Roundtable: Outlander #1-2 by Diana Gabaldon

Time travel into the land of mist and myth

Outlander is very popular here at the DFL; many staff members have read the books and/or watched the recent TV show, and so it is a frequent topic of discussion. I watched the show when it first came out – and loved it – so I've finally decided to dive in to the books themselves. I'll be offering my thoughts on each book in the series as I read them through the rest of this year. Today, I’ll start with the first two books in the series (which to me were really two halves of a self-contained story), with the additional perspectives of three of my lovely colleagues. 

Outlander (1991) and Dragonfly in Amber (1992) together tell the story of the tail end of the Scottish uprising of the mid-1700s, which ended with the Battle of Culloden, from the perspective of Claire – a WWII nurse who accidentally travels back in time from 1945 to 1743 Scotland. The books touch upon many fascinating subjects, both reality – including daily life, health care, and politics in the 18th century (and even to a certain extent, mid-20th century) – and fantasy/sci fi, such as: can events in the past ever be changed, or is history always set in stone? And intertwined throughout is romance, adventure, and intrigue.

KAREN:

I had heard so much about the Outlander series and always felt I should read them, but I’ll confess that the thickness of the books made me stay clear of them for a long time. A couple of summers ago, I caved and started reading the first one. The TV show was coming out and I wanted the visions in my head before Hollywood provided them for me. Before I knew it, the end of August arrived and I had read through the whole series. I was hooked and ready to fly to Scotland.

Call them romance, historical fiction, fantasy, or adventure – the series crosses many genres.  They left me wanting to do a little research on the Battle of Culloden and Scottish history. They left me trying to learn a few words in Gaelic. They left me wondering what I did with my old kilt and instead of thinking ‘Don’t worry’ I found myself thinking ‘Dinna fash.’

They also left me wondering if – given the chance – would I go back in time?  Luckily I don’t have to decide. I can take my 21st century knowledge and live in a Scottish castle. I can learn about medicinal herbs and sleep on a bed of pine needles, but I can do it with electricity, and modern medicine . . . and coffee. . . hot coffee in the morning. I can travel through pages (instead of stones) into the world of romance, loyalty, and honor created by Diana Gabaldon.

Give them a try. If you're also intimidated by the thickness of the books, try the audio. There is nothing like a commute to work while listening to someone profess their love with a Scottish brogue.

SUZANNE:

I really wanted to like Outlander. It has story elements that I enjoy: a smart and strong female lead, historical fiction, and some magic. But the story just never drew me in and although I am glad that I read this, I didn’t actually like it. It even left me confused, and wondering what about this massively popular story I am not getting.

One common theme that rarely holds my interest is what I think of as the “Too Many Boyfriends” scenario, which is when lots of male characters are lusting after the female protagonist, and a love triangle is part of the main story. I tend to find that dynamic annoying because it seems to be a lazy way for an author to show the importance of a female protagonist. Claire has two husbands, both love her eternally and completely, and she’s also constantly being ogled, commented upon, and pawed by both friendly and antagonistic male characters.

This was also a more violent story than I was expecting, and that bothered me. As someone who really enjoys the Song of Ice and Fire series, I can handle violence in novels. But the violence here was often justified in a way that made me uncomfortable. Jamie beats Claire at one point and she comes to forgive him because he explains that he did it out of love for her. Jamie speaks about the beatings he received from his father as being a sign of love. Claire and Jamie’s whole relationship in general seems to hinge on the fact the he is horribly hurt over and over, and she heals him. Throw in some added baby exposure and bare-handed wolf killing, and it was all too much for me.

There was also an element of gay panic to this story. There is an ancillary gay character who is predatory with a predilection for adolescent men, but who is also written off as a buffoon and an object of ridicule for the other characters. And then, of course, there is Captain Randall (I won’t say too much – spoilers!). Also, the fact that Captain Randall looks exactly like Claire’s other husband, Frank, made me wonder what sort of strange symbolism that was supposed to represent.

