#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.

[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: ...

[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.

[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.😐

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

Hmm, too true for some, unfortunately.

Although in the case of John/Percy it feels quite justifiably ire-provoking because the author's intent was clearly laid out over the course of several books and then she just cruelly pulled a 180 on us at the last moment in Bees. That's so much worse than queerbaiting.💀

In contrast, back in the very early days when I still shipped John/Jamie, it never bothered me that they would never be a canonical ship because it was obvious to me from the start that there was no authorial intent on that score (other than some queerbaiting). John/Jamie is what fanfiction is for. *shrug*

seriously 😭 

[cookie-de-baunilha]

Tbh the more I think about how Diana handled Percy in Bees, the more I wonder why she decided to write him into the main series in the first place. What was the point, really?

Everything he did could be achieved through a brand new character. Let’s say, Claude Beauchamp himself. Claude could be the one looking for Fergus. He could be the French spy that was once John’s opposite in the Black Chamber. John wouldn’t trust him anyway.

It just makes no sense to me, from a narrative standpoint, to bring a character from the LJG series, who shares a complicated history with John, and not have their relationship further developed/dealt with in any meaningful way to the characters.

Percy is connected to the main series through John, mostly, but they never had a single conversation about them that actually did something to further develop their dynamic (no, that brief conversation they had in the end of Bees added nothing new to their dynamic).

And this is not me saying that they necessarily had to get back together, mind you (even though I’d like that very much), just that they needed… to talk. About them. About what happened 20 years before. Unresolved things. And from there Diana could’ve gone anywhere really, writing them getting back together or not.

The thing is, the ending of BOTB — sad and tragic as it is — could pass as a satisfying closure to their relationship. So one could assume that bringing Percy back meant dealing with unfinished business between them, right? But Diana doesn’t even make an effort to do that.

So what was the point of Percy specifically? If we could easily have a different character doing the exact same things (with some adjustments)? It just screams bad writing to me, and, if I had to bet, that’s also part of the reason why so many readers struggle to care about Percy’s storyline in the main series.

Because, yeah, most of them haven’t read the spin-off series, so they get pretty confused when they hit the first chapters of Echo. And what Percy brings to the table is essentially a political side plot with some mystery surrounding Fergus — so, unless you get really interested in Fergus’ parentage storyline, Percy’s plot and overall presence becomes a big “ok… so what?” (add that to the fact that 2 huge books later and the Fergus storyline still hasn’t gone anywhere, so even if you like that plot, which I do btw, you are gonna be frustrated by the lack of development).

What about Percy’s relationship with John? Well, that is not dealt with in any way, shape or form besides “something happened between them in the past, John doesn’t trust him”. So much so that the readers who haven’t read the LJG series have to either accept the vague informations that are given to them or search more about it online. There’s no emotional investment by the readers whatsoever because Diana doesn’t make them care at all.

Actually, that’s a problem that also exists within John’s plot as a whole in the main series and the reason why so many readers struggle with his storyline in the later books (something something *John not having a character development in the main series* something something)… but I’m gonna leave that conversation for another post because this one is already too long.

[britishguyslover]

I'll forever be bitter about John and Percy.

How much of a coward Diana actually has been for decades now.

She chose the easiest and most comfortable way to write them, and it really ruined their characters, esp. John.

[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.

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

Me with Jamie Fraser, but instead it's the author's obsession with him and insistence on shoehorning him in everywhere that initially put me off him. 🤪

It's pretty bad when I've reached the point of just wanting him to die already, not because I hate him but because the writing's just made me sick of him. Like, enough of the nine lives song and dance already, just DIE already, and stay dead dammit!! 😬😂

It's maddening, my well of patience has long run dry. 😅

category of blorbo called "technically i like them but fanons obsession with them to the exclusion of other characters pavloved me into having a negative reaction whenever i see them"

[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.❤️

[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 🙄

[britishguyslover]

Oh, your favourite character doesn't believe he deserves love because of how his trauma shaped him... I assure you he never will, because I'm a lazy writer.

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

This was, I think, her explanation for why there are no lesbians in Outlander.

And I may be far too bisexual to properly judge the sentiment behind this statement, but I feel like DG's talking out of the other side of her mouth again.

(I mean, even when I'm not personally attracted to someone because they're not my type or whatever, I can usually still identify the traits they possess that might make them attractive to someone else. For a mentally flexible writer, it's really not that hard to put yourself in someone else shoes and look at the world through their eyes rather than your own - at least, it isn't to me. *shrug* It's a paramount skill for any writer to develop imo.)

Thoughts anyone? lol

[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

[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.

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

Where Percy is “my girl” and “the fandom” is the OL series, but DG doesn’t even have the decency to say “yeah my bad” because she genuinely believes in all of the toxic rhetoric she spews and expects the rest of us to believe it, too. 😬💀

yeah we put your girl in the fandom and they villainized her beyond comprehension. yeah sorry they took out all the nuance and made the argument completely black and white. yeah my bad. we can’t reverse it. sorry.