I am a bit of a reader.
In fact, I am a good reader.
Not a great reader, certainly not an epic reader...but a consistent, committed reader.
I enjoy anything well-written, most pretty-goodly-written, and a fair number of not-awfully-written.
Earlier this year, I came across this list of "100 books to read before you die". The words "books" + "die" got my attention and I counted - purely out of curiosity, mind you - to see how many I had read.
82.
82 out of the 100 listed.
That sounded impressive to me. I only needed to read 18 books and I would have all 100.
I get to read books other people recommend AND get the satisfaction of checking off a list?
I'm in!
Since there is little chance that I'll be climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro anytime soon, I challenged myself to finish this small bit of a bucket list.
This year, preferably.
I am not sure this is really something to be awfully proud of...honestly, it is not that great of list. There are places where a collection is listed (Lord of the Rings), and there are places where only some books from a series are listed (Hunger Games and Harry Potter), and I am convinced that there are books that should/should not be there...
Regardless, I promised myself I am going to finish this list and I will. I have 8 books to go after my current book.
Pre-list, I have spent the 20 years since college shamelessly only reading what I like. Although my "like" runs fairly wide and deep, it has definitive borders, and I have no problem abandoning a book that I deem "not worth it" for any reason.
Life is short and libraries large, after all...
Luckily, this list-challenge journey has been pleasant, for the most part. I have only come across a couple that I would not have finished voluntarily.
And I have appreciated the chance to stretch myself, book-wise.
My current book on the list, though, is Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. This is a book I would have abandoned, pre-challenge. I apologize in advance if you are a fan of this book. Another confession, I am not quite done with it. I am about 78% in. I will try not to spoil the story or the book for you, but it has brought up a struggle.
What is bothering me is trying to reconcile what I am reading in the book with what I am reading about the book.
What I am reading about the book:
It has a Goodreads rating of 4.16, so there are clearly many fans of the book. The book description (on Goodreads) ends with "For here James Fraser, a gallant young Scots warrior, shows her a love so absolute that Claire becomes a woman torn between fidelity and desire". Many reviews on Goodreads tout this as a romantic-love-story-beyond-time and openly swoon over Jamie and Claire.
What I am reading in the book:
There is this one passage that is massively incongruous with that description. (Not a spoiler) The scene involves Jamie whipping Claire...as in, beating her with a strap. It was not consensual. Claire was humiliated and physically hurting for days. She rationalized his behavior very quickly, forgave him and moved on.
...I'm not quite as forgiving.
I can rationalize his behavior (1740s Scotsman). I guess I can rationalize her behavior (Stockholm syndrome?).
But I do NOT buy that this is now an epic love story.
I'm done.
I would absolutely "tap out" of this book if I were not so heck-bent on finishing this list.
I felt betrayed when I read that passage. THIS was supposed to be the good guy?!?! A man who beat his wife and admitting to enjoying it. I was so angry.
I vented to my friend about my disbelief of so many people happily waving away that scene in the reviews and she wrote "The question is whether or not literature gives us permission to set aside our own values for the sake of connecting with a character."
That stopped me in my tracks...that is a very new idea for me.
As a reader, I have always been simply concerned with how the authors (and characters) could connect with ME. (cue "What Have You Done for Me Lately") I assumed that it is their responsibility to build that connection.
I have never really paused to consider MY responsibility to THEM.
Do I have a responsibility?
When I pick up a book to escape to their world do I owe them complete suspension, or at least, more suspension than I usually give?
Should I be working harder to connect with characters?
I don't know...
which is why I am writing about it. :)
It is true that I would miss out on some great books if I put them down every time the hero/ine did something I disagreed with...
(Gone With the Wind, Huckleberry Finn, Crime and Punishment, to name a few...)
This seemed different, somehow.
How the abuse was written, how it was dealt with (or not), how it was rationalized by the abused and abusers...
I can accept that it happened. I cannot accept that it seemed justified, in any way, to Claire. I cannot accept the description of this as a "true love story".
