#anti diana gabaldon

[cookie-de-baunilha]

Most people agree that John should move on with his life, let go of Jamie and find happiness in a real relationship. But there are some takes on this subject that really piss me off.

I’m sorry but “oh I know John will never love someone like/more than he loves Jamie, but I really wish he could find a great guy and have a nice relationship with him!!” is not the good argument that you think it is.

That’s not getting over Jamie, that’s settling for second best. Well, he can’t have Jamie, poor thing! So he will have to take someone else who he won’t love as much as he loves Jamie but at least he will have someone to cuddle with at night 🥺

Why can’t John actually get over Jamie?? Why should he settle for the second best? Worse, why should his partner accept being the second choice??

I damn well don’t want John loving someone else like he loves Jamie because that shit is completely unhealthy imo, but I know that’s not what people mean.

Jamie being the superior god-like man that everyone is in love with/is attracted to/wants to fuck is kinda ridiculous imho, but I understand the appeal that a character like that has for the audience of a romance book/show. But to put Jamie so high up in a pedestal and to think that John should be forever in love with him and not ever get over him because oh lord nothing is comparable to King-of-Men-Jamie is… a choice.

Listen. I know that’s on Diana. She is the one who wrote John like this. But I wish people would be more critical of Diana’s writing of him instead of swallowing that shit up like it’s chocolate. Everyone knows how problematic the books can be regarding certain topics, this is just another one of these things.

Instead of accepting that John won’t ever get over Jamie/won’t ever love someone as much as he loves Jamie, you should be asking yourself: why is that Diana writes him like this? Why does she insist in the stereotypical cliché of the gay man having unrequited feelings for his straight best friend? Why can’t John truly move on and stop having romantic feelings for Jamie? Why should Jamie be John’s greatest love?

Outlander is essentially a romance (idgaf about what DG says). Love of all types is a running theme: not only romantic love, but the love that exists within family and friendship. And yes, there’s a lot of platonic/friendship kind of love between J/J.

But romantic love specifically has a huge role in this story. We have straight couples left and right in this series: Claire and Jamie, Bree and Roger, Fergus and Marsali, Ian and Rachel, Dottie and Denzell, Hal and Minnie, Jenny and Ian, hell, even Brian and Ellen are getting a spin-off.

So I’m sorry but it’s really freaking weird that, in the middle of all this, people say that John (the character with his own book series and one of the main POV characters in the main series, mind you) won’t ever be able to love someone like he loves Jamie, or more than he loves Jamie. It’s really freaking weird that people say that John has to settle with second best — because that’s essentially what’s being said every time someone says that John won’t ever love someone like he loves Jamie but he should find someone else to be in a relationship with anyway.

All of that for what? Keep the cliché of the gay dude in love with his straight best friend and who never moves on? C’mon now. Don’t piss me off.

#it’s almost like some john fans don’t want to see him in a happy relationship at all #bc what’s up with this insistence on keeping john in love with jamie even in a relationship with someone else?? #i need y’all to bffr #like this is not an attack on j/j shippers #mostly bc most of them actually want john to move on in canon lol #but i see ppl that don’t even ship j/j saying this which makes 0 sense to me #like if you actually want to see john moving on with his life then why you wanna keep him in love with jamie? #again i’m talking about canon #outlander #outlander meta #lord john grey #john grey #jamie fraser #james fraser #anti diana gabaldon #lgbtq+ #lgbtq representation #lgbtq representation in media

[britishguyslover]

Lord John fans before Brotherhood of the Blade: it's heartbreaking that John never had a real relationship after Hector died, and he had been hopelessly in love with his straight friend.

Diana when BotB was published: well, actually, John had a serious and honest relationship with Percy, but realized too late that he fell in love with him.

LJG fans: oh :'(

Diana, 5 years later (18 years in the books' timeline): Soooo, Percy is back... And maybe John still loves him...and perhaps Percy still loves him too.

LJG fans: oh my, HOPE

Diana 10 years later: bitches, hahaha, gay men in the 18th century absolutely cannot be happy, what did you think? That's so not realistic (unlike, time travel, and being with someone who lives 200 years in the past, that is absolutely believable). It's not like I'm homophobic, just...

LJG fans: ...

#lord john grey #percy wainwright #lord john series #anti diana gabaldon

[thisweekinfandomhistory]

Hey Scottish person here who also hates outlander and gabaldon. This probably won't hit too deeply for you guys but the way she treats Scottishness is kinda weird. Like. Not to equate it with weird exotifying racism but it's very much playing on tropes of Savage Men in a way that's uncomfortable, especially as along with the irish, scottish people were sort of treated as non white white people for a long time. She's also weird about kilts, and it's just never fun to have clueless idiots sexualise your culture. Just giving you more stuff to hate about her.

Listen in our heart of hearts, we are little haters. So yes, please give us alllllll the things to hate about Diana Gabaldon.

I (Emily) will gobble that up like a little feast.