So, what am I missing? Why do people love this series? Is it better as a TV show?

LINDSEY:
I enjoyed Outlander far more than I expected to. Romance novels aren’t really my thing, but the historical element drew me to the series (as well as the urging of several coworkers) and I am so glad that I read them.

At first, I was displeased by the “woman loves two men and has to choose” story arc but Gabaldon made Claire come alive for me and instead of a torrid love story, I saw a woman doing the best she could under extraordinary circumstances. I’m going to try to avoid spoilers here but I really loved how Gabaldon took common themes like abduction, rape, and rescue and flipped them. This damsel spent as much time rescuing as being rescued and all characters carried the scars of their encounters. Nothing was easily won or easily forgotten, which contributed to the depths of the characters and my attachment to them. Obviously the time comes when Claire must choose between her two men and I have to admit that I cheered at her choice. In all I was pulled into this book and taken for a ride that I thoroughly enjoyed.

BETH:

It’s worth noting that Lindsey, Suzanne, and I started reading #1 together after the first season of the show aired. Lindsey and Suzanne – neither of whom watched the show before reading the books – both mentioned that they had a bit of a hard time getting into the story at the beginning (one of whom ended up really getting into the series, the other didn’t – I’ll let you guess which is which). But I watched the show first, and had no trouble getting into the story at all. While I don’t usually recommend watching a show or movie before reading the book, in this case I can’t help but wonder if the show helped me get into the book because it was so great. I was impressed once I did read the book how closely the show stuck to the original story. In fact, there were quite a few details in which I thought the show even improved the book, specifically where the it could 'show' something that the book only 'told'.

Overall, I thought that the characters were wonderfully complex, the setting incredibly interesting, the writing was great, and I really appreciated that by the end of #2, almost all the different threads brought up in #1 were resolved, so that none of the specific story lines felt like they dragged out too much, but rather ended in a very satisfactory manner (which of course left an opening for many other adventures in the rest of the series).

While I too was occasionally bothered by what might have been a little bit too much sexual violence for the sake of sexual violence, I did feel that Gabaldon was trying to make a point about what the reality was like for women in the 18th century (and most of history before and even after that). For most of written history (at least in terms of Western / European history), women have been considered the property of their fathers and husbands, and sadly I think it was more common than not for men to take advantage of this. I thought the books did a good job of expressing how anathema that would be to a modern woman, and really helped immerse my mind in the attitudes of the era.

At the end, I was very satisfied with the way that this story (in books #1-2) addressed the fascinating question of whether or not we can change the past, in both large and small ways. While it makes me sad that time travel may always remain science fiction, perhaps it’s for the best, and at least we can always travel to any time period through books, shows, and movies. And, as Karen pointed out, can do so from the comforts of our own heated, clean living rooms with a nice cup of tea and some cookies!

Keep reading! Beth

Roundtable Review: The Circle by Dave Eggers

In which several members of our staff who have all read the same book offer their differing thoughts and opinions. Today: a technological thriller and commentary on modern society by Dave Eggers, called The Circle (2013). Please note, there WILL be spoilers as we discuss all aspects of this book, including the ending!

For my original review of both this book and The Martian, check out this post of the blog.

CAROL J.: Creepy, authentic look at how capitalistic, technologically-driven corporations envision and expect the world to be. But can complete allegiance to one company, 24-7, and total worldwide data transparency be good for humanity?

ROSE: For me, The Circle by Dave Eggers follows in the footsteps of other dystopian novels like Huxley’s Brave New World, where different aspects of the present-day society are exaggerated and expanded into something disquieting. Mae Holland, a sweet young woman, is hired by a revered mega-Internet company, The Circle (which has some resemblances to Google, Facebook and Apple). Mae’s employers introduce her to the high expectations of The Circle: the 24/7 social interaction whirl of the employees, and the competitive video-game aspects of the work itself, which involves responding to customer emails rapidly and skillfully for hours, in order to amass a high rating.