But it did make me think (I am always grateful for that)...mainly about how I don't want my pre-teen daughter to think this is how love should be.
Love should not cause bruises.
Ever.
btw...
Here is my favorite (NSFW) review. (Serious bad words. Be warned.)
I enjoy historical fiction (James Michener books come to mind). I'm leery of time travel (but Jack Finney's "Time and Again" is wonderfully descriptive and a good story so I'm known to stretch my boundaries). I admit to reading romance novels ("The Wolf and the Dove" is my favorite. It's set in medieval times like this one, so its treatment of women reflects the times but its main characters can be respected & admired). I read "Outlander" based on two friends' recommendations. At first, I enjoyed the characters and setting, but quickly became disturbed by the treatment of Claire as chattel. There are scenes that still haunt me, one of which you described. I absolutely hated the last 1/4 of the book (no spoilers) but I finished it anyway, and even tried the second book in the series b/c I figured I was missing something. I made it through one chapter and quit. I can't understand why my friends liked this series so much. It's misogynistic. Like you, I don't want my teenage daughter to ever think abuse in relationships should ever be tolerated or excused.
ReplyDeleteI just spent 35 minutes searching book databases trying to find the title of a book I read several years ago. I couldn't find it. It was a beautifully written book that was the WORST book I've ever read. Does that even make sense? The story had absolutely NO plot redemption. It's another book with scenes that haunt me still. But I kept reading it b/c I aspire to write and the author's command of language was beautiful. All I can think now is, what was the purpose of this book? Why did I keep reading it? And the horse died. Dam*.
ReplyDeleteOne more comment, then I'll stop spamming your comment section. ;-) I don't think it's our responsibility as a reader to search for a connection with a character. I think literature affords us the opportunity to connect with an unfamiliar or unlikable character/situation. But it's the author's responsibility to offer the connection. One of my favorite authors, Barbara Kingsolver, was interviewed by Terry Gross on "Fresh Air." Barbara weaves her stories with sensitive topics, whether it's biology, religion, human rights, environmental issues. Terry Gross asked her how she approaches these sometimes emotional subjects and Barbara answered it was her job as an author to present the ideas through her characters, extending a hand so to speak, to her readers to consider these alternate POV's, to invite her readers to make the connection. I think good literature should make us uncomfortable, as long as that discomfort leads to awareness, even if that awareness challenges us. I find none of that in "Outlander." O.K. I'm done!
ReplyDeleteHello! Found this via that utterly marvellous Goodreads review, and I really enjoyed what you wrote here - it really hits something about Outlander that people don't seem to grasp as much. Almost everyone I've seen who hates it cites the fact she was raped, she was beaten, she was a 21st C woman, they got over it quickly etc. This wasn't my problem at all. As you said, I hate it because after all that shit happens, it's still written like these two are an epic love story.
ReplyDeleteIt's how it's written, not the contents at all.
Which leads to that question of what an author/character owes you, and what you owe them (also an interesting idea I hadn't really thought in that context before).
I think as a reader we need the ability to put ourselves into someone else's shoes, and open our minds to the perspectives of people and situations we don't agree with and aren't aware of. And really, isn't that the EXACT reason why we read, and why we want our kids to read, and why it's so good for us?
But you don't owe anyone/thing a 'suspension of belief' or a betrayal of your own beliefs. This is because no piece of culture exists in a vacuum. No matter how indirectly, it is a product of, and in turn influences, our culture, how we think about and interact with our environments.
It is perfectly fine (can even be the base of something really good) that a story is written about rape, about abuse, about time travel, about culture shock, about asshole guys, about sex etc. etc. But you can't write it like it's a love story, and try to convince us that Jamie is still god's gift to women. Real shit happens in this world and you can't have people read that and think any of that is romantic. Everything in inextricably tied to the setting and culture in which we consume something.
DID ANY OF THAT MAKE SENSE I DON'T KNOW.
All I know is that I was mortified and so, so upset reading this book and was even moreso upon finding that 90% of people see Jamie as Dr Darcy in a kilt.