Personally, learning how Scottish people are giving no quarter and taking her to school for all the things she so confidently gets wrong about their history, culture, geography, etc. was just absolutely delicious.

Nothing like basing your life's work on one single place and seemingly doing nothing at all to research or understand it.

#anti outlander #anti diana gabaldon #answered asks

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

A character named Perseverance being doomed by the narrative is just extra inherently tragic, so I'll just be officially stanning him forever and a day now.❤️

#sorry not sorry but all gaslighting attempts to the contrary have been a BIG FRIGGING FAIL #the ONLY thing that needs to die a horrible death is the ''bury your gays'' trope!!! 💀 #and the authors who keep writing it can go die in a pool of their own vomit for all I care 😒 #and the gay guy endlessly pining for his straight friend stereotype can go hang itself too! smh #Percy Wainwright #lord john series #outlander #anti diana gabaldon #looks like today's visit to the OL fandom is already going swimmingly LOL #OL is seriously bad for my mental health istg 😬

[olderthannetfic]

Is it just me, or is a lot of the negativity about AI regurgitating Robin Hobb, Diana Gabaldon, Anne Rice, and Jo Walton's anti-fanfic rants wholesale (that is, when not spreading technical misinformation instead)? I can't muster that much empathy for writers feeling all nauseous and stuff about "their babies" getting appropriated when, uh, they gleefully did the same to the IP holders already! “TV show Friends with guest star, Sephiroth” is textbook transformative, not plagiarism or theft.

--

The future of corporate misuse of AI is daunting, but yeah, people ~stealing my babies~ is not why.

[fandom-hoarder]

I'm still working on that Diana Gabaldon anti-fic manifesto and I've rolled my eyes so much they've rolled across the floor. How are there still authors that are this ridiculous and out of touch. (I realize it was 2010, but the problem persists.) Carrying on Anne Rice's legacy, no doubt.🙄 Fanfiction isn't FOR YOU, MA'AM. Don't look for it if it disgusts you, omfg.🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

#out of touch authors #author crit #fandom wank adjacent #anti purity culture #crybaby authors #tbh #me.txt #outlander

[cevansbrat0007]

You’re writing is so amazing, literally love everything you put out!! Do you have any romance book recommendations?!? Literally anything, I fully trust your judgement lol😌

Omigosh! First, thank you so much for the compliment. Second, I got you.

*whips out Kindle*

I've broken it down into categories. Here we go:

Contemporary Line of Duty Series, Tessa Bailey - If I want something quick, down, and dirty I reach for her. I recommend starting with her Line of Duty Series, which features the most delicious rough and tumble cops finding love.

The Coppersmith Farmhouse, Devney Perry - I adore this small town, enemy-to-lovers romance featuring a single mother and the local sheriff. Sheriff Jess can be an ass, but he grovels well. The Game Maker Series, Kresley Cole - Centers around three Russian brothers who have ties to the mafia. While each man is different and beautifully broken in his own way, they all believe in taking what they want. And once one of the Sevastyan's have set their sights on you, they will not take no for an answer. They're also not opposed to kidnapping either. The Italian, T.L. Swan - What happens when a summer fling ends up being so much more than that? This romance tells the story of an Italian mafia boss and his forbidden love with an Australian tourist. There's sex, angst, danger and so much more.

Historical *Outlander Series, Diana Gabaldon - Claire and Jamie's love literally transcends both time and space. This series contains an amazing romance, well researched historical descriptions, elements of magic, and so much more.

Paranormal The Psy Changeling Series, Nalini Singh - If you love stories about shifters and people with psychic abilities then I totally recommend checking out this series. Slave to Sensation is the first book, and premise goes something like: the ruling Psy prefer to exist in a world devoid of feelings and emotions, but what happens when one of their own finds herself craving something only Lucas Hunter, the alpha of the Dark River Shifters, can provide? *The Guild Hunter Series, Nalini Singh - Think Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but with Angels. This series is amazing and the love story between Raphael (the Archangel of New York) and his precious mortal, Elena (who is a badass in her own right). The world building is fantastic, the romance is hot, and each book only gets better. And believe me when I say, these are not your grandmother's angels. I also love the fact that you get to watch their relationship grow and evolve across multiple books. *The Night Huntress Series, Jeaniene Frost - Also has a Buffy the Vampire Slayer vibe, except the heroine is actually half-vampire herself. Bones, her eventual love interest, reminds me of Spike. Just a little bit. And just like the previous series, their romance spans multiple books. Also the love scenes are fabulous. *The Fever Series, Karen Marie Moning - If you love reading about heroines trying to solve mysterious disappearances, the Seelie and Unseelie Fae, and a delicious Alpha Male that could just easily rip you apart as well as fuck you - I'm looking at you, Jericho Barrons - then check this out. This series requires a little commitment because the romance, while hinted at, doesn't start until you're a couple of books in. But it's so worth it because you're rewarded with a territorial, possessive, darkly handsome anti-hero. *The Highlander Series, Karen Marie Moning - If you're a sucker for men in kilts, ancient curses, time travel, and drop-dead-sexy highlanders who fall hard for their modern day mates then please read. Also, some of these heroes go on to appear in the Fever Series as well. Immortals After Dark Series, Kresley Cole - Another great one This one features characters from every corner of the lore. I'm talking vampires, witches, valkyries, berserkers, demons, werewolves, succubi, and more. The men are swoon worthy and the women are badass. But what I especially love is the creativity and humor she manages to weave throughout her stories. She uses the fated mates trope quite a bit, which I love. However, what makes it great is that a lot of times the men show up like: "You belong to me now. I'm ready to take you to home" and their brides-to-be are like "Fuck off. Come any closer and I will stab you/shoot you/light you on fire". And what's more...they absolutely follow-thru. Those heroes have to earn their women. Oh, and the sexy times are good and spicy.

