on
3.5/5
Non-Fiction
- Get link
- Other Apps
Rating: 3/5
Pages: 672
Started: July 15 2024
Finished: July 20 2024
Summary:
It's 1945, and WWII nurse Claire Randall has finally been reunited with her husband Frank. Now that the war is over, the couple has the chance to travel Scotland, exploring historic castles and rekindling their marriage. When Claire, swept up in a Pagan ritual while observing ancient Scottish ruins, is transported back into the 18th century, she must draw upon her modern courage and nursing skills in order to survive, all with the hope of returning to her own century and her loving husband. Yet as Claire becomes closer to the gallant Scottish warrior Jamie, who is on the run from a cruel British man--coincidentally, the ancestor of Claire's 20th century husband--Claire suddenly finds herself not only married to the Scot warrior, but also falling quickly for him.
Thoughts:
This story had so much potential. The setup was intriguing and immersive--a plucky nurse transported into the past, forced to use her medical knowledge to survive. All the clever applications of modern logic and modern medicine in the 18th century were satisfying to read, and Gabaldon did a great job making the time travel feel abrupt and significant without being overly clumsy. Jamie, the handsome and fiery young Scot warrior was fabulously introduced, with so much potential for a beautiful romance. The added complication of Claire's remaining married in the 20th century was clever, as was the way the story's villain was an ancestor to her original husband. However, there were a few key pieces of this story that neutralized all this promise.
First and foremost--the rape. There was so much gratuitous sexual assault in this story. It seemed to be the logical and ultimate punishment in all situations. When Claire was first captured by her husband's ancestor Jonathan Randall? He threatened to rape her. When Claire was ambushed by a British soldier in the woods? He tried to rape her. When Claire disobeyed Jamie after their marriage? He whipped her as punishment, and then screwed her without her consent because he decided it was his prerogative as her husband. When Jamie was captured by Randall? He was sadistically raped (by the only gay character in the series, to boot).
Furthermore, pleasure seemed to be a common product of sexual assault within the narrative. For example, when the British soldier in the woods almost raped Claire before she killed him with a knife, the immediate reaction to the end of the danger was for Claire and Jamie to have wild and violent sex on the forest floor as the only way to ease the tension; the scene suggested that on top of Claire's fear, she was also turned on by the near-rape. Admittedly, there was a more trauma-informed portrayal of the sexual assault Jamie suffered, with his shameful and non-consensual yet biological pleasure response to the rape ruining his ability to safely feel any sort of attraction or love. Yet this was ultimately fixed not by time, care, and therapy, but instead by Claire drugging him out of his mind and forcing him to have sex with her. For a romance to be romantic, consent is key. It's fiction; things are allowed to get crazy. But the repeated portrayal and even fetishization of non-consensual sex made it impossible for me to view this romance in a positive light.
Another (related) theme I had issues with was that of gender and gender roles. As a 20th century nurse, Claire had a unique chance to inspire gender equality in 18th century Scotland. Within the historical context, where gender roles were clearly defined---with men fighting and farming, and women birthing and housekeeping--it is easy to understand how those binary and polarized roles have a place. Of course, a 1746 Scottish wife doesn't go hunting. But Claire was a different story. As a qualified nurse and a woman with wartime sensibilities, she was perfectly positioned within this historical fiction narrative to challenge the old patriarchy and be an equal to her husband. Even many of the most feminist doctrines maintain that it is a woman's right to choose to take on traditionally feminine roles, but Claire submitted to the 18th century expectations of a woman to a degree I found nauseating. Her husband beat her for disobeying him. She competed with other (much younger!) women for Jamie's attention. She ventured off to find her husband only when there were no other men available, and in other circumstances she deferred to men, sending them on missions while she stayed with other women and children.
It is true there were some scenes in which she was a bit of a badass--especially in the scene where she defeats angry Scots, wolves, and Randall in order to get Jamie back--and scenes where her nurturing side is touching--in the monastery after Jamie is rescued. It is also true that the gendered social exchange Jamie and Claire exemplify, with a warrior man complementing a nurturing wife, is a specific brand of relationship that often fosters the sense of romance that readers of fantasy look for, and there is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying reading that style of relationship. But all of those scenes, of both badass-ery and of competent nurturing, are overshadowed by the deep lack of respect Claire has for herself. She is willing to fit herself into the deeply sexist standard of femininity of 18th century Scotland. She takes only minimal issue with being whipped and spoken to like a child, and then non-consensually screwed, by the man she loves. This lack of pride and self-respect negates the otherwise valid choice to embrace femininity in a romantic relationship, and renders her character an embarrassment to feminist romance readers.
I can understand how this story was highly popular when it came out, and how it still lives in many people's minds as the paradigm of historical fantasy romance. But its portrayal of sexual assault and gender dynamics disgusted me so entirely that I could not enjoy the romance; I will not be reading the rest of this series.