I appreciate what you're saying about the difficulty of giving an honest but negative review, but I don't think this is a good example of one. There is a word for this kind of review and it isn't courageous, it's cruel. Having read the latest Gabaldon I can honestly say that I regret much more having read the above review. At least I got some enjoyment out of Gabaldon's book, while Beth's review just made me feel sick.

Elisabeth,

My sense is that you object to Beth's tone, but not necessarily to the substance of what she had to say. I can understand her anger, given the history. It feels almost like a bad divorce to me.

well!

I could be wrong, but the reason why I think you wouldn't feel comfortable writing something like that review is because you are a successful, published author. You know what it's like to put yourself out there, on the line. It seems as though you might know Beth well. Is she a published author? It's REALLY easy to attack and be a critic when you are not a creator.

I don't admire this review, but then again, it clearly was written for a blog and not for public consumption. If it was, I assume the curses would have been taken out, and the personal attacks too. I think Beth has some valid points, and I'm not just defending DG out of some blind loyalty stemming from the many years I've been reading and enjoying her books. I agree with the above poster about the unnecessary cruelty, but I also know DG's writing style well enough to guess a little at her personality. She wouldn't have time or concern for this to bother her, methinks.

Goodness, that review was what stunk, not Diana's book. ABOSA is a wonderful book, one of the best in her series. There are hundreds (maybe thousands by now) comments on her books in the former Literary Forum (Now Books & Writers Forum on CompuServe) and there hasn't been a single negative opinion. People whining about how they want more now, yes, or how they didn't understand something or the other, but not that they hated the book. And many of these people have re-read Diana's books to shreds. I'd trust their opinion over that reviewer's.

I can't believe anyone would read (much less write) that review. I got through the first paragraph & my stomach was thoroughly turned. That's not a review, that's pure nastiness and hatred. And it seemed quite unprofessional.

Kim -- different strokes, as they say. I generally agree with Beth's reviews, and while the tone was rather harsh, I can't quite overlook the factual details.

What was interesting to me about the review was the fact that the reviewer was such a huge fan, truly admiring of the early books and in real sympathy with the characters in the earlier books. That doesn't feel like nastiness to me, or hatred either. Disappointment, yes. Even bitterness, but not hatred.

Chalk me up as somebody who really, really enjoyed Beth's review--not just for the insights it provided of the story and her reading preferences (a useful review is one that reveals as much about that as about the book being reviewed, I think), but because it was well-written and entertaining. I'd put more stock in a review like that than a review that went something like "OMG I loved it Jamie and Claire are so awesome when is the next book going to be Diana Gabaldon please have my babies squeeeeeee!"

But I'm sure my stance comes as no surprise, given the kind of site I co-run.

There's a unique anger that comes from reading a truly awful piece of work, especially if you had to pay for it. I don't see why, if the reader is inflicted with the awful book, why the author should be cossetted and protected.

There is NO obligation for a reviewer to play nicey-nice because of the potential for hurt feelings. A reviewer is not a critique partner. A reviewer's first and foremost loyalty should be to the reader: in the reviewer's opinion, should you read this? Or should you avoid it like tabloid reports about Tom and Katie's budding spawn?

And is honest, forthright vitriol like Beth's somehow worse than the more subtle, more polite, yet more condescending and equally mean ponderings of reviewers published in mainstream publications? That's a stylistic call, but me, I'm a fan of forthright. That way, I know exactly what I'm getting, even if I don't necessarily like it.

Beth's review has left me wondering what she actually wanted from ABOSAA - she says a lot about what she didn't like and what she wasn't interested in, so I'm now interested in knowing exactly what it was she was expecting.
As I read the review I bore in mind that Beth said at the start she was in a mood. And it is just one person's opinion. I have already read ABOSAA and agree with some of the points Beth made, but I also enjoyed the book, though I am not sure what I would have made of it if it was the first of Diana's books I had read. I sort of felt it was like selected diary entries from life at Fraser's Ridge, but having known Claire, Jamie, Bree and Roger a while, it was just interesting to me to see what they had been up to.
The main point I don't agree with Beth on is that it was out of the blue for Roger to decide he wanted to become a minister. I sort of felt this might have been coming for a while, even in Fiery Cross. Roger always seemed to me to have more of an interest in true pastoral care.
And as the final book in this story has not yet been writeen, who is to say that something which may not seem so relevant in this book won't have a bearing in a later book.