Hope this helps! If you or anyone else decides to read a book from this list, please let me know what you think!

*Indicates Book Boyfriend

#cevansbrat0007 asks #book recs #author recs #author recommendations #book boyfriends #go read these literary masterpieces

[kimyoonmiauthor]

The Lie: You can only make a story around character or events nothing else~~

USian Lit professors ruining writers again and World Lit with it. This isn’t one of those posts where I say, “If you start with character or events you’re wrong.” It’s about my core philosophy OPTIONS~~~ Options. The ones that everyone railed against after the 20th century and people turn their noses up at because, ya know, questioning status quo as PoCs, Women, queer people, disabled people–i.e. the majority of the writers and readers when you put the market together, yet somehow the publishing industry doesn’t want to cater to us... were told flat out if we do it, we’re being snobby, Literary, or Ohhh... insurrectionists. (Or whatever, mostly called “inferior”) And if you don’t believe me, go read Robert Scholes’ writing book where he thinks that only white straight men can write... (OK, maybe I’ve read too many of these bozos.)

My exact problem is being told we’re wrong for doing it another way. And that this way is too snobby, when it’s probably one of the oldest methods in the history of literature. So strap in, let’s get into it.

I get it, some people are going to act like victims at this point and say are you saying that it’s wrong? Or even, what do you mean this method was invented by a bunch of prejudiced white men who often tried to take credit from less privileged people? I cover that in the other series of posts so you a see how we got here (and I warn you I found it super depressing. Especially slapped with blatant racism, sexism, anti-queerness, etc.)

What I think is you can accept the origin story of where “It’s either events or character” comes from (Great Man Theory, BTW, which is imperialistic), delve and QUESTION it heavily, and then challenge the origin more deeply by thinking about it critically and how you would like to overcome that and make their story.

Questioning what’s handed to you critically is the whole point of the Worldbuilding and Worldwide Story Structures post. Doesn’t say it is wrong. It just gives you more options to think about and engage in.

Morals

Honestly, when it has the answers and is reinforcing the status quo, rather than questioning it, it is often boring.

Pros: It engages directly one of the two tenants (when done well), Makes people think. The secondary is then makes them feel.

Cons: When done badly, it can feel preachy, rather than introspective. And people often hate their morals being questioned so may refuse to engage. It’s also prone to getting banned.

Authors who stated they use this: Ursula Le Guin (Who gets hated by Structuralists)

Toni Morrison (Who said so on Charlie Rose--why would you think it’s conflict?)

Star Trek... most of it.

Some of the early writers of Star Wars.

A lot of Sci-fi writers including Octavia Butler.

A Tree with Deep Roots (K-drama) also engages in this.

As a secondary, Outlander often asks questions about Morality (Diana Gabaldon)

Making a story around this would look like finding a central moral question and then breaking that moral question into parts and then finding characters and events to address those parts.

You start from the widest point down and deliberately make it so.

Ways to Live

More common with Indigenous Peoples of N&C&S Americas, not all tribes/nations of course. And particularly with Plains tribes such as Zuni. Also common to Aboriginal people. A tad bit to some Polynesians, and parts of Africa (scattered)

Pros: When done well it makes you ponder on it for days, because often there is a central value, which is not a moral, and you’re turning it over in your head over and over again.

Cons: You have to craft the story very, very carefully, and it may take some time before you get it to land just right. This may not go over well for people who improvise their writing. Because when the story is well put together it suddenly has this clicking feel to it which is difficult to achieve.

Also kinda better for shorter stories (or I’ve never seen it done in novels yet--if you have one, drop it in the comments please~~) and made up folktales...

Themes

Thematic plotting is where you take a central theme and then kind of snowflake it out from that, similar to morality plotting. Often thematic plotting and morality plotting has overlap, meaning they often are done together.

But a theme can be anything like fairies, divorce, marriage, disability, etc. And then you’d break it down for each of the parts and figure out how to represent that through character and events.

So, let’s say your central theme is disability. You might break off Neurodiversity and put that to the side and ask if it is a disability. Then you might want to find someone to represent that and the views about it.

You might also then take someone who is a wheelchair user and then decide you need a character for that.

But you also may want someone who is in a walker.