The Circle is not great literature. The writing is on the level of a summer beach read: characters are not deep, and the story’s ending is rushed. But I would recommend it, since it held my interest, and the story moves along steadily. I cared about the main character, and was interested in her evolution. A number of the concepts (companies where employees can live 24/7, a constant barrage of social media, use of computers to measure work output) already exist at today’s corporations. We’re all aware of camera surveillance and drones; it’s a small step to imagining their presence everywhere.

But what I liked best about the story – and what stays with me – is the depiction of the relentless, privacy-smashing communal life that has an incredibly seductive pull: being part of the approving crowd, being watched over, protected and secure. I think The Circle would make a fine book for discussion, with concepts everyone in the 21st century can relate to.

ELLEN: In the spirit of 1984, The Jungle, and the latest craze for dystopian future novels, Dave Eggers has written a book that challenges the orthodoxy of increased public exposure of our personal lives on the Internet through gadgets and constant postings on bulletin boards and news feeds.

As a novel I found it a bit heavy-handed and I didn't find the central character, Mae Holland, all that believable, but I laughed mightily at the obvious representations of Facebook, Instagram, personal blogs, and YouTube. Companies like Google, whose products mesh so seamlessly into a web of interdependency, started out to claim the simplistic mantra, "Don't be evil" (their page outlining their philosophy).

At the same time, the digital storage of the world's data – including all literature, demographic information, and government documents – begs the question, "who controls the databank, who gets ready access, who controls speed of downloads, who holds the keys?" Something that starts out as a way for everyone to hold the power inevitably can morph into a power grab. Recent revelations on working conditions at Amazon, controversial as the sourcing is, raises the relevant question, "Can you succeed at a corporation and ever be offline and not at work?"

As the Young Adult Librarian, I love asking my teen group about privacy and the Internet. They have grown up with a digital presence in their lives. What is compelling is how much they find freedom and solace in what they see as the anonymity of creating an online identity. They find community and validation from others here and learn to create a voice in a group of fellow gamers, fan fiction writers, artists, and bloggers. They seem well aware of the pitfalls and know the safety issues but don't let that stop them from exploring and posting fearlessly.

On a tangential note, David and I have talked about the need for a variety of digital curation web services similar to Maria Popova's Brain Pickings, and that libraries should consider this kind of extremely intense compilation work around issues and topics one of the new tasks for libraries to tackle. It will be the key, from my perspective, to maintaining a variety of hosts and voices.

Privacy is really a very modern value. In ancient times people lived in shoulder-to-shoulder contact with others for safety’s sake. How we balance our desire to live private lives against our natural compulsion for convenience and safety is a fascinating tension that Eggers' book broaches in an entertaining and ominous way.

JESS: When I read the synopsis of this book I thought to myself, "I'm never going to finish this. It doesn't sound suspenseful at all." The book is like a slow burn, it does take time to build but by then end I couldn't believe a book about a social media company had me on the edge of my seat.

This book made me feel uncomfortable and reflective, much like the scenes in Fahrenheit 451 when the main character's wife dives deeper and deeper into her hologram TV. It is a book that has stayed with me long after I finished. I didn't like the main character Mae and that's the whole point. There are two particular scenes that stand out in my head. One is a customer service job interaction between Mae and a businessman where the number of emails she gets asking her to rate his company and recommend his daughter for a job was excruciating painful. I was visibly stressed listening to this. Why does she put up with this? She has the power to make or break his business with a few sentences.

Another harrowing scene is when she is scolded by human resources for not "posting" about going kayaking – her one soulful, peaceful interaction with nature, ‘How could she not think to invite others who like to kayak?’ Even going so far as berating her for selfishly not videoing it for people who cannot kayak due to their own health issues. This company becomes more like a cult throughout the book but just when the reader starts to question it, something positive about the resource sharing happens, and it makes you rethink your feelings about the company.