It's probably a bad idea for me to say this (because it's going to come back and get me at some point) but I really do prefer (as Candy does, as Beth does) straight forward reviews. If I have a choice between unflinching honesty and sweet nothings with sharp nails, I'll take the unflinching every time.

There seems something just wrong about defending a criticism of a criticism, yet here I am. Just a couple of quick points I want to make:

1. I have until this book been a HUGE Gabaldon fangirl, and Hell Hath No Fury like a fangirl who gets, um, effed by one of her auto-buys.

2. Sorry to have to so strenuously disagree, Rosina, but there's nothing courageous about anything I said. Neither is there anything cruel. People throw these words around in our society but the truth is that my words can't hurt a damn thing except maybe some feelings - and that's assuming Diana Gabaldon (a) ever reads it, which I doubt, and (b) can't emotionally handle criticism of her writing, which I highly, highly doubt.

It's courageous to open your mouth when the consequences are, say, that your government will behead you and your family. It's "cruel" to inflict pain on the weak - like say for instance enslaving devoted readers to your BRILLIANT writing and then inflicting 1000 pages of Boring on their trusting souls. Just my opinion. My very, very forceful opinion.

3. I think I made it obvious what I found offensive in the book and why, as well as the things I wish would've been in there. I write honestly. I talk about books on my blog in the exact same way that I talk about them to my friends. Or strangers. Or anyone. There's not enough honesty in the world of writing. Mebbe I'll make a disclaimer about my aversion to pussyfooting.

4. And most importantly to me: to differentiate between the Published and the Unpublished in the context of authoring a book review? Puh-leeez. Who's getting personal now? Sheesh. My voice is my voice is my voice, and I'll speak my truths whether I'm paid for them or not. Yeah, because only published writers know what it mans to put oneslef on the line. Feh, I say.

and
5. Stop shaking in you boots, Rosina. Review of your material will be coming to an inbox near you, probably sometime this week. Suck it up, buttercup.
:-)

You're right. Courageous and cruel are words that should be held in reserve for more serious situations.

I stand corrected.

I agree that A Breath of Snow and Ashes fell pitifully short of D. Gabaldon's capability as a writer. A good author should be a good puppeteer. Breathe life into characters and move them around on the pages but never, never let us see how hard you're working to do it. However, when, in a very short period of time, Fergus and his family move to town, the Bugs go away, Bree and Roger and kids return to the future, Jocasta and Duncan flee to Canada, Lizzie is hurriedly married, and so on it is excessively obvious that strings are being pulled to clear the board of characters. Not to mention all the story/character problems Beth pointed out.

My understanding is that Diana had signed a publishing contract for a series of 6 books (which turned into 7). I can't help thinking that she is 1) bored with the Jaime/Claire story or 2) was in a huge hurry to meet a deadline for this book. I wonder what (if any!) critical comments her editor made about the A Breath of Snow and Ashes since it is so obvious from reading her earlier books, especially Outlander, that she is capable of much better writing. Really, she should be ashamed of herself for such a sloppy writing job.

Honestly, I thought ABOSAA was WAY better than Fiery Cross. It was no Outlander, that's for sure, but I was far less disappointed with it than I was with the three-hundred-page day that started off FC. Not that this one was perfect either... but I was a little bewildered by the fact that people seem to think that THIS is where DG lost it. There were a lot of little failures along the way, as Beth noted so, er, colorfully, but I think she crashed and burned somewhere between Roger being sold to the Indians and that whole overstretched misunderstanding, and the aforementioned three-hundred-page diaper/breastfeeding/bullet-removing/menstruation-fest that was the beginning of Fiery Cross. With ABOSAA, I thought she started kind of picking herself up and dusting herself off.

Actually, what I thought was that her editor probably put her foot down and said that she didn't CARE that all the rabid fans said they'd read the tax code cover to cover if it was in DG's handwriting, and did her job -- that is, editing -- whether DG liked it or not.