Then you might decide that you need someone who is disabled, but doesn’t “look” disabled.

Then you might think about what does disability mean for each of them and how are you going to address disability rights in your story. So say the Neurodiverse person you’ve made has Sensory Processing Disorder. You might ask, “Is this really a disability?” And about ableism and disablism. From that, you might formulate an event to demonstrate this.

You can also do it from events. So for example, you think that a disability rights rally about X issue is needed to show the different views. But overall, it always loops back to the theme.

Pros: Engages the reader to think, primarily. Feel is kind of second on the list, if the theme is teased out well and focused. Generally the ones that do well are philosophical and delve deeper on an idea. Say motherhood. What does it mean to be a parent. Something with an endless well to talk about that interests the author. I love theme babies and when done well it can do things like make you cry over a damned potato. Or even rocks on a cliff. Damn you both. I’m tearing up thinking about it. WHY!? Why am I crying about rocks with googly eyes with text on the screen?

Cons: Themes that don’t grow beyond the base idea often feel stagnant. It’s better to let your themes evolve over the course of the story. If you choose a theme you don’t have a lot of ideas on it can feel too sparse. And if you over pack it without any kind of organization, it can feel chaotic, rather than organized.

Generally people who use milestones--or set out event points in the road do better with this one. Pure improvisers tend to dislike this, though it can work if you’re sure you can hit the points in an organized fashion.

Authors: 

Divorce Testimony by Na Hyeseok (Theme is divorce and marriage, and a memoir)

Hong Sisters (especially Greatest Love. Crying over a potato...)

Everything Everywhere All at Once (Primarily theme first, then tone).

Tone

I have to say Japan does it best... but I’ve also seen tonal theming from Indigenous peoples, Magic Realism, as a secondary on other East Asian drama regions, in Horror, as a secondary in some African Lit and West Asian Lit. It is really difficult to nail if you start with character+event. And honestly USians, in particular, have a really hard time nailing tone, in general.

Pros: Emotions come first and hits you directly in the feels first, which might make you reel in your head for quite a while. It’s much, much harder to guess plot points from the outside looking in. The bubble effect I refer to often in Japanese dramas which makes me envious is much easier to achieve. Because tone takes a while to develop over the course of the story, guessing ahead becomes near to impossible. You don’t know what the final effect will be until it hits you square between the eyes. And then the emotions are overloaded, when done well.

Cons: Tone takes a while to develop. It often dies a quiet death because of the whole “I NEED EVERYTHING ON PAGE ONE” mentality from US pressuring other regions to do the same. It does not work well with impatient people. Also, it takes a high amount of skill to do well, and usually command of tone on all levels is a last, not first skill for writers of all regions. Hitting people in the feels the same way across the board is HARD. Really hard, which is often why it’s paired with thematic and moral plotting.

Authors: 

Natsume Soseki Botchan is a master class in this.

(Central Story driver)

Sometimes, some regions just go by the central story driver which then dictates the rest of the events and character. Honestly, I think conflict is probably the worst for this because people don’t generally love it. Conflict is not on the list of things that makes things go viral. People LOVE cooperation, for example. But often people will go by a central tenant of the story driver and choose from there. Absurdists might think about ways to subvert the conflict to make a joke.

Other methods

For example, Diana Gabaldon takes pieces from her research, makes a scene from it, and then writes characters around it, and then slowly stitches it together. She started out originally with character, however, the bulk of her writing, according to her is done through research then write method. The downside of this is huge word count since integration is not the first concern.

Some people start with interesting subjects they’ve found such as Guy Gaviriel Kay. He starts with research, then works on integration. Similarly, Ordinary People by Judith Guest was started from a newspaper clipping.

Some authors start with a sharp image, rather than event or character.

Some authors start with setting. Since there are so many parts to “What makes a story” theoretically you can start with any of them. The only thing I would think you really have to think over is how will it hang together.

The point is, while starting with character or event is not wrong, finding other methods to plot might make your story stronger depending on how you command the tools. And let’s not forget that writing is a craft, so why not utilize as much of the toolbox as possible?

#writing advice #how to start a story #debunking

[xeresmalfoy]

It kind of annoys me that diana gabaldon is so rude about fanfiction. And so anti fanfiction, considering her books, what she gets so much money off of is historical fanfiction. Fanfiction on real events in history, twisting it an adding her ocs and basically a self insert main character. It's fanfiction. She may not have posted it on the site. But it's fanfiction. And I hate how high and mighty she acts. How rude to her fans she acts about it.

I think i've read somewhere thay Jamie and Claire were based on an episode of Dr Who (time lord = claire) ending up in medieval Scotland and meeting someone there, but I'm not sure which episode it was, but it was implied that Diana created Outlander as a fanfiction of this Dr Who episode. I don't know if it's true or not though.

I haven't really read any of Diana's statements about fanfiction, I think I'm better off not knowing what she thinks about us 🤣🤣 Why?? Did she say rude things and despise us or something? She wouldn't be the first tbh

[lord-trevor]

*gently tosses this at Di@n@ G@b@ldon*

Continously seeing queer characters die & have a tragic ending is traumatic.

