Lord John and the Private Matter...

[fajrdrako]

Long ago when Outlander was published - I read it because a lot of people recommended it to me, and though I found it readable, I didn't much like Diana Gabaldon's writing style. Worse, I liked the villain better than the hero, which is unfortunate in a love story. I thought the hero was a dead loss.

I didn't read any more of the series.

In more recent years several people have recommended Gabaldon's Lord John and the Private Matter, so I decided to give it a try. I was under the impression Lord John would be bisexual, but it turns out he's not, he's homosexual, which was a bit of a disappointment to me. Not that it really mattered. He was a personable hero, and the plot was fun. I was hoping for a romance between Lord John and his valet, Tom Byrd - it didn't happen, but there were enough hints that it might happen that it increased the temptation to read further in the series. After many chapters of Lord John pretending to be straight, it was a relief to see him get a sex scene - even if it was mildly pervy, brief, and irrelevant to the plot.

I was reminded why I don't like Gabaldon's writing style. And even though I liked Lord John, I was several times frustrated by his stupidity - for example, going alone to the antagonist he believes to be a murderer and telling him he knows what he has done. Of course the villain takes advantage. (I'm trying to describe this without spoilers.) And then - here's where I really rolled my eyes - Lord John does it again. Yes, he had the King's writ to arrest the man, but what good did that do him once he was kidnapped to sea? It also seemed odd to me that believed the ship would not stop at any point between London and India. Even if the owner was afraid of the British law, he'd have to stop for water and supplies long before India.

So Gabaldon has again failed to really impress me, but I have to confess the book was fun. I see there are two more Lord John books in the series. I'm game. Even if just to see if he falls in love with Tom Byrd.

Comments

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Like you, I'm going to give the next 2 books a try (purely for reviewing purposes and the fact that there's so little homosexual historical stuff around) but yes, I was underwhelmed by DG's writing.

I found him incredibly bland, you never really got to see what he was like and his stupidity at times made me want to KEEL him.

And yes. Utter nonsense that a ship wouldn't stop before India. No Suez and the ship would have to go around Cape Hope, and back into the Indian ocean from there. A ton of places to stop. It would have taken weeks and weeks and they'd all be dead of scurvy by the time they'd got to India.

I was put off from Outlander by this book, and considering its the size of a small car, I'm told, not going there!

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I have the impression she's a no-more-than-average (if that) romance-writer/slash-inclined ficcer with delusions of literary merit. I read interviews and reviews, and was put off her Outlander series from the first. What is it with American popular novelists and 18C Scotland? Why the sentimental fixation with Jacobitism (a pro-Divine Right ideology that most Scots opposed), and alleged 'Highlanders' who are made to speak with Lowland accents? And when I read that she was inspired by Jamie from Doctor Who, with his phoney accent and 20C army surplus kilt…

Aaargh! I hate this crap.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

purely for reviewing purposes and the fact that there's so little homosexual historical stuff around

There are so few homosexual heroes that I really wanted to like him. And I did, well enough, though I agree that the urge to throttle him for his various stupidities came on fairly often. His valet was smarter than he was - frequently. The villain was smarter than he was. His mother was smarter than he was. And that wasn't difficult... I don't like having a detective hero who can't detect a thing!

That being said, I like the fact that the book is a murder mystery set in 1757 with an aristocratic gay hero. I certainly approve in principle.

I don't recommend Outlander, but many people love it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think Gabaldon dealt better with London in Lord John than she did with Scotland in Outlander, though I confess I don't remember Outlander very well at all.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

People always recommend her to me but her stuff (from the little I've learned) seems too bodice ripper esque to me. And they are freaking LONG, I don't mind long when I've gotten into a series and know it's worth it (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Dunnett) but not from the get-go.

This is part of why I'm resistant to writing a super long book of my own. I understand it can put someone off, especially someone like me with little reading time on my hands.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

So maybe make it a series of not-to-long books? But then sometimes it lacks structure, since you have to have a climax and resolution each time.

Personally I like long books and long series, because if they're good they're worth pursuing, and if they aren't good, it doesn't matter how short they are, they aren't worth reading.