You're absolutely right, it is the tone I object to in the critique, much more than I disagree with the content. And I don't think it's sugar-coating anything to write a review that is honest, professional, and negative. However, this is her own personal blog and she can be as offensive as she likes. I'm just personally didn't find it worth reading.

I think we're entering into a whole other discussion here of what the author really owes her reader in this kind of series. Good writing, absolutely. Plot choices and character development that we agree with...I don't know about you, but I've been left angry and unsatisfied by more than one series writer, and it wasn't because the quality of their writing changed that substantially from Book One to Book Six.

I'm enjoying this discussion...

Beth, I sent you an email just to clear some things up. I totally did not mean my comment to be personal. After I wrote it, I checked your site out and learned some stuff, so...

I'm not trying to say that someone has to be a published writer to write a meaningful, valid book review...and all people, all writers have a voice that is important, a voice that they put out there when they create. What I was trying to say is that this is more intense when everyone in the world can buy, read and review your writing, and it might make a person less inclined to be so negative!

I stopped reading the review part way through because there were too many spoilers, but what I did read I found to be coarse and harsh to the point that any valid points about the plot or characters were lost. It didn't put me off reading the novel, just more of Beth's reviews. But like Elisabeth, it's Beth's blog and she can write whatever she wants, however she wants.

the key word is passion. My take anyway.

Some fans are really angry at Gabaldon because they think of Jamie and Claire as real people . . . and believe that their creator has lost the spark that made them real.

Some fans are really angry at Beth because they think of Jamie and Claire as real people . . and feel as if their friends are being ground into the dirt.

Everyone in both the categories agrees that Jamie was amazing (at one point, anyway).

I liked the first books but didn't adore them. so I'm in the minority--the characters didn't haunt me the way some do.

i am joining in this discussion for a few minutes however i make the disclaimer that i am talking here about the discussion itself, not the book nor the review neither of which i have read at this time--when i clicked on the link for the review it was not available.

that being said, i am a little surprised at the vehemence implied here in the discusstion against abosa. i have read one review which gave the book a perfect 10 and am part of another online group who started with diana, moved on to sara/rosina, and eventually to another author, dorothy dunnett. reading all three ladies spoil you for other books (most notably the routine romance style book but others as well). the writing in the books of these three authors challenge the reader in a variety of ways not the least of which is a complexity of plot, an extensive use of vocabulary, and a committment to historical detail (or does diana lose that here?). it is hard for me to read other books now that do not adhere to these qualities (ie while a fun romp, the janet evanovich series i lasted through only the first three).

i read captain corelli's mandolin with enthusiasm from the first page because it used scurf and had humor til i grew appalled at how it ended. cold mountain too upset me at the end. and i could not see for the life of me what the big deal was about the amazing adventures of kavalier and clay. so i can fully understand the variance in opinion from person to person and respect that.

i just didnt expect vitriol for abosa.

my own personal take is that diana had a storyline that got divided along the way and therein lies the rub. some of the online gals i correspond with have said this book is most like outlander in style, its diana back to her usual self. could this have been originally part of the story and because she was asked to expand, it got moved over til now and the parts that seem so outlandish (pun intended) been written to please a request for more oomph if you will?

and while i agree that parts of the outlander series do seem way out there, i have never thought that of the into the wilderness stories (not trying to suck up sara rosina, just the truth) but when and if any of you read dunnetts works, then those parts of the outlander series arent any more out there than what dunnetts characters endure and some of that is like oi! what next!

i do believe that authors writing multiple books do have some problems with keeping true to the original, with freshness of storyline, without sounding worn out. robert jordan, john grisham, even tom clancy and jk rowling all have a tried and true formula that gets monotonous after awhile. and if its true that authors do draw upon real life people and situations for their writing, does that then not mean the formula can be a parallel of life?

i am still looking forward to reading abosa and hope that it is every bit as enjoyable for me as my friends say it will be. as for the review here and discussion, it was interesting to see another side. thanks!

Forgive the intrusion into this rather intimate discussion about whether or not an author betrayed her readers, her books, and/or herself.

However, it just reminds me of a very similar situation that arose in 1999, the year Star Wars: Episode 1 was released. Now I was a pretty big fanboy. Not convention-level fanboy, but fanboy enough to get mad at anyone who either didn’t see, didn’t like, didn’t respect or didn’t acknowledge the greatness that was the first three movies.