Photo credit to @mattxiv and @humanbyorientation on Instagram

#diana gabaldon #anti diana gabaldon #lord john grey #percy wainwright #go tell the bees that i am gone #That's a whole another discussion but she literally ignores the existence of lesbians???

[cookie-de-baunilha]

Diana forgetting what she wrote in BOTB is not even a joke actually, it’s a fact:

A YEAR OR TWO LATER?? Is she talking about the Lavender House meeting? Because they talked for like 2 seconds in that scene, it makes 0 sense to consider that as the starting point of their relationship.

But pushing that aside, DECLARED HIS LOVE??? Excuse me, ma’am, I think I’ve read a completely different book.

It wasn’t until after the Doorknob Incident™ that John realized he was in love with Percy, tf is she talking about? And Percy never knew John was in love with him because John never told him, so wdym DECLARED his love?? That thought never left his head.

Let’s take a look at the definition of the verb “declare”, shall we?

Some interesting words: solemn, emphatic, firmly, clearly, publicly, officially… literally the polar opposite of what John did ijbol

Not to mention “someone who turns out to be unworthy of their love”, well I guess they could call it even then bc how the f*ck is Mr. I-will-tell-you-I-can’t-love-you-because-I’m-already-in-love-with-someone-else-but-I’ll-conveniently-2nd-place-you-and-take-your-love-and-all-the-benefits-that-come-with-it-so-that-I-can-enjoy-your-body-and-your-company-whilst-refusing-to-acknowledge-my-own-feelings anywhere near “worthy”.

This is so ridiculous 🙄

#outlander #lord john series #lord john and the brotherhood of the blade #the brotherhood of the blade #lord john grey #john grey #percy wainwright #percy beauchamp #john x percy #anti diana gabaldon

[britishguyslover]

https://funfandomblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/08/outlander-book-review/#more-6409

Wish I could disagree. But ...

#anti diana gabaldon

[thisweekinfandomhistory]

Outlander, no! This week, Emily has another Big Topic as she and V try to understand the fundamentally twisted mind of Outlander author Diana Gabaldon and her spurious-yet-vicious hatred of fanfiction (and her own fans). Despite what Gabaldon -- and a weird number of writers -- believe, fictional characters do not actually have their own lives and writing fic, even badfic, about them cannot harm them. Discussion turns to the nature of fanfiction as art -- even bad fanfiction as art -- and the line where a creator's control over their art ends. Do you feel like characters "act without your permission" when you write? Do you think only "good" art has the right to exist?

This Week In Fandom History is a fandom-centric podcast that tells you… what happened this week in fandom history!

P.S. Apologies for the late upload this week. Outside commitments reared their ugly heads.

#outlander #anti outlander #anti diana gabaldon #fandom #fanfiction #fandom podcast #Spotify

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

So finally I read Voyager (by that I mean, I actually read the whole thing this time, and not just John and Jamie’s chapters lol) for the first time in five or six years and I’d been meaning to jot down my impressions of it (while I still have them somewhat fresh to mind) but, typically, I’ve kept forgetting and getting distracted by other stuff. (I actually finished it nearly a month ago, but again, my mind forever is fluff on the wind it seems. *sigh*)

Since I really don’t want to end up writing another another long-winded essay about the book I’ll attempt to keep it brief. lol

Rereading Voyager once again made clear why Jamie/Claire has always been much more easily shippable for me than Jamie/John. (Even though my shipping of J/C is low-key to negligible tbh.) It’s not because the latter doesn’t have a very interesting (if ultimately too toxic for me) dynamic (even if the fascinating quality of their relationship is sometimes akin to being unable to tear your eyes away from a car crash). And it’s not because I’m too much of a puritanical pearl-clutcher to appreciate to the dark allure of a so-called toxic ship (trust me, I have far more f*cked up ships than J/J lmao).

The main reason Jamie and Claire work for me, despite the fact that they can often be pretty batshit in their dynamic, is because they’re the SAME KIND of batshit...about EACH OTHER...EQUALLY. 😂

Jamie/John just don’t have that. The batshit obsessiveness is way too one-sided. I mean, if they’re not equally in unhinged, all-consuming love with each other then what’s even the point? lol Such an unbalanced nature in a toxic ship just doesn’t sail far with me, and after a while just has me looking at the undervalued party wishing they’d locate their self-respect, get a grip, and get a damn life already! (And, yes, I’m looking at you, John. *weary sigh*)

Also, rereading the infamous “take your hand off me or I’ll kill you” scene between John and Jamie at Ardsmuir reaffirmed my initial impression of it back when I’d first read it years ago (and let’s be honest, between ADHD and depression brainfog, I don’t really begin to fully trust my own memory of books until I’ve read them a few times). That it’s wholly unethical for the governor of a prison to proposition any of his prisoners is indisputable to me, but even putting that aside, the whole exchange still came off pretty questionably to me just on its own. 