But a good short book is a great thing, too.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I have the goal of making a few short books. Short being around 300 or so pages.

I actually like that it allows me several archs over the period of a larger story, since there is so much going on in the story at this point. Since I have ideas already to write past the currently-planned seven years, that gives me space for another series anyway.

But if I could just get ONE book done, I can talk more then, lol. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder how a writer ever finishes. Every time I edit, I think 'this writing! I could so improve it' and think I would do the same thing once it was published.

I wouldn't be able to read the publication!

PS, I had a friend read a chapter and she said I should make it into a screenplay and skip the novel, since it read fast. Is that bad? :(

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

300 pages is good. "The Game of Thrones" is 661 pages; I'm not sure about "A Feast for Crows" but I think it's at about a thousand pages and would be better at half that length.

No, screenplay is not bad, but it might mean you're being sketchy on some points. You can't really tell - at least, I don't think you should be able to tell - from a first draft. Things can and should be fleshed out later, as you know (further in the book) what detail you need.

Meanwhile, the kind of quick action you find in a screenplay is a good thing. As long as it isn't a really bad movie.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I am not a big fan of detail for the sake of detail in my own writing. I write in detail when it's something important. I am more about the story and development of character than poetic language. Perhaps this is why it seems more screenplay than novel.

I've found so far I'm cutting more than adding in my edits, which doesn't seem like fleshing out, but finding 'the point' in more of the prose.

Maybe on the second edit the fleshing out will appear, esp. with the novel finished. But I don't know, maybe I'm a bit of a Hemingway.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Nothing wrong with being a Hemingway. I like Hemingway. But he had a way of giving us what we needed to know - the trick is in knowing what the reader needs to know, and then giving no more.

Some books work well with detail, others don't. And there are different kinds of detail.

My second drafts are usually sparser than my first drafts, too. But sometimes I add scenes or ideas.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I definitely think I give what the reader needs to know. That's why my edits have seen deleting more than adding - in the first draft, I put in detail that wasn't necessary.

We'll see with the end product, when I can read it with a beginning, middle, and end. Of course I have to do this with each individual book and then the series as a whole.

Maybe I should just make it one long book, lol.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think Gabaldon dealt better with London in Lord John than she did with Scotland in Outlander

Possibly because there is less of a bundle of romance-fiction clichés about mid-18C London, whereas there's a whole mountain of them on the Highlands in this time-period.

She's also guilty of rampant Mary-Sue-ism…

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sadly there is, as far as I know, only one source on the gay lifestyle in London in the 18th century, and everyone who writes anything about the subject writes exactly the same stuff. So it's a cliché. Personally I'd rather see something different.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

There are biographies of gay/bi men like Lord Hervey and Horace Walpole, however.

Given the horrible penalties then around (the pillory could lead to death, as people threw all sorts of things), not everyone was part of the mollyhouse subculture.

There's also Emma Donohue's work on lesbians in 18C.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

There are biographies of gay/bi men like Lord Hervey and Horace Walpole, however.

Yes, of course. She could have ranged further in her research. I loved the bio of Hervey that I read. I also think it was more indicative of the type of life Lord John would have led.

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

You know, I tried to read Gabaldon's first book, because people kept going on about how wonderful the series was. And based on what I'd been told about the series, it's exactly the sort of thing that frequently appeals to me: time-traveling historical romance. But I got maybe 3/4 through that first book and got stuck. I don't even remember why or where anymore. I think I just put the thing down and never felt like picking it back up again.

So although an historical novel about a homosexual character sounds great, I think I may give this a pass.

[trixtah.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way, but I couldn't articulate why her books annoyed me. Teh Stoopids explains it. I did find Lord John ok, but yes, I think her characterisation in general is less than inspiring. I did like the sex scene - I am not someone who worries too much about one or two such scenes being relevant to the plot, so long as they aren't shagging constantly at the expense of the plot. Porn excepted, of course.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

What also puzzles me is why (apart from Emma Donohue herself, and Sarah Waters) no-one seems to explore lesbian themes in historical fiction. I can see why, in the earlier 20C, lesbian novelists such as Mary Renault and Marguerite Yourcenar wrote about gay men in the Classical world – tackling same-sex themes but at arm's length from their own sexuality and experiences, and while being closeted from most of their readers – but now?

