Authors In The News
UPDATE: To all of the Gabaldon fans who have written me nasty emails about this entry, please note that I did not review Gabaldon’s book. Entertainment Weekly reviewed the book. If you don’t like what the reviewer at EW said, then write to the reviewer there. And, maybe, be a bit more careful before you start namecalling and posting fake 1 star reviews at Amazon.
It’s check-in day at the Sweat Challenge. Go post those numbers!
Speaking of writing (how’s that for a segue?)…In the newest issue, Entertainment Weekly named J.K. Rowling Entertainer of the Year. Always nice to see an author get huge recognition. Doesn’t happen often, but it’s nice to see. Guess it’s hard to ignore the fact she’s sold 400 million books. Think about that number.
Also in this issue is a review of Diana Gabaldon’s newest, Lord John and the Hand of Devils. Gabaldon actually gets the lead review - ie, the big one. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the reviewer manages to use the term “bodice ripper” in the review. [sigh] She gives the book a B- and says:
Is Gabaldon’s work vivid and transporting? Undeniably. Is it overripe, long-winded and silly? Oh, aye. As your critic, I am on the fence: I can’t recommend these breathless bodice rippers, but I ken their appeal, I do.
I’ve never read Gabaldon - yes, I admit it - so I can’t speak to this book or Gabaldon’s writing. I have heard Gabaldon speak. I found her…interesting. The review is equally interesting in that it is positive at points and dismissive at others. Dismissive is not new for the romance genre. We deal with that all the time. But, the reviewer seemed to have a reluctant respect for Gabaldon. That’s something. Not much, but something.
Anyone reading Gabaldon’s newest? I’m trying to figure out if she’s still as popular as she was when Outlander came out.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Wasn’t Gabaldon the one who absolutely insisted her books weren’t romance and that they not be shelved in the romance section? Funny how she gets painted with that dreaded romance brush anyway
I stopped reading her books after the third one in the series. I enjoyed them, but I start wondering how any one family can have so much drama in their lives. It’s the same reason I don’t enjoy soap operas. I’ve been told that I chose a good book to stop at, as they weren’t as good after that, but there are still people who are fierce fans of her work.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Exactly. That’s part of what I found interesting about hearing her talk. She downplayed the romance aspects of her books, said she did not write romance (got a little fierce on that point) and then admitted that she was okay with her books being placed in the romance section at bookstores once someone told her romance sold better than other genres. Guess getting the “bodice ripper” tag is the inevitable result of better bookstore placement. Win some, lose some.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:33 am
[...] Biking Bis - Bicycle Touring and More :: Main Page wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt It’s check-in day at the Sweat Challenge. Go post those numbers! Speaking of writing (how’s that for a segue?)…In the newest issue, Entertainment Weekly named J.K. Rowling Entertainer of the Year. Always nice to see an author get huge recognition. Doesn’t happen often, but it’s nice to see. Guess it’s hard to ignore the fact she’s sold 400 million books. Think about that number. Also in this issue is a review of Diana Gabaldon’s newest, Lord John and the Hand of Devils. Gabaldon actually gets [...]
November 25th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Interesting that the reviewer would use the term “bodice ripper.” I though Lord John was a gay hero. Also, aren’t these books labelled more “mystery” than “romance”?
November 25th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I have never read Gabaldon.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I have always been a reader. That said, there was a time where I didn’t read much - too many things going on, work, family, etc. Then, a friend recommended OUTLANDER by Diana Gabaldon to me. I thought - “oh my gosh, I’ll never finish this huge book” but I bought it anyway. I was hooked. I read the first 4 books in 3 weeks. After that, I couldn’t get enough to read. I have every one of Gabaldon’s books, although I’ll admit I don’t like the last couple of the Outlander series as much as the first ones. I enjoy Lord John’s books but they still aren’t the same as the first ones in the series.
Since that time, I’ve read hundreds upon hundreds of books (some weeks I was reading AT LEAST 1 book a day), but I still credit OUTLANDER with my renewed love of reading.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:37 am
I think of her books as the “intelligent woman’s bodice rippers.” I used to think that the adventures were too much until I read a short summary of the life of John Smith, governor of the Jamestown Colony in Virginia. If someone wrote his life as a novel, a reviewer would call it farfetched and unbelievable.
As far the the romance label, the books are certainly different from any typical romance I have read. The lovers are age 55 and 60 at the end of the latest book. Gabaldon herself has said that her goal was not to write a “happily ever after” book, but to explore the elements of a long-term married relationship. The first couple of books are the setting for the essence of the story which is beginning to bloom as the characters age.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I’ve read several of her books and enjoyed them all. I agree with Kilian, these are not typical romance novels and that’s part of the attraction for me.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Hiya! I’m not sure how far I’d trust Entertainment Weekly for a literary review - it’s a far cry from Publisher’s Weekly, isn’t it? I’m just wondering, what’s kept you from reading her books for yourself? I’m not sure why you’d review something you haven’t read yet… My friend lent me Outlander last summer, and at first I was reluctant to read it, thinking it was just “the usual chick lit”. But the fact that it was set in Scotland got me started reading it (since I’m a suck for anything from the British Isles) and after that I was bowled over by her writing, the depth of the characters, and all the well-researched historical, medical, nautical, etc. details. Not to mention all the funny bits!
November 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I have never read her books.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Sandy - What to call Gabaldon’s work in terms of genre has always been a question. When I heard Gabaldon speak, she described her writing as a bit of everything. The EW review called in something like, romance/historical/time travel/fantasy. Could be that Gabaldon’s writing transcends genre description in that she does not really write to any type. I admire that about her. She writes what she wants to write and not to what the market dictates she write.
Deniz - I wouldn’t review a book I had not read so don’t worry about that. I didn’t actually review the Gabaldon book here. The blurb on my blog is reprinted from the EW review. I was sharing it for those who did not see the review in EW. That’s all. On reviews in general: EW wouldn’t actually be my first stop for literary reviews, but I do admire the fact EW reviews popular fiction and some titles that don’t get reviewed elsewhere.
I actually like chick lit, so my reluctance to read Gabaldon isn’t about that. And, really, I never thought of Gabaldon as chick lit, but I could be wrong. I think I haven’t read Gabaldon because, after many looks, I just can’t get interested in either the time travel or historical aspects of the books. You, Robin, Darlene and Kilian and many others love Gabaldon’s work. One of these days I will try OUTLANDER to see for myself. I’m working up some interest. Maybe post-deadline and around Christmas…
November 27th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Helenkay-I felt much like you did about Gabaldon’s books. My Mom, of all people, told me I should read Outlander. She was sure I would love it, but the time travel, historical fiction just didn’t sound very appealing to me. I bought a used copy of Outlander at a library book sale in Aug. 2004, and didn’t even crack open the book until November. By the second week of January I had read all 5 of the books she had published at that time. And then I re-read them. I have never read a series that I enjoyed so much, let alone wanted to re-read. You should probably wait until Christmas time to read them, because if you are anything like me, you won’t be able to put them down.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I love her books and I personally wouldn’t consider them “bodice-rippers”. Yes, she has aspects of romance, which are quite tame when you consider romances, but also infuses fantasy, mystery, and adventure into each story she tells.
Sure it is a little tough to believe that this family experiences all these things but the mere fact that this family seems to set out to influence the history going on around would make it obvious why all this adventure happens to them.
I have read all Gabaldon’s books (both Outlander Series and Lord John Series, I prefer Outlander Series) and haven’t found anyone who writes nearly as well.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:25 am
[...] Two days ago I posted a small portion of the review Entertainment Weekly did on Diana Gabaldon’s newest book. Let me say that again so there’s no confusion: the review someone else - not me - wrote on Gabaldon’s new book. You can read my blog entry here. The only change from the original post is the UPDATE part at the beginning. [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I tried reading Outlander once and couldn’t stand it. So never tried it again. I just really didn’t like the writing.
But ooph, it’s amazing how people can be so rabid about it.