Jamie did nothing whatsoever to indicate that he might be receptive to that sort of attention from John. It’s like when you find yourself suddenly hit on apropos of nothing, despite having given no sign of encouragement whatsoever -- and at an inappropriate time to boot. I mean, seriously, how did John think propositioning Jamie in the wake the revelation of his grief over the loss of the love of his life was a remotely considerate time to be doing that? (If someone had tried to take advance of me in such a vulnerable moment after I’d shared something so personal with them, I’d have been bloody annoyed!)

Their exchange of shared grief was the first moment of genuine trust extended  between them, a gift really, especially on Jamie’s part, and John thought that was a good time to make a move on him? And more importantly, where’s the logic in it? 

Jamie had just been talking about how much he loved his wife - a woman - while having never done anything to give the impression that he was remotely attracted to John (in fact, the impression given was much the opposite most of the time), so how then did it make the remotest sense for John to risk exposing himself like that?? Especially when John’s always emphasizing how crucial it was for men like himself to be careful around other men and not make any dangerous assumptions. Extreme caution is always the order of the day when it comes to situations like this, so wouldn’t it at least have made more sense to wait until he felt more certain of the lay of the land? 

Except with Jamie he already knew perfectly well he had no need to practice the same kind of caution he would’ve with any other gentleman. Jamie was a convicted Jacobite with no standing whatsoever. He couldn’t have spoken out about John even if he’d wanted to -- his word was worthless against him. (And of course, it’s in much the same tone of imbalanced power that John carried forward their strained friendship under duress during Jamie’s years at Helwater.) 

Of course, despite John’s awareness of the disproportionate amount of power he held over Jamie, his intentions, at heart, weren’t remotely malicious. (He’s certainly no Black Jack Randall!) Yet, it’s still the appearance of impropriety that stands with him. Mainly because intellectually he knows better than to do half the stuff he does, but he just gets caught up in the intensity of his feelings in the moment and ends up doing impulsively reckless shit. It’s the story of his life at this point. :/ (I mean, just think how often his “brave” impulsivity or his injudicious tongue has ended up landing him straight into hot water, while instances where cravenness stilled his tongue could’ve changed the course of his life for the better if he’d only had the courage to speak from his heart.)

Another thing that stood out to me was the characterization of Frank Randall in the book in comparison to the general attitudes of animosity he receives in the fandom. 

Now I can’t say I strongly ship either Jamie/Claire or Frank/Claire (though I’ve certainly found both interesting and likeable at times), so I’m pretty neutral when it comes to any shipping biases on their parts. I do feel that it’s stanning Jamie and Claire so much that’s garnered Frank so much unwarranted hatred. I mean, he’s not a saint (none of them are lol) but he also couldn’t be farther from the devil. The worst thing charge I can legitimately lay at his feet is being a racist (though it’s unfortunately pretty understandable given his age and the time period - after all, only the people who were rarely ahead of their time could legitimately have been said to have not been racist at all during a time when it was the cultural norm). 💀

But aside from the racism, Frank was a far better man than most. How many men would’ve taken Claire back after she turned up three years later, pregnant with another man’s child, whom she had married and fallen in love with even though she was already married to Frank??? And not only that, loved that child as much as if she’d been his own biological daughter? Despite the fact that just the sight of Brianna was a constant flesh and blood reminder that Claire had betrayed him? And that Claire was still in love with Jamie despite having returned to Frank. (And he even supported her going to medical school - something a lot of husbands in that time wouldn’t have done.)

And yeah, I know he cheated on her - and that’s what so many rake him over the coals for - but under the circumstances I find it kind of hard to blame him. Did Frank not deserve to be with someone who actually loved him? Unlike Claire, who only ever came back to him in body but not in spirit, and certainly not in heart! She spent all those years being emotionally unfaithful to him first, even though he was the one who’d chosen to do the honourable thing by standing by her and raising a child that wasn’t even his. It takes two people to ruin a marriage, and the efforts of both in concert to make things work. And Claire couldn’t have made it clearer that her heart was no longer in their relationship -- and that wasn’t Frank’s fault. 

And the final thing that really stood out to me: the rampant fatphobia in Outlander. I mean, I’d noticed it here and there but hadn’t paid it a great deal of attention because it mostly seemed like isolated occurrences scattered throughout the books (and as I’ve said before, I haven’t fully read all of the OL books from cover to cover yet - mostly the parts with John, Percy, or others closely related to them). 

But reading the whole of Voyager brought back to me how often I’d noticed similar fatphobic sentiments expressed at other times, and just how frequently, in particular, DG uses fatness to emphasize the repulsiveness of villainous characters (like with Geillis when her character is reintroduced in Jamaica). And, it’s such a common sentiment even just in passing conversation that you’ve probably already noticed it (or if you somehow haven’t, I bet you’ll start noticing it a lot more now).