The book's final climax ended abruptly but I think that's the point of the whole book. The loss of privacy in our era has left us highly informed but at what cost? How has it changed us as people? Are we stretched so thin that our human interactions are left on the surface? Food for thought the next time you think about posting on Facebook.

BETH:  This book was great, but very disturbing. It almost felt like a prequel to any science fiction story – how we allow a slow spreading of technology into our lives until it eventually takes over completely. The scariest thing is that our present-day society, with everyone so deeply tied into and dependent on their phones, tablets, and computers is really not very far at all from the society in this book.

Though, as others have mentioned, the main character Mae was not entirely likeable, still you could see how she ended up getting in as deep as she did. Each step she took – every time she said yes to her supervisor’s requests – was understandable as an isolated incident. But for the reader, the book becomes more and more tense as you wonder where Mae's line will be; when she'll realize that broadcasting her entire life, with the only break being a minute of muted silence when she uses the restroom, is crazy.

When she persists even when she has to meet her best friend in the bathroom to have any semblance of private conversation, I was flabbergasted. When she literally drives someone to suicide and her parents underground and STILL continues to drink The Circle's Kool-Aid about wanting to be seen and known by everyone, and everyone having a right to see and know you, I was angry and frankly pretty sad. And when the book ended without any reasonable resolution, I really saw this as the beginning of the end of civilization in that society. And then I went outside.

Emma Watson and Tom Hanks are starring in the film adaptation of The Circle, which is currently set to come out sometime in 2016. It will be very interesting to see how they adapt the book to a movie, especially the later half of the story, which is told almost exclusively from a first-person perspective of Mae's camera.

Overall, I think all of us really enjoyed this book, though the feelings it elicited while reading were absolutely not always pleasant. It really made us all think and talk about the story and how it applies to our own lives, which after all is just about the best a book can do.

Keep reading! Beth

Roundtable Review: Go Set a Watchman

In which several members of our staff who have all read the same book offer their differing thoughts and opinions. Today: the controversial follow-up to Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Please note, there WILL be spoilers as we discuss all aspects of this book, including the ending!

Ellen: Reading Go Set a Watchman was a fascinating experience for me. As someone who grew up in the 1960s in the racially tense setting of NYC, I had always found the attitude of Atticus and Scout towards the black community in Maycomb patronizing. What a revelation to read Jean Louise's anger and frustration regarding race relations in Watchman!

As a member of our DFL discussion of the two books said, "Too bad Harper Lee didn't follow up Mockingbird with another book based on Watchman but with the benefit of the terrific editing skills of Tay Hohoff." Perhaps Hohoff thought the public wouldn't be able to respond positively to a more strident narrator. The voice of Scout in Mockingbird is so clear and she shows rather than tells, which makes that book a masterpiece and Watchman a rough draft. We also found the class distinctions in Watchman fascinating to discuss. I agree with the Library Journal's Barbara Hoffert's review which says of Watchman, "Disturbing, important, and not to be compared with Mockingbird; this book is its own signal work."

Judy: From the time I heard that the new Harper Lee novel, Go Set a Watchman, was to be released, I waited patiently for its arrival. I wanted to go back to Atticus, Scout, Calpurnia, and the rest of the characters living in Macomb County. It was worth the wait. Once again, I was holding a book by Harper Lee and clearly, in my opinion, it WAS written by Ms. Lee.

Of course, the story was different and, after reading many reviews, I was prepared when Scout/Jean Louise, looking back at her childhood, was disenchanted with what she found. Atticus was not the hero she portrayed in Mockingbird. He was simply a man – a good man – who was living with the beliefs of many men of his time, and who would have changed his racial views as time progressed.

Unfortunately, issues of race had not changed much from the 1930s to the 1950s in Alabama, and coming to terms with life in Maycomb, and with Atticus in particular, was painful for Scout, now a city girl living in the more liberal Northeast. Scout's life and her relationships with family and friends were affected by what she found out about Atticus on one of her annual visits. However, the insightfulness of Atticus prevailed as before and he helped Scout resolve her conflict and move into adulthood as an independent person.

