Only later on, as in while reading well into the last quarter of the book, did I learn that Jamie was actually attracted to Claire from the beginning. Again, this is where I felt the book was lacking. There was nothing to show that Jamie even felt anything for Claire in the beginning of the story except probably gratefulness for treating him medically. I didn’t feel any excitement or thrill anytime Jamie and Claire were together. Even when they were supposed to be married, all I got from Jamie was that he was doing the things he was doing out of duty despite being gallant about it. So, I suppose what I’m really trying to get at is that this just feels like a bland or moderately tasty love story. The passion between Jamie and Claire was not really evident. And you know I’m not talking about the sex. On a scale of 1 to 10, Outlander as a love story would fall somewhere between 3 to 4, if 10 were reserved for Cathy and Heathcliff.
Save for that moment when Claire was deciding whether to go back through the portal and, ultimately, back to Frank, I couldn’t honestly say I was riveted by this book. I did put this book down several times and not just because I had to attend to mommy duties. While I’m prepared to say that this book has been unjustly reviewed by some people on Goodreads, I wouldn’t exactly hail this as one of the great love stories I’ve ever read. I found it lukewarm, verging on going cold. After reading the book, I think Diana Gabaldon owes me a couple of dollars.
Will I keep it in my Kindle/iBook shelf? Nope.
Will I possibly read it again in some future time? No.
Will I read the next book in this series? Nah, I don’t think so.
A Mommy in the Hood 