Even in her parting advice to Brianna, Claire goes, “Try not to get fat”, and I was like ‘WHATTT?? She’s abandoning her daughter (who’s also lost her father and has no other relatives) and you may never see her again, and THAT’S the parting motherly life advice you have for the poor girl??? ‘Try not to get fat’?!?!” Seriously? 🙄

DG can shove her fatphobia up her arse with the rest of her toxic predilections, for all I care.😐

#my random ramblings #Jamie Fraser #Claire Beauchamp #Lord John Grey #Frank Randall #anti diana gabaldon #cw racism #cw fatphobia

[andrasta14]

(So I originally ended up getting carried away (again lol) writing this absurdly long reply in response to another post, but I thought I may as well just post it separately, too, since Book 9 seems to have fully decimated my usual code of silence regarding all things Outlander. 😂) 

~*~

I honestly can’t say I particularly like the person that John has become by the end of Book 9 - which makes me extremely sad to say because John’s been my favourite Outlander character for years (other than Percy himself). Apparently that thing about people mellowing with age definitely doesn’t apply to him because he’s just managed to become a bigger prick with age, increasingly narrow-minded and self-righteous, untempered by his usual kindness and empathy. His coldness just leaves me feeling cold.

(Hell, almost he may as well be just be Percy’s father, minus the zealot-like faith in God. Just what is it with Percy and his tendency to fancy men with “brutal” personalities anyway? That’s a whole other psychological kettle of fish, but if I had to point to its root, that father of his is a no-brainer, and no doubt only further compounded by the sorts of men he’s been involved with in his life, whether by choice or out of necessity.)

I mean, John showed a hell of a lot more concern for bloody Neil the C*nt Stapleton’s well-being than that of his own stepbrother and former lover whom he’d once loved! Did Percy ASK to be abducted and tortured because of the Grey family’s dramatic bullshit? In fact, did he not go out his way to warn John about Richardson’s schemes TWO YEARS prior to all this rigmarole? What was John doing all that time??? Sitting on his hands and minding Amaranthus’s baby?

When Percy told John Michael Weber had blackmailed him John was all, “oh why didn’t you just tell me about it, I would’ve made sure Weber was no threat to you”, like a condescending twat. *scoff* Well, Percy gave him him two bloody years warning that he was in danger but I didn’t see Mr Big Man doing bugger all to neutralize the threat of Richardson. Maybe if he’d trusted Percy more he’d have taken his heads-up more seriously. Because when has Percy, when acting in deliberation, ever not acted to protect John - even at the risk of his own life?

When John got his ass beaten up - again - this time by a crazed mob of people because he made the impulsive and utterly mad decision to assist a convicted sodomite (of no friend or relation to him whatsoever to boot) to a quicker death in full view of god knows how many people and army officers. I mean, I hugely appreciate both the bravery and compassion that this act was born out of but -- IS HE STUPID OR SOMETHING?? o.O John knows how they love to gossip in the army - the utter foolishness of this act would’ve been second only to actually getting caught in flagrante delicto. And then when it finally came back to bite him in the ass (I was like UH-HUH, I knew it! xd) I wasn’t even surprised. It was likely the very first clue to tip off Richardson and send him looking for more proof that John was gay! (But I seem to have hugely digressed so back to my original point...lol...)

When John got his ass beaten up again and wasn’t in any fit state to uphold his promise to escort Captain Bates’s mistress back to Ireland, who volunteered to do it in his stead? Percy, of course, despite all the dangers inherent of such a long journey in the 18th century - highwaymen, bandits, footpads of all sorts. Percy, who’d never even held a sword until he was 26 years old and couldn’t even fight! HOW DARE JOHN DISMISS HIM AS A COWARD?!?! Percy Wainwright has never been a coward - if anything, his being an entirely average citizen and not some scion of a military family who’d been handed a “sword in the cradle” and trained to fight since earliest boyhood makes Percy all the more courageous. It isn’t the absence of fear that makes someone brave, it’s bloody well knowing all the dangers out there, being sensibly wary of said dangers, but then steeling yourself and going out and facing the danger anyway. Because something is more important to you than your own safety. Because John’s well being was more important to Percy than his own safety, greater than his own fear.

And then when Percy was in gaol, in the most dire circumstances he could possibly be in, basically waiting to be put to death, and recognizes Arthur Longstreet’s voice and the danger he poses to John’s life, what does he do? Why, write to warn him and then persuade a guard to find out what he could and then to deliver his letter in exchange for “a consideration” [insert sexual favour here, because what other currency does Percy have to barter with other than his own body], even though his confession has an extremely high chance of provoking the ONE man who might still care enough to save his life to want to wash his hands of him entirely and leave him to his fate. ‘I will leave you to imagine, if you will, what the writing of this letter costs me,’ he writes, ‘for that ultimate cost is up to you....to speak may mean my life; not to speak may mean yours. If you are reading these words, you will know which I have chosen.’

And then the pièce de résistance of this whole tragic mess is that Percy’s final act was again just him trying to get help to save John’s life, even at the looming threat of the loss of his own. I mean, he could’ve done NOTHING. He could’ve just continued keep his head down and hope that his show of submission would show Richardson he had no reason to kill him. Hell, he could have just taken his life and run, just gotten his ass on a ship and away from North America post-haste, since Richardson apparently regarded him as so insignificant a threat as to let him wander about on shore by himself for periods of time. That would’ve been the most sensible thing to do in terms of self-preservation - but no, instead he risked going to John’s house because John asked him to, in the name of Percy’s love for him no less.

(Even after John again just sat there and said nothing when Percy confessed he still loved him - AGAIN - and my god, the way that last conversation echoes the one when John visited Percy in gaol just kills me. It’s almost the same situation, except John is the one imprisoned and waiting to die this time. And that John can’t even at least have the decency to look Percy in the eye and give him an honest response at such a time, frigging TWICE now, when he bloody well knows this may be the last time they ever see each other...! But nope, John’s stubborn ass just evades the matter altogether and starts talking about f*cking seagulls or something - honestly, who’s the real coward here? Percy has always been bravest in the places where John is weakest: his fear of love and all the emotional vulnerability that comes with it.)

And that Percy went and did the very thing that John dismissed Percy as being too much of a coward to even consider and so didn’t even bother to ask for Percy’s help in the end...! Could his lack of faith, the impassively pitying contempt that John holds him in, BE any colder? If I even end up reading any of Book 10 in some mad fit of masochistic desire to know if this tragedy can get anymore tragic, it will primarily be to know if John has enough feeling remaining in that two-sizes-too-small muscle he calls a heart to feel any sorrow for Percy’s fate or enough tenderness of conscience to feel any shame for the part he played in his end. And for the instrument of his demise to have been labelled f*cking “Blood of Martyrs”...how appallingly appropriate. ~

~*~*~

(And on a another related matter - since apparently I’m on a ranting roll here lol - Hal F*cking Grey!! Who the HELL just leaves a poisoned bottle of brandy lying around in the open in his brother’s house without even frigging warning anyone, “Oh hey, by the way, make sure no one drinks that while I’m away, it’s poison...because I wouldn’t want to accidentally MURDER someone. Like, I want to do that shit on PURPOSE”?!?!?!!! I mean, poor George Stanley - his first two wives died on him and now one of his stepsons has killed the other...! Brilliant!!

And since I’m calling people out - Claire Fraser! What the bloody hell were you doing telling anyone, much less someone like that high-handed nutbar Hal frigging Grey, what to use to poison someone? What, did you leave all of your medical ethics back in the 20th century?? smfh)

Long story short, Book 9 makes me wish I could go back in time and tell Percy Wainwright to take his life and run rather than get involved with Lord John Grey and his family.

#yes i know i'm back on this nonsense again #it's a form of emotional exorcism #i'm classifying this form of composition the Rant-Essay #percy wainwright #lord john grey #john x percy #lord john series #outlander #bees spoilers #go tell the bees that i am gone #go tell the bees the magic is gone #anti diana gabaldon #i DO NOT appreciate authors who make me dislike my own fave character this much #anti john grey #much as it saddens me to ever be using such a tag #I'm working on forgetting this book even exists so I can go back to liking his problematic ass more again #because right now i'm kinda just like FINE go ahead and die alone and unloved #what do i care anymore after all these years T_T #hal grey #claire fraser #brotherhood of the blade

[william-c-h-g-ransom]

Ive just finished the book and while i did like it overall i have some things i have to get off my chest.

As a queer person my feeling for Diana's depiction of queer characters have never been great. There was some good, and I am willing to forgive her for a lot of the slightly offensive things she has written because i think they stem from ignorance and not malicious intent. But i am simply disappointed in her treatment of Percy. I have always liked his character and when he first made an appearance in the main series i was overjoyed. I was hopeful that Diana would finally give John an ending with a happy relationship. I was honestly excited for an enemies to lovers slowburn. It would have been wonderful.

Not only did she disappoint on that count but she has found the most ridiculous way to possible of doing it. Accidental poisoning? Honestly it feels to me like she was desperatly looking for a way to kill him off. Its not only rude and offensive its just bad writing, and really felt like it came out of no where. Im really frustrated. Im honestly quite conflicted about reading any more of her works. On the one hand I still love a lot of the characters. I want to see more of John and William and Bree and Jamie, (and Ian, Rachel, jenny, etc.) and of Percy too on the off chance she hasnt actually killed him off, but I honestly dont know if I can support an author who has such homophobic tendencies. This isnt even touching on her racist tendencies which are somewhat concerning, and also (as a jew) I wouldnt go so far as to day shes maliciously antisemitic but all her mentions of Jews have made me cringe.

I dont know what the point of the rant is really i guess i just want to say that i still love the characters i fell in love with and while i have made excuses for some of Diana's problematic writing in the past i am very near my limit.

#bees spoilers #go tell the bees that i am gone #percy wainwright #outlander #anti diana gabaldon #lord john grey