I suppose that for some straight women writers, however liberated they think they are, they think that if they write about lesbians, people might think that they are… whereas they can show their modern liberal credentials by writing about gay men, without that. I've noticed this with straight people in general: saying that they are perfectly OK with homosexuality among the opposite sex, but repelled by the idea of it in their own sex. (Too close to home, perhaps? Makes them ask questions about their own sexuality? Or do they just like treating it as some sort of voyeuristic spectacle/warm-up act?)

I suppose part of the appeal of gay male themes is the frisson of illegality. Gay women have seldom being actually legislated against (various convent scandals in Catholic countries were the main cases – breaking rule of celibacy; cross-dressing and male imposture were separate issues, legally). However, what is fascinating to me is how many 17-early 19C gay/bi women juggled their lives, often having husbands and children, but also having a special female companion (whether physically sexual or emotionally romantic) – and the acceptance of this. Then there were the more overt cases, often with women working independently in the arts (actresses, female sculptors, & c).

I suppose lesbian invisibility isn't a new problem. I was watching a BBC programme the other day about British horror films. It mentioned the rise of the Hammer 'lesbian vampire' movie, and observed that before the drama The Killing of Sister George (about the decline of a lesbian soap actress), film-goers would have been excused for believing that vampires existed, but lesbians didn't! ;-D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Actually, I liked the sex scene too, and though it wasn't relevant to the plot, it really didn't need to be. Since Lord John had been keeping himself so completely under control, pretending to be straight and actually being closeted to the point of frigidity, it was a relief to see him give into his desires just for once. I liked the scene. I would have been happier if it had been someone significant, but it was fine as it stands.

And yes, porn excepted. Lord John would be a nice candidate for porn. I wonder if there is Lord John fanfic around.

I wonder if Diana Gabaldon is one of those writers who believes that beautiful people tend to be stupid?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

no-one seems to explore lesbian themes in historical fiction.

My first thought was 'surely that can't be true' but I couldn't think of any exanples of anyone doing it. Yes, it's definitely a lack. I cetainly have no problem with lesbian themes!

I don't think the illegality has a lot to do with it - most gay-themed things I've read have pretty much ignored that.

film-goers would have been excused for believing that vampires existed, but lesbians didn't! ;-D

LOL! And maybe that vampires might be lesbian, but mortals are not?

So if I were to write a lesbian historical novel, who would I pick to write about? Hmm....

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Who is the person in your icon?

I am in search of good novels with historical backgrounds, so if you find one, do let me know.

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

I think the answer is that straight women write it from a slashy vibe.
And it's easier to write about men than women because men are
their sex objects - so it's two sex objects in one story - double the
fun.

BTW, Possession by A.S. Byatt has a victorian lesbian sexual relationship - which
creates the central problem in the story. I don't believe that, A.S. Byatt is gay -
but I'm not sure.

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

Have you workshopped the work in a writing group?
That can really be helpful in pointing out parts that
need to be expanded?

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Diana Gabaldon is one of those writers who believes that beautiful people tend to be stupid?

Under the theory that all of her main characters - who are beautiful - are stupid? LOL.

Nah - I think she's found a formula for which she is getting well paid and she's sticking to it.

I read all three Outlander books - they're like casual sex - you don't respect yourself the next
morning. But Lord John and Jamie Fraser did have scenes with enjoyable slashy tension.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think the answer is that straight women write it from a slashy vibe.
And it's easier to write about men than women because men are
their sex objects - so it's two sex objects in one story - double the fun.

That's why I find it generally distasteful/exploitative, in the same way that a lot of male-written 'lesbian' material is. I do not like characters being reduced to sex-objects. It robs them of dignity. I also think that it's sad that some women seem so keen to write their own sex out of the picture, and devalue female experience.