I loved holding the book, I loved reading the book, and I love the poetic and sublime writing of Harper Lee.

Pat: Before I read the book, I had read some reviews of it in magazines and online. One of the comments made was not to look at the book as a prequel or a sequel, but to read it as a completely "stand alone" novel. With this in mind I read the book and struggled right from the beginning. My immediate feeling was that I was not a fan of the "grownup" Scout at all. I found her very abrasive, not particularly sensitive, cynical, and foul-mouthed.  While I admired her strength and independence, especially as a young woman during this time period in history, I just did not find her likable.

It was at this point that I realized that no matter how hard I tried, I would not be able to read this book as a completely separate novel from the first book, or even from the movie. You can't 'unread' a book that you've already read and loved. You can't 'unsee' one of the greatest movies of all time. So that advice from the critics I had to completely throw out the window. I realized I was most definitely biased right from the beginning. As I plodded through the book, my negative feelings about Scout did not change, and continued right to the end. She bitterly confronts Atticus at the end of the book, with a string of angry, mean, abusive, and foul-mouthed words, and I just couldn't get past where this anger came from, and the fact that Atticus was at the other end of it. It just didn't seem to fit the character. In the end, when Scout finally realizes why she was so angry at Atticus, it was just too late for me to find much redemption in this character. For a child who so loved her father, and idolized him to such a huge degree, it just never made sense to me why she would be so abusive to him. To me, it just seemed almost unrealistic.

Suzanne: For me, the best part of Go Set a Watchman was re-reading To Kill A Mockingbird in anticipation of the release. While I have some issues with Mockingbird, it is a well-written, engaging story... Go Set A Watchman is not. It is clearly a first draft. Most of the book consists of conversations between Jean Louise Finch and people who are simply explaining their points of view, with hardly any action or character building. There are two scenes that stand out for being charming and fun to read – both memories Jean Louise has of when she was a child and teenager. Good for Harper Lee's editor for recognizing that there was potential in those scenes and for steering her in that direction into what became Mockingbird.

Even if you haven't heard too much about this book, you have probably heard that the character of Atticus Finch is different than how he appears in Mockingbird. In this book, he is tolerant of hearing people's extremely racist points of view, does not believe that the NAACP and SCOTUS rulings in favor of civil rights will help African Americans, and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan during his youth because it was an organization that every white man was supposed to join. The plot of this book is Jean Louise being horrified by this revelation and coming to terms with her feelings about her father.

I am going to spoil the ending here. Jean Louise cannot reconcile the fact that her father is her hero with the new knowledge that he has such backwards views about race, and so she decides she can't ever see him again. When she tries to leave town, her uncle punches her in the face and calls her a bigot (for being color-blind), then makes her feel better with a glass of whiskey. Apparently that is exactly what she needed, because she is then able to reconcile with Atticus, accepting him as just a man who loves her, although no longer her hero. What a reader in 2015 is supposed to take away as the message of this book, I just don't know. Sometimes the people you love are surprisingly racist?

There is one character that we do not get to hear going on and on at length about race and the South, and that is Calpurnia. She is the Finch's former housekeeper, a black woman that Jean Louise thinks of as the closest person to a mother that she had. When Jean Louise visits Calpurnia, she doesn't say much to Jean Louise, which the reader is told means that she no longer loves the Finch family like her own, but just thinks of them as merely white people. Hearing from the black characters about how they view the changes in society would have been interesting and also illuminating to the book's other characters. But maybe that was beyond the scope of Harper Lee's abilities, as a white Southern writer living in the 1950s. 

Read this book if you are interested in seeing how obvious it is that writers need to write many drafts (with the help of editors), or if you like reading arguments in favor of state's rights vs. the Supreme Court. If you are interested in the ongoing, complicated state of race in America, you should probably read Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates, which was released at the same time this summer.

Clearly, the staff had very different opinions about the book! What did you think of Go Set a Watchman?