Book Review: OUTLANDER, My Thoughts So Far

So, I started reading Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. Usually I save my thoughts on a book until after I read the entire thing, but this book is A) extremely long and B) thought provoking so I thought I would share my provoked thoughts, as it were.

Outlander is labeled a historical romance. Well, I'm on page 200-something and its not really sending me romantic vibes. If anything, I feel like I'm involved in a very interesting history lesson about Scotland 1945 and Scotland 1743. Since I love history and Scotland, this doesn't bother me too much, but I'm also an avid romance reader and was looking forward to some good mushiness, so I'm a bit disappointed by the lack thereof. (And no, it's not just because we get the curtain drawn over the sex scenes either.) But at the same time that I'm disappointed, I'm also a bit relieved that it doesn't follow the same constraints as some of the more recent romances I've read (sexual tension from page one, obvious ending from page one and a half). This could be because A) the MC is already married to a likable (if somewhat dull, in my opinion) man B) she's not really looking for romance C) she's OLDER than the "love interest" (I use that term loosely) in 1743. So, it's pretty unconventional. And even when she marries the handsome, scarred and very sweet Jamie, it's not so much about lust, attraction or even affection as it is about keeping Claire (the MC) safe.

And maybe I'm just too used to reading YA and its overwrought emotions, but I would like to see a bit more into Claire's head (and that's really odd considering the story is told from first person POV). She has SEX with her 1743-husband, for goodness sake, therefore CHEATING on her 1945-husband, and merely thinks, "I don't want to bring another man's memory into a marriage bed..." even if she's already married to the other man? Really? And the other thing: she hasn't given up on the possibility of getting back to her own time, so it's not like she's resigned herself to a life in 1743. But she doesn't feel the slightest bit guilty or disgusted at herself? And maybe I could excuse her actions if she'd been blinded by lust and had been wanting Jamie since she met him, but she mostly thinks of him as a "nice kid" and even tries to play matchmaker between him and another girl. So, I'm just having a hard time buying into this whole scenario. I get that Jamie and Claire are friends and that friendship is continuing to grow, but not all friends marry and then have sex with each other (especially when one is already married (though, to Jamie's credit, he doesn't know that)). So, it's just weird to me and I'm having a hard time buying into the little romance that Ms. Gabaldon is building here. If you're going to be unfaithful to your husband (Claire had been married to Frank for 8 years, separated by the war for most of that time, and still never screwed around, so she shouldn't be too twisted up about being away from him for a month, in my opinion), you'd better have some emotional benefit. Not just "Oh, he's going to keep me safe...that makes me horny."

Maybe I'm missing something. After all, Gabaldon is a subtle author. Maybe I missed all those lustful glances, attributing them to concern or something, and should have seen this easy slide into adultery coming like a runaway horse. But...it's really bugging me that Claire is so...secretive about what she really feels. She's all action, not a lot of introspection, and in a situation like this, I'm going to need some introspection or else she's going to come across as a wishy-washy adulteress (times two, now).

I'm still reading. I haven't given up hope. Everyone raves about this book, and not usually for the historical factor...so I'll keep at it and maybe at the end I'll rave, too. Crossing fingers.