That was what was disappointing about (for example) the Hammer 'lesbian vampire' movies: the heroines were treated as sex-objects from a straight male pov. Unfortunately, when I was a girl, it was pretty much the only lesbian-themed material that was easily accessible.

BTW, Possession by A.S. Byatt has a Victorian lesbian sexual relationship - which creates the central problem in the story. I don't believe that, A.S. Byatt is gay - but I'm not sure.

She's married, as far as I know, but she did do her homework on 19C attitudes for that.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I believe there are 6 or 7 of the bloody things, not 3.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I don't think the illegality has a lot to do with it - most gay-themed things I've read have pretty much ignored that.

Which is one area where they fall down drastically historically. So much of gay male culture in Europe and the US has evolved under the shadow of the threat of prosecution, to ignore this is a major problem. It affects the psychology of the characters (how they perceive their own sexuality) and the way they conduct their love-lives.

Gay male writers are all too aware of this, and it figures in their historical fiction. But it's generally straight writers who tend to betray their ignorance about gay history.

LOL! And maybe that vampires might be lesbian, but mortals are not?

Yes: the lesbian vampire films seems to be a metaphor for fear of female sexual autonomy. Lesbian vampires 'infecting' straight women with lesbianism, as well as vampirism, and having to be destroyed by male authority figures (fathers, generals, priests & c.).

So if I were to write a lesbian historical novel, who would I pick to write about? Hmm....

There is quite a bit being written on real historical lesbians, but there's huge scope for inventing fictional characters (as Sarah Waters has done, with music hall artistes, pickpockets, WW2 servicewomen, & c).

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

There's quite a lot of gay male historical fiction by male writers. Edmund White's latest, Hotel de Dream, has a story-within-a-story set in late 19C US. There have also been historical novels by other gay male writers based around Gilles de Rais and 1920s Hollywood (with Valentino, Novarro and other real gay actors as characters). Brilliance Books used to publish a lot of them.

Here are a couple of reviews/interviews about White:
On fire with desire (http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,,2151593,00.html)
Something Fresh and Queer (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2150856,00.html)
I like the quote:
In White's view, historical novelists neglect what he dubs 'the archaeology of sentiment'. As he puts it: 'There are a lot of historical novelists who do the research about the clothes and maybe even the eating utensils but they're basically taking modern people and putting them in old drag - it's sort of the Gone With the Wind approach.'

He's done his research, unearthing everything from electric chandeliers to juicy slang. 'I'm not such a fan of imagination. If you're alive to details, they oftentimes suggest a richer or deeper imaginative line than you would have imagined.' As is so frequently the case, the more outlandish details turn out to be borrowed directly from real life. For instance, the title - so gloriously campy - is the name of the brothel that Cora ran in Jacksonville, Florida.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the tip! I requested Hotel de Dream at my library, but they don't actually have any copies yet.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I started to read a Sarah Walters novel once, and didn't get into it. Don't remember why. Probably I should try again.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I knew there were more all the time. I'm rather glad she's branched out to the Lord John books.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Under the theory that all of her main characters - who are beautiful - are stupid? LOL.

That was my thought. Of course, I haven't read enough of the books to see the pattern.

you don't respect yourself the next morning.

LOL.

Lord John and Jamie Fraser did have scenes with enjoyable slashy tension.

Lord John certainly does seem to remember Jamie Fraser with a sort of sexually-tinged fondness. He thinks of him rather often.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Personally, I am in search of a writing group, but haven't found one yet that meets my needs.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

BTW, Possession by A.S. Byatt has a victorian lesbian sexual relationship - which creates the central problem in the story. I don't believe that, A.S. Byatt is gay - but I'm not sure.