So, Episode 1 came out, and we were confused. I mean Jar-Jar? Midiclorians? Well, we can forgive. I mean, it was the first digitally made film. Wow. It had young Anakin. Um….., it was Star Wars. ….Lucas had his reasons. Who am I to Judge.

Then Episode 2 came out. Lucas tried to do a love story. Um, yeah….

I saw Episode 3. It was the last of the bunch, but my heart wasn’t in it. I’m no longer in love with star wars. Lucas ruined it. He made millions/billions in the process, but the art and magic is gone.

Unfortunately, I think this happens with many series. It is the bread and butter for the author/creator. If you can drag out a story you know will sell, you’ll do it. They have families, kids to feed and put through school. But at the same time, you don’t have to buy it. It isn’t our job to ensure their livelihood, I’m buying a product. If you want to support the author, just mail him/her money. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it. But I do think we need to stop encouraging the production of junk by pretending it isn’t.

It’s my belief that the most outraged should be other published authors. These are your peers out there, selling junk; potentially outselling you by leaps and bounds. Where is the incentive for authors to write there best? These are the people encouraging the negative stereotypes of your genre. If you can’t write any more good stories, step aside. There are a ton of great authors out there who would love the chance at getting published.

Such a vitriolic diatribe! The review seems to be a personal vendetta, not a review. The reviewer gets some of the facts wrong. For instance, menopause occurs gradually, not all at once (I wouldn’t be here if the doctors had been correct in diagnosing my mother’s “menopause.”) In addition, although ether can cause a fire, phosphorus can cause a conflagration (In my college days, I tried to dry some phosphorus, being a good-two-shoes to tidy up the wet mess. I nearly caused the lab, the building, and the surroundings to burn. Luckily the professors used a fire extinguisher repeatedly to put it out.) Thus, there was no obvious “foreseeing” of what the cause of the fire would be as indicated by the title of the book. On a positive note, the author can sure write anger. Perhaps you could use her input if Jemima’s voice needs some help. She didn’t mention the endearing episode of Beardsley twins’ answer to “What is love?” Nor did she mention the belly laugh of Jem’s one liner. I think the book is one of Gabaldon’s best. I definitely recommend it.

Elisabeth -- I agree that this is a good thing to talk about, but I also know from experience that no matter how the author works, not everybody is going to be happy with character development and plot direction six books into a series. You just can't please everybody.

tommy--

I'm so glad you brought up that comparison. It hits pretty close to the mark, I think, because the early Outlander books really did get engender the same kind of reader loyalty and adoration as the first three Star Wars movies.

It's an interesting point to raise, that other authors should be put out. I'll have to think about that.

Quick drive-by questioning of those who find my review to be vendetta-like vitriol: I don't get it? Can you please isolate the comments in my entry that indicate to you that what I wrote is a personal attack on the author and rather than an attack on the work itself?

And general apologies for those who find me vulgar. My mother agrees with you. I still make her laugh, though.

(Oh, and I never said that Claire has to be menopausal at her age. Just that I find it EXTREMELY odd that the first thought to come to mind is "what if she's pregnant!" It would be a weird first thought in that situation anyway, just extra-weird given that she's 55-ish. And soryy, but if Iknew I was fated to die by fire, I'd get the flammables out of the house.)

Okay, I really, really have to work now.

Well, Sara, I think this discussion quashes any doubt as to whether anyone out there is actually listening! Quite the exchange!

I like tommy's comparison - very apt. He does raise an interesting point about other authors being upset; however, I have to question his reference to junk. One reader's junk is clearly another reader's gem. To each their own. Who can say what is junk and what is not? In the case at hand, there is clear support and enthusiasm for Gabaldon's latest work - so what's the problem? Some may feel she's lost her touch or run out of ideas, but other don't. Caveat emptor.

Sara-

The point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make was just that--you can't please everybody all the time, and is it even your responsibility as a writer to try? Although as an avid reader I certainly feel possessive at times of well-loved stories and characters, it's ultimately not my call what happens to them. Their fate belongs to the author who was lucky enough to have first thought them up, and I don't know how justifiable it is to get angry about things not going my way. Maybe one mark of good writing is that even when things don't go the way you would like them to, you still find the reading experience worthwhile.

