Opinions on Time Travel?

Discussion in 'Plot Development' started by PlsSenpai, May 29, 2015.

  1. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Umm. The first one-star review of Outlander (the book) on Amazon.co. uk more or less says it all. And there is a lot to say....I especially liked "ken."

    91 of 107 people found the following review helpful
    1.0 out of 5 stars Truly, frighteningly, utterly terrible!, 20 Aug. 2014
    By
    Raven Stone "Nevermore" (UK) - See all my reviews
    Verified Purchase(What is this?)
    This review is from: Outlander: (TV Tie-In) (Kindle Edition)
    Let me start by making one thing perfectly clear - if the TV series is anything like the books, do yourself a favour: book a root canal, paint the wall and watch it dry; anything but waste your time on this tripe.

    I shall try to summarise the main issues. Be aware - spoilers abound.

    1. I'm only 44% into the first book on kindle and already I can feel my life getting longer because it feels like I've been reading the blasted thing forever! But there is one thing I've learned - only nurses or otherwise medically trained people are vulnerable to timeslips. It must be some strange kind of occupational hazard of the medical profession, falling through timeslips into mediaeval Scotland; it only seems to happen to them. Gives them a handy way of worming their way into some people's good books, of course - and leaves them blatantly wide open for the utterly predictable charges of witchcraft.

    2. The heroine is annoying. It's hard to imagine anyone more in need of a slap. She spends a few chapters in 1946 trying to rekindle her marriage after 6 years of war blah blah blah... Insomnia cure..... THEN she is mysteriously transported back 200 years to 1743. For some reason, this is not the nice, neat 200 years she keep referring to as being the usual time slip in these matters. Within six weeks, she's married to the Highlander every female near and about (or possibly aboot) is swooning over - and he's younger than her, and a virgin to boot - supposedly against her will, but damn me she's a game bird and improvises wonderfully in the face of such a terrible fate.

    3. The hero - the strapping 6 foot something 23 year old red haired brawny Adonis - is called Jamie. Of course he is. All Highland heroes are called Jamie. It's in the rules. If Scotland gain Independence, I fully expect it to be in the Constitution.

    4. Leave her alone for 5 minutes and someone will try to rape her. It doesn't matter who - Scots Highlander or Redcoat, they're all hiding behind every blade of heather just waiting for the opportunity of exposing one heaving bosom or the other and grabbing her creamy white thighs.... Give it enough time, I fully expect the Aberdeen Angus to try to rape her. In fact, when the Loch Ness Monster makes an appearance (I kid you not. I wish I did, but I'm serious) I thought he would be next to jump on board ...Zzzzzzz....

    And don't get me started on the Gaelic.

    Where was I? Oh yes - 5

    5. Despite being a magnet for ever priapic male in a 50 mile radius, she still keeps getting it into her head (when she remembers that she supposed to be married to the increasingly dull sounding Frank) to try to get back to the stone circle to get back to her first (or second, chronologically) husband, Frank. Who is the direct descendant of the main Redcoat dubiously described as a possible homosexual who, we subsequently learn, can only get it up if they're screaming.

    The Redcoat, that is. Not her 1946 husband.

    In fact, he's the slightly less obvious homosexual character than the other one - the Duke - who even rejoices (if possible) in an effeminate voice. Oh joy. Because that's not tiresomely stereotypical at all. And neither one appear to be able to get willing companions, having to force their attentions on staunchly heterosexual youths, preferably underage. It could be insulting - it should be insulting to the intelligence if nothing else - but it could insult if it weren't written quite so badly as to be bordering on pantomime.

    6. After rescuing her - yet again - from - yet another - attempted rape, her 1740 something husband decides he has to impose some discipline as she keeps risking the lives of everyone around her, and announces she going to get her backside paddled for not staying put where she was safe and for wandering off again into yet another gang of gangbangers. Not unreasonably, he points out that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. However, she just kicks and screams like a spoiled brat and generally refuses to accept that maybe - just maybe - she really should stop doing what she keeps doing.

    It's at this point that you consider that 1946 husband Frank has probably packed his bags and is clapping his hands at having disposed of the original high maintenance pain in the neck.

    Of course, she can't stay angry with him for long - his name is Jamie after all, so obviously he's the hero. But she still insists on forcing an apology out of him before grudgingly accepting that maybe - just maybe - when he tells her to stay there because it's safe that - maybe - she should just stay there cus it's safe!

    Jamie then somewhat sullies his heroic status by pointing out to her that she can't say no to him, then proceeds to prove the point quite violently, despite her refusal and despite her telling him he's hurting her. But that's okay because it turns out she enjoys it really... Which is quite simply the most terrifying scene I've ever read. Stephen King pales into nursery-rhyme insignificance compared to the sheer horror that is badly written rape mistaken for rough sex.

    But that's okay because she heals really really quickly. Even after a flogging.

    And despite pining something awful for her beloved Frank for nigh on six years during the War and never so much as giving another man a second look, give her six weeks of Jamie and she probably wouldn't recognise her other husband in a line-up.

    As for describing certain intimate areas as slippery as some kind of seaweed - well, that's a mood spoiler if ever there was one.