I'd forgotten that - I don't remember Possession very well. I remember enjoying its Victorian ambience.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

The main emphasis, though, is on the hetero plot. The heroine being in a same-sex relationship is one of its obstacles, as is the fact the hero is married to someone else.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I think Fingersmith is good: sort of Dickensian/Wilkie Collins pastiche. Tipping the Velvet was fun in places, but I had a few problems with it, possibly because it was a first novel and she hadn't ironed out a few things:

a) The older sexually active woman was ultimately a negative, predatory caricature. This saddened me, as it's a cliché one often finds in heterosexual romance. (In the TV version, the actress playing her, Anna Chancellor, was by far the sexiest on screen.)

b) Waters admitted that she modelled the milieu of upper-class lesbians on the men of Wilde's set. This made them unconvincing to me (given what I have read about 19C lesbians), but perhaps was due to gaps in her research.

c) The political stuff struck me as heavy-handed. Does the heroine have to end up so 'right-on' by modern standards?

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I noticed to my horror that she was bringing it into American War time-period, and I rather suspected that (like most US novelists tackling this) she was going to chicken out over the fact that the Highland community in N Carolina was predominantly Loyalist. Most US historical novelists, especially in the popular romance sector, cannot deal honestly at all with Loyal Americans. They have to do their little flag-wavy bit…

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Obviously I have almost no memory of the plot left. Just a memory of the poetry, really, and some of the visual scenes - and no, I never saw the movie.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That last point is often a problem in historical fiction. There have been good people at all times in history - do they really have to be anachronistically politically correct as well?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I noticed to my horror that she was bringing it into American War time-period,

Oh dear - and here I was hoping Lord John would go to India not American. I really don't like novels with American settings set in the 18th century and I usually avoid them. (There are exceptions. I liked Johnny Tremaine.)

We shall see.

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

Toby Stephens as Duke Orsino (and Imogen Stubbs as Viola) in Twelfth Night (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117991/).

Unfortunately, I don't have any good recs at the moment, but I'll let you know if I come up with any.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining! I loved that version of Twelfth Night, though I think it's the first and only version I have seen where I liked Feste best of all the characters. I also thought Imogen Stubbs was terrific.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

The Outlander stuff, I meant.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's a relief, then. I'm less likely to be reading the Outlander series, so I don't care where they go.

I remember how frustrated I was when the Angelique series came to Canada - and they weren't even in the US.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

I picked up Gabaldon's books second-hand in pb, but have never got around to reading them: a combination of length, poor opening paragraphs, and no strong recommendations from people whose tastes I agree with. (I have a friend who loves them, but we tend not to like any of the same fiction books.)

IMHO most books set in Scotland in the 18th century re the Jacobite uprisings are ghastly. And anything with "Highland" in the title is practically guaranteed to be drek. I saw a book last week that must be the nadir: a collection of romance novellas called Highland Vampire. That is so wrong on so many levels.
http://www.amazon.ca/Highland-Vampire-Howell/dp/0758211554/ref=sr_1_2/702-1529331-4086437?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188873979&sr=1-2

(Apparently this is a romance sub-genre. I am baffled.)

The only good book I can think of off-hand set in that period is Sally Watson's Witch of the Glens, but that's a young adult book.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

A week or so ago, I went into the Rideau Branch library and had an impulse to pick up a romance. So I went to the paperback romance section and, to my surprised, about 80% of the books were vampire romance. "Highland" was in several of the titles (maybe vampires, maybe not) and the others were unspecified urban settings - New York, L.A., Las Vegas - places with implications of danger.

The minority of books that were neither Highland nor vampires nor both were comedies of the "Shopaholic" variety.

I went away without a romance. I'd been thinking along the lines of Amanda Quick or Jo Beverley or Nora Roberts. Obviously I'm out of date on current romance trends!

Re books about Socttish history being drek: I recall, when I was about fourteen of fifteen, reading a whole pile of really atrocious books about Mary Queen of Scots. I swore to myself that I would never, never again read a book that had Mary Queen of Scots in it. The next book I picked up was The Game of Kings.

Luckily I'd read far enough to be hooked before I knew Queen Mary was in it.

I do hope the romance-vampire fad fades fast. I just can't work up any enthusiasm at all....

Trying to think of a book I liked set in 18th century Scotland. Closest I can come is Maclyon by Lolah Burford, which really wasn't about Scotland - as I recall, it was mostly set in the States, as the heroine tries to find her enslaved husband. (But I don't remember it well.)