It makes me wonder how much fan lit exists around Gabaldon's books...one way of people having their own way with the characters.

This is for Beth - Ah, Beth, why single out my comments? I'll be glad to discuss this stuff with you, but NOTNOTNOT in an open discussion group, not my style. I've learned the hard way never to critisize in public. So somehow give me your email address, and I'll be glad to fulfill your request in the next few days.

Um well, adsfg, I wasn't talking just to you. LOTS of people in this thread seem to think I bear a personal grudge of some sort. You can find my email over at my blog profile, but I really would prefer for the discussion to stay here because what I'm asking is for a constructive critique of my words, by the people who have read them. If a word or a phrase does NOT strike me (the writer) as catty/mean/vindictive, but it DOES have that effect on a significant portion of my readers, that is something that is both very interesting to me AND something that I, as a writer, need and want to know.

That's what I call meaningful discourse:
I write.
People read.
People react.
People then explain their reaction to me in concrete terms.
I learn a whole bunch about how my words speak to a wide and varied audience.
I become a better writer.
We all learn a little something.

It seems a pretty straightforward exchange, but very, very few readers ever want to honestly engage in it. I was (am) asking asking for that exchange.

Is anybody seeing the split that seems to be largely following along these lines?

- The ones who enjoyed reading Beth's review either haven't read the Outlander series, have read it and aren't raging fans, have read it but stopped following the series a while back, or have followed the whole series and, like Beth, feel somewhat cheated by the past couple of books.

- The ones who see Beth as personally attacking Gabaldon and who are sickened by her review are the ones who love Outlander, including this last book.

I don't think I've ever become as upset over a negative review as some of the people here. The accusations of Beth making personal attacks against Gabaldon are kind of puzzling to me, and I pride myself in being a fairly careful reader. Y'all want to see reviews that make REAL personal attacks? Check out the amazon.com reviews for The Ghost Road by Pat Barker some time, where a couple of reviewers actually come right out and say "She's a woman, she can't know ANYTHING about war, therefore this book is useless."

The varied reactions to Beth's review are actually an excellent illustration of the subjectivity of the reading experience, and how we ALL carry some sort of baggage into the reading experience--baggage that informs how we'll interpret something.

Candy, you're right -- Diana does have a core base of devoted readers who rally to her defense, anytime, anywhere. I'm not sure why that is. These are people who seem to take personal offense at any criticism -- no matter how carefully put -- of the Outlander books.

Though I fear I will bring down the ire of that very crowd on my own head, I have to say that I'm not sure it's a good or healthy thing. These are stories, after all, and not a religion or way of life.

From my own perspective, I think I would be uncomfortable with this kind of thing. If somebody doesn't like something I write (and believe me, I've had some very negative reviews/feedback) I handle it (not always well, but I handle it) because I'm the author and it's my work, and it's up to me. If my readers started setting up a Prevention of Cruelty Against Sara Donati group, I'd be alarmed and uneasy.

"Diana does have a core base of devoted readers who rally to her defense, anytime, anywhere. I'm not sure why that is."

Just speculating here, but I think the devotion comes from a need to defend and protect. And that need arises from how readers read.

Often, readers aren't idly consuming the text that passes their eyes. There's a process by which a reader inserts herself into the text. Perhaps it's actually into Claire's or Jamie's shoes. Perhaps it's peeking through the window of Roger's and Bree's cabin. That voyeurism that reading allows is not detached-- the reader is really there. I should make this specific: I'm there when I read a good book-- like I'm there when I recall Uncle Phil's antics at the last family reunion.

Because of attention to detail and naturalistic dialogue, a reader can easily imagine and enter the books Gabaldon creates. And if I've been in-- almost literally in-- a world for years and years, then it seems reasonable to me that I'd feel defensive if someone criticized the content of my world.

Readers become owners, and perhaps that's what creates the unquestioning league of Gabaldon defenders. I consider myself someone who does enjoy Gabaldon's books, but also sees some flaws.

Meagan -- I agree with you. A really well done story draws the readers in completely. Suspension of disbelief, dreaming about the characters, daydreaming about the plot, these are all signs of a great story that has connected with the readers. Certainly Diana's stories fall into this category. Many novels don't.

But there's still something a little odd. Take, for example, my own obsession (and I don't use the word lightly) with Dunnett's Niccolo Rising series. I have read the books so many times, I couldn't even give you an accurate count. I know the characters and storylines, I have spent a lot of time and energy looking into the history and background. I really adore these books.

But not everybody does, and I've run into some of those people. I had an email conversation with somebody who really disliked Niccolo and was very vocal about the various reasons. I was surprised and his vehemence, a little taken aback, but it stopped there. I didn't go alert all my fellow Niccolo devotees that there was somebody out there criticizing the books, so they could all go and shake their fingers in his face and lecture him on the error of his ways.

There's passion, and there's passion. I'm interested how things evolve to the point that readers organize themselves into groups that ride out to defend the books, the characters, and their creator. Most likely I'll never figure it out, but I'm interested anyway.

What I find interesting is this.... the very people who tell me they are interested in honest criticism often don't take it so well themselves. There's honest, unvarnished, to the jugular criticism. And then there's thoughtful analysis & respectful criticism, which is just as honest, but also respectful of who you are talking to. I'll leave it to you to figure out which you yourself would rather hear.

I do a lot of reviewing of books for an awards program. I often tell the committee members.... "I respect the author's work in writing a book. However, it doesn't work for me, and here's why... " I say this because, I can be very blunt when I talk about why I don't like a book and why I don't think it deserves a place on the list.

That's honest & to the point, without cursing or being crude. My preference, of course, but I think it is a more productive course of action.

Perhaps all of us here would do well to think about Ranganthan's list & remember that for every reader his/her book, for every book, a reader. NOt everyone is going to like a book, a series, or an author. That's fine. However, some of the comments here make me think that the chief objection to Diana's work is that she didn't write the book you thought she should have. And I'm reminded of the girl who decided she would rewrite JK Rowling's latest book to HER satisfaction. There's a parallel here.

"I do a lot of reviewing of books for an awards program."

Which is, of course, an entirely different audience, and an entirely different purpose, from reviewing for entertainment, or reviewing for fellow readers who presumably think along the same lines as you, even if they don't agree with every review you write.

"However, some of the comments here make me think that the chief objection to Diana's work is that she didn't write the book you thought she should have."

Hang on: isn't that the usual reaction to most bad books? I can't think of a single bad book I've read to which my primary reaction was "Holy cow, that stank on ice, but that was the only book the author could've written."

"And I'm reminded of the girl who decided she would rewrite JK Rowling's latest book to HER satisfaction."

The caveat here being that the article was obviously fictional and mostly meant to poke fun at fan fiction writers--that is, assuming you're referring to the "Mary Sue Pembroke" story published on the Watley Review website, a faux news organization along the lines of The Onion.

Beth has posted again regarding A Breath of Snow and Ashes, asking for a discussion of her review, point by point. If you loved the book and disliked her review, you should really go over there to the new post and get involved, argue your case. Because that would be a very worthwhile discussion.

I personally agree with the greater proposal that we are weakened by an unwillingness to talk openly about things like this. What irks me to no end is that negative reviews are almost always anonymous (at least, when women are doing the reviewing). As if we weren't strong or smart enough to handle disagreement openly.

And Kim -- where are your reviews, if I may ask? The venue makes all the difference.

Hoo boy!I agreed with almost every word of Beth's
review of ABOSSA. Including the language, but that's because I talk like that too!
I've got to say that I loved all of the books up until now, counted down the days until this one came out, read it, and went "wha...?"
While it was still better than many books I've read, and I don't regret buying the hardcover (I LIKE shiny objects!) I am glad to see these discussions by people who were not enamored of ABOSAA. I have been reading comments about the
book on the Ladies of Lallybroch board, but they
have all apparently drunk the kool-aid :(

P.S. If someone thinks DG was hurrying to meet an editorial deadline, I'd hate to see the # of years
between books without one...