    Poor old Ken is conspicuous by his absence until about 30% in, then all of a sudden, he's everywhere. Everywhere you look people are kenning that they ken what they ken, ye ken?

    Oh, and she really likes showing off all her research. Info dumps abound. Shame her research is pretty uninspired surface-only stuff. It makes Braveheart start to look like historical re-enactment. I can't believe there's more than one of these books; I can't believe one got published, never mind a whole series.

    Save yourselves. It's too late for me, I'll never get these wasted hours back. Don't look back; don't hesitate; don't blink (oh wait, that's something else). Either way, just don't.

    Unless of course there's a really really ridiculously good-looking bloke in it.
     
    GingerCoffee likes this.
  2. Nicoel

    Nicoel Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    474
    Likes Received:
    343
    I can see the point that they're making and I'm not going to spend my time arguing with them (Even as a devout Diana G. fan, I have to admit they're right in a few of these points)
    Buuut - I do want to say that Jack Randall Is Not Gay. It really upsets me that people think of Black Jack as being gay 1) because they then assume Diana paints all gay people in a really bad light, which if you read the other books you'll know that there's an actual gay guy from the main series that get's his own spin off series and 2) he's not gay. He doesn't care what kind of genetalia his victims have - as long as they're screaming.
    (This is a very long run-on sentence and I apologize profusely.)

    Also, I do think that Outlander is probably the worst book in the series (I started with the second one, not knowing it was a series to begin with). Sighs.

    Have you read the first book in it's entirety?
     
    jannert likes this.
  3. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    I tried, I really did, because a very dear friend of mine loves it, and wanted me to like it. At first I was quite excited. I live in Scotland. I love Scottish history. I also love romantic stories. But it started going bad quite quickly, and by the middle I was struggling. I started skimming. And then I stopped. I really didn't like it at all. It was difficult because I didn't want to burst her bubble, so I took refuge in the notion that it wasn't true to Scotland. (Which it's not.) But there was so much more about it that was not to my liking either.

    It's just one of those things. Not everybody likes the same stuff. It's just that I would have liked it a lot, had it been better written, better researched and better envisioned. Diana Gabaldon admitted she just went with the idea of a dishy guy in a kilt and she had never been to Scotland when she wrote it ...and that's kind of where she went wrong.
     
  4. Hannah0113

    Hannah0113 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    9
    I think that time travel is interesting. I recently read a series that incorporated time travel throughout, and for the most part, I enjoyed it. However, some of the parts confused me - they were bringing important objects back and forth between the time periods, and sometimes, it sounded like there were two of the same object - which should be impossible, right?

    That's been my only bad experience with it so far, so until something else comes up, I'm ok with it. :)
     
  5. aClem

    aClem Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    San Jose, Costa Rica
    A really well done time travel story can be wonderful. Reading this thread reminded me of a few. I just finished a short story by Philip K. Dick where a guy, hitman type, is sent back 150 years to kill some prophet whose ideas cause havoc in the future. The twist is that it turns out that the time traveler is the prophet and gets "crucified" in a manner of speaking and made into the martyr he was supposed to prevent.

    Another time travel short story was one by John Varley, I think called "Air Raid" that is similar to one mentioned above, though probably predates it, where folks from the future come back into the past right before disasters and save people who would die otherwise. I can't remember why the future folk did it, but it wasn't altruism, if memory serves. A truly great story and hooked me on Varley for life.

    There was another I read so long ago that I am not sure who wrote it, though it may have been Asimov, about people who are constantly going back in time to fix stuff and then fix more stuff later when the fix causes more problems, and the job is endless.

    One thing in common is that all the stories I like about time travel have nothing to do with the "try to prevent Lincoln's assassination" type of thing.

    Oh, and possibly the first time travel story, though not exactly time travel, was Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward," Interesting in that his hero travels to the future by overdosing on sleeping pills (of a sort) and waking up centuries later. A classic and a pleasant and fun read.
     
  6. GoldenFeather

    GoldenFeather Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    79
    I think the concept of time travel is AWESOME, and there are SO many ways you can use it. It can be used for so many themes, from death, realization and awareness to discovering mysteries or going into a future we feel can potentially happen.

    I think at the same time its very tricky. There's a lot of "rules" to time traveling, for example if you go back in the past you are not only affecting the present but the past as well. That has the potential to change almost everything.

    I love time travel stories and would love to write one some day, I just think it's very difficult to make it accurate (and not confusing) to the reader. At least within my own abilities. Some others do a great job.
     
  7. Sack-a-Doo!

    Sack-a-Doo! Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,403
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Location:
    [unspecified]
    I, too, love time travel stories, but there are three things to keep in mind IMHO:
    1. the device for traveling through time needs to be unique or--at the very least--not based on some Star Trek thing or some tired cliché we've seen a thousand times,
    2. time travel needs to be a solution to a problem and shouldn't exist simply to exist, and finally
    3. time travel needs to complicate the protagonist's life and it's best if this is a unique complication, too.
    I have yet to find my own story idea that fits these criteria, so these 'rules' may be totally wrong. :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice