Scan barcode
A review by howljenkins
Drums of Autumn by Diana Gabaldon
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
I might change the star rating in the future bc I'm just so genuinely conflicted on how I feel about this book. The general gist is: Diana Gabaldon can write with immense skill, especially for such a long book/series, but Christ, at what cost.
Diana Gabaldon is without a doubt a very skilled author- especially for including multiple character perspectives and introducing new characters so far into a series (especially a series that does not have a single book under 500 pages). The fact that she can keep me reading despite constantly grating upon my soul is a feat in of itself. There's four main character perspectives (with some supporting character pov seamlessly added here and there for emphasis) and each is unique, even changing narrative tools. Gabaldon does not shy from having flaws of main characters that are actually, y'know, flaws; I find most authors just give "flaws" which are usually either fixed within pages, the type of flaw thats excusable due to being a fictional character, or a flaw thats clearly there to make you like the character more rather than a representative of how complex people can be. Gabaldon also does not shy away from many of the beauties and horrors that life in those eras had- which as a fan of both historical and fantasy and historical fantasy I tend to see depicted either as an unrealistic utopia by someone who has clearly never lived outside of a city or as a horrible nightmare suffering world written by someone who doesn't realize they are as much a part of nature and the ecosystem as any other animal.
The problem does arise with the previously mentioned grating of my soul as if it were parmesan cheese to decorate the top of a salad in an olive garden. I love historical accuracy- I think its great and Gabaldon clearly did a lot of research into the important details that I don't often see. I still think when you have a book series where the Lock Ness Monster is real and actually a time traveling dinosaur you should allow yourself more fantasy of not having so much racism, sexism, etc. Again, since this is set in the "actual" past with as little magic as possible I do think that any choice to gloss over the bigotry of the "colonial period" of american/european history would do more harm than good and just end up denying the horrors that millions were subjected to which is infinitely worse. But throughout the series the depiction of minorities, especially racial and ethnic minorities, often has a habit of existing in this horribly awkward grey area between a genuine in depth view of the complexities of the lives that people lived within the labels given to them by the world and cultures they live in and just a blatant stereotype (often also exoticising them in the process) with a last minute in depth view to who the character is as a person, their identity, and the effects of oppression on their life - often when it helps the white character they're talking to move forward somehow. It's getting exhausting. You rarely, if ever, get the actual perspective of anyone who is not a cishet white person and their inner lives are always only in fleeting contact with the main plot, never truly a part of it. Although, despite whatever clumsy (or just not consulted with another non cis-het white person) depiction, they usually end up with the respect of the main cast they are never welcomed into the main cast- just given reverence for their noble suffering and then moved on from. In addition, the way interpersonal conflict is still drawn out (four books into the series) through cultural misunderstandings between love interests and a complete and utter inability to actually talk about whatever the conflict is until the plot can no longer allow for it is losing its effect. It can work just fine in the beginning of a series and recur again here and there, but it's used so consistently to create the tension that the series relies upon to push events forward that it either prevents or negates any emotional growth of characters. True, many people are static in their ways in real life, but within such a long series of honest-to-god tomes it's just not a sustainable practice if the goal is to not beat your horse of a series well beyond its death.
I also am sick of the male love interests constantly being so angry with their partner that they border genuine domestic abuse. At this point I've lost my ability to tell if its some form of romanticization, or an attempt at a "realistic" approach to toxic masculinity, or even some way to try and show that violence is always a choice so you're supposed to see their "restraint" as positive signal. At first I was willing to let it be a cultural thing from the 1700's for Jamie in the first books but when it just kept happening and Roger from the 20th century started talking and behaving like that too, calling Brianna a bitch (I can't remember if it was to her or just in his thoughts- either way doesn't matter I hated it and him) and saying he understood abuse but wouldn't for some not good enough reason I gave up.
I hesitate to critique female characters because they are each their own, and Gabaldon works hard to approach complexities of womanhood in modern vs historic settings and philosophies. But there is still just something so lacking. Male characters often confuse "protecting" the women in their life and their toxic view on maleness and love with respect of a woman's agency. Protecting people you love is an important aspect of showing and feeling love for many, but I'm sick of male characters not being able to see that they often are putting themselves first rather than seeing their partner as an equal human. The female characters often point this out, but it continually is some other misunderstanding and moved on from and then repeated again later. Women have strong independent rich lives, until it's romantic for a man to be big and strong or the plot needs another misunderstanding. In general it's there, sometimes even given intersectional views outside of traditional western gender roles (which I'm glad to see in a book from the 90's), but I think it could use a second look by the author of if it's working or not.
All of these cons, outside my personal emotional response akin to nails on a chalkboard, just drag the otherwise skillfully executed novel down. I think Gabaldon and I also have a different definition of what constitutes a flaw and if/when they should be or are resolved. She certainly has an ability to see and incorporate multiple possible ways of looking at a situation (even if she does not agree with that perspective) and keeps each character major or minor certainly themselves and rarely reduced in depth because of it. She also possesses a very strong ability to research the important details that keep a world alive that I rarely see. Hell she got me to read so much of her writing despite how draining it can be for me on a personal level because of that objective strength in her skill. I just don't see what is stopping her from talking to people around her that would be able to see the border between acknowledging the existence of bigotry and bigoted perspectives without leaning into them. I love the richness of her world building and prose, and I love the strength that moments of love and tenderness have- often forgotten in "realistic" historical fiction, and the fact that she does give a female perspective you don't see a lot in historical fiction. But that feminist view of agency isn't always strong in its execution, and only intersectional when it's beneficial for plot or character development. I don't think Gabaldon should stop exploring hard topics. I hate when an authors approach to racism or sexism is to just solve it in a paragraph or bring it up out of the blue seemingly just to say "see I know that bigotry is bad please don't cancel me and give me more money" when it had nothing to do with the rest of the work because it just shows how little weight they actually view these topics with in their day to day life. So, the fact that Gabaldon does choose to approach these topics in a series that could otherwise be your average bodice ripper that romanticizes and misunderstands history shows that she knows these topics aren't a new concern and that they do hold real weight in life that cannot be ignored then or now. But, I really just think it was not given enough time or research outside of a white-feminist view and ends up being detrimental to her literary strengths.