I wasn't going to post again about this topic, but I do think it needs to be said that not liking Beth's review does NOT equal being a hardcore Gabaldon fan. I am actually fairly neutral on her books--some I've really loved, some I've liked parts of, and some I've found pretty boring. So, my reaction to the review was not prompted by any fierce loyalty either to her or to her characters.

Because of Sara's original post, I was expecting an example of a professional-style, negative review, and that's not what I got. Obviously, this kind of review has its place and its audience. I'm just not part of it.

Elisabeth -- I do see your point. At some time I may post a comparison of negative reviews, with the purpose of trying to figure out how tone plays a role. I've got some good examples.

I read the original review for Outlander in the Romantic Times, bought it in 1991, and wanted to read more. I bought and savored each new book in the series, including The Outlandish Companion. Two years ago downsizing forced me to edit my book collection. I looked at my beloved Outlander series and sent the whole thing to the secondhand bookstore. It wasn't a pleasure anymore, but an albatross.

I love big fat historicals, and still have a few series saved, but this one is too long and slow moving. After ten years of waiting for the next book , I stopped caring about the characters. The whole thing just lost momentum. Beth's comments about book #6 pretty much echo my feelings about book #5, which gathered dust for a year before I touched it.

Maybe I'd think differently if I had all five books when I began reading.

This may seem a strange thing to be posting on the site of someone also writing a historical series. I bought and read Into The Wilderness based on the Romantic Times review, and the second book because I liked the first. I didn't keep them, but later found your website, and I've been a daily reader of your blog for a while.

My summer reading last year consisted of book titles gathered from your site. I am still haunted by "The Sparrow".

My Christmas present to myself last year was all of Sara's books. When I know that the final book is forthcoming, I'll begin with book #1 again.

Sara,

My earliest reviews are at Scientific & Technical Book Reviews (STARR, I think was the abbreviation for it), which is no longer being printed. You may be able to find this index/set of review volumes at a large research library near you. I wrote for them for about two years, while assistant professor in Illinois.

I have also written reviews for DorothyL and for CompuServe's Literary forum. DorothyL's archives should still have my reviews therein, but the Literary Forum never archived its threads until very recently.

So yes, I've written reviews for public consumption & for a wide variety of people, from professionals to recreational readers.

Currently, I no longer write reviews as such, although I do verbally review books for the committee I am on, which selects twenty books each year, for its awards program.

I read her review, and while I agreed with some of it, I found she did make me laugh and consider things I didn't have a problem with. However, she didn't change my mind about anything. With that said, it upsets me that one person's review would turn you off reading the book. What if your fans (I am a huge one) took the same stance with a negative review of your book? The fact that they didn't *purchase* it aside, wouldn't you feel as though you were somewhat short-changed in that you didn't even get the chance to prove the reviewer wrong?

I was just surprised to see your POV on reading the book. To be honest I was quite disappointed.

Jamie

Honestly, I think that Beth's review is poorly written. To me it just comes across as a fan not getting what she wanted.

She should do I what I do. I cannot stand Margaret Atwood. So I don't read her books. If I did, and I didn't like it, I would take the time to write a proper review that didn't sound like a four year old throwing a temper tantrum.

I have read a great many books in my lifetime. Many. I've also written a few books, but have never been published. The writing of the books doesn't make me an expert, but I think after reading the amount of books I have read, I can say with authority that ABOSA is well written, well researched and is much better than anything Margarate Atwood sets forth and never edits its seems or the drivel that JK Rowling produces for children.

Jenniferanne -- and I thought I was taking a chance, opening up this can of worms. Girl, the Rowling lovers are going to be coming after you. Better gird your loins.

Honestly, I think that Beth's review is poorly written. To me it just comes across as a fan not getting what she wanted.

You're absolutely right. I wanted a good book.

Zing!

Given the debate that is going on, you have to give Ms. Gabaldon credit for at least inspiring some thought and passion. There are so many books published that have little emotional impact. The Outlander series has its high and low points (and we could argue about what they are for a long time because Fiery Cross is my personal favorite). But Ms. Gabaldon's low points are still better than a lot of what is in the bookstores.

Maybe our expectations of her are just really high. Of course, I'm a compulsive reader and will read the back of the cereal box if I have too :) Anyway, I agree with Beth that the characters' reactions in ABOSA were not fully developed, that Wendigo did not seem realistic, and that certain plot points seemed contrived. I still enjoyed the book and am looking forward to the next one.

My question is, if Beth perceived the standard of Ms. Gabaldon's books to be falling, why did she buy ABOSA? When I'm not sure whether I'll like a book, I wait for it to hit the library. That way, I don't get a resentment toward the author for the money I spent. With ABOSA, a person could probably borrow it from a friend as it is a popular book. Just something to think about.

Rebecca -- that's a great suggestion. Support your local libraries, and put a buffer between yourself and a book you're not sure of.

My personal stance is that the library is the best way to go. Far better than used books. Not to open another can of worms, or anything.

It strikes me as rather amusing that you took such offense when I made the comment that "probably may not be" was poor English and yet you repeatedly bring up an extremely negative review about a contemporary author whose work rivals yours. This website used to be fun and informative. Now it's full of sniping and put downs. Fine, maybe you don't consider that expression poor English, but I know what I consider poor taste.

Joyce:

Let me give you a hand, because you're not expressing yourself clearly.

You're not in the least amused. You're angry. You don't like the fact that I raised this discussion. You don't like my tone, you don't like what I have to say, you don't like me as much as you like Diana, you don't like my books as much as Diana's. I am too big for my britches, and worse, I show disrespect for an author who is my superior.

In addition, you were offended at the way I responded to an earlier comment of yours on a completely different subject.

In short, I piss you off. I'm a discredit to the human race in general and the blogosphere in particular. You won't be coming back here any more.

Does that about cover it?

Well this has kept my attention thus far so thought I would add my two cents worth.

Congratulations Beth – without your ‘don’t hold back, tell it how it is, clearly controversial’ review, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I am clearly in the category: ‘have followed the whole series and, like Beth, feel somewhat cheated by the past couple of books.’ Sure some people may have found Beth’s piece harsh, but the entry was funny too in parts and more importantly it was concrete and specific as to what she FELT was lacking and where it disappointed her.

And if she hadn’t been blunt, would we all be talking and reading about it the way that we are. I don’t think so.

Some people here have said that Beth is moaning and that “she just comes across as a fan not getting what she wanted.”

She agreed and said “Yep, she wanted a good book”. I agree hole-heartedly too. Sure I have read or half-read books that are a lot worse (too many books out there to waste time on ones that don’t engage me) but generally when you are a big fan your expectations are high. And when you have invested yourself in characters and their life story you are eager for more. And while I agree with Beth on most of her assessment of this book - it sure needed some serious editing – I think I would have been prepared to forgive and forget all of that if that book had at least made me FEEL something. But it didn’t and that was the most unsatisfying thing about that book. And to top it off, not even writing the scene where Claire says goodbye to her daughter and her family for life! was the point when I felt really stranded as a reader. My reaction: "Do you care for these characters, these people any more? Did you go there with them and feel their pain?"

I do have this to say for Diana Gabaldon. I had an aversion to historical romance and she cured me of it with her first four books and that in turn led me to you Sara and your Into the Wilderness series. Hours of reading pleasure and for that I thank and congratulate you both. From there I jumped forward 150 years to Paullina Simons and The Bronze Horseman series, which without doubt is my benchmark for how a novel can move you and make you feel.

As Paullina has written on her website: "My goal is always to put on the page the kinds of things that I myself would like to read. When I read, I want to feel…what I, as a reader, want most of all, is to see the characters I’m reading about, and to feel for them, and to believe that the author is leading me down a path that he himself sees and believes and feels."

Well, sadly I think Diana lost it on the feel point – at least for me she did.

The other point I would like to make with reference to this whole debate is that while Diana Gabaldon is debuting at No 1 on the New York Times Best Seller’s list, due entirely to the sheer expectation placed on that book – not its merits – what other shining, struggling authors are not getting a look in?

Finally, good on you Sara for chairing this debate and for sharing with us how you would react if you were to receive such a review.

Keep it up :-)

Sherryl -- thank you for taking the time to write. I think you're absolutely right, this has been a worthwhile discussion, if not always an easy one. And your honesty is much appreciated, as are your supportive words.