Diana Gabaldon is without a doubt a very skilled author- especially for including multiple character perspectives and introducing new characters so far into a series (especially a series that does not have a single book under 500 pages). The fact that she can keep me reading despite constantly grating upon my soul is a feat in of itself. There's four main character perspectives (with some supporting character pov seamlessly added here and there for emphasis) and each is unique, even changing narrative tools. Gabaldon does not shy from having flaws of main characters that are actually, y'know, flaws; I find most authors just give "flaws" which are usually either fixed within pages, the type of flaw thats excusable due to being a fictional character, or a flaw thats clearly there to make you like the character more rather than a representative of how complex people can be. Gabaldon also does not shy away from many of the beauties and horrors that life in those eras had- which as a fan of both historical and fantasy and historical fantasy I tend to see depicted either as an unrealistic utopia by someone who has clearly never lived outside of a city or as a horrible nightmare suffering world written by someone who doesn't realize they are as much a part of nature and the ecosystem as any other animal.
The problem does arise with the previously mentioned grating of my soul as if it were parmesan cheese to decorate the top of a salad in an olive garden. I love historical accuracy- I think its great and Gabaldon clearly did a lot of research into the important details that I don't often see. I still think when you have a book series where the Lock Ness Monster is real and actually a time traveling dinosaur you should allow yourself more fantasy of not having so much racism, sexism, etc. Again, since this is set in the "actual" past with as little magic as possible I do think that any choice to gloss over the bigotry of the "colonial period" of american/european history would do more harm than good and just end up denying the horrors that millions were subjected to which is infinitely worse. But throughout the series the depiction of minorities, especially racial and ethnic minorities, often has a habit of existing in this horribly awkward grey area between a genuine in depth view of the complexities of the lives that people lived within the labels given to them by the world and cultures they live in and just a blatant stereotype (often also exoticising them in the process) with a last minute in depth view to who the character is as a person, their identity, and the effects of oppression on their life - often when it helps the white character they're talking to move forward somehow. It's getting exhausting. You rarely, if ever, get the actual perspective of anyone who is not a cishet white person and their inner lives are always only in fleeting contact with the main plot, never truly a part of it. Although, despite whatever clumsy (or just not consulted with another non cis-het white person) depiction, they usually end up with the respect of the main cast they are never welcomed into the main cast- just given reverence for their noble suffering and then moved on from. In addition, the way interpersonal conflict is still drawn out (four books into the series) through cultural misunderstandings between love interests and a complete and utter inability to actually talk about whatever the conflict is until the plot can no longer allow for it is losing its effect. It can work just fine in the beginning of a series and recur again here and there, but it's used so consistently to create the tension that the series relies upon to push events forward that it either prevents or negates any emotional growth of characters. True, many people are static in their ways in real life, but within such a long series of honest-to-god tomes it's just not a sustainable practice if the goal is to not beat your horse of a series well beyond its death.
I also am sick of the male love interests constantly being so angry with their partner that they border genuine domestic abuse. At this point I've lost my ability to tell if its some form of romanticization, or an attempt at a "realistic" approach to toxic masculinity, or even some way to try and show that violence is always a choice so you're supposed to see their "restraint" as positive signal.
I hesitate to critique female characters because they are each their own, and Gabaldon works hard to approach complexities of womanhood in modern vs historic settings and philosophies. But there is still just something so lacking. Male characters often confuse "protecting" the women in their life and their toxic view on maleness and love with respect of a woman's agency. Protecting people you love is an important aspect of showing and feeling love for many, but I'm sick of male characters not being able to see that they often are putting themselves first rather than seeing their partner as an equal human. The female characters often point this out, but it continually is some other misunderstanding and moved on from and then repeated again later. Women have strong independent rich lives, until it's romantic for a man to be big and strong or the plot needs another misunderstanding. In general it's there, sometimes even given intersectional views outside of traditional western gender roles (which I'm glad to see in a book from the 90's), but I think it could use a second look by the author of if it's working or not.
All of these cons, outside my personal emotional response akin to nails on a chalkboard, just drag the otherwise skillfully executed novel down. I think Gabaldon and I also have a different definition of what constitutes a flaw and if/when they should be or are resolved. She certainly has an ability to see and incorporate multiple possible ways of looking at a situation (even if she does not agree with that perspective) and keeps each character major or minor certainly themselves and rarely reduced in depth because of it. She also possesses a very strong ability to research the important details that keep a world alive that I rarely see. Hell she got me to read so much of her writing despite how draining it can be for me on a personal level because of that objective strength in her skill. I just don't see what is stopping her from talking to people around her that would be able to see the border between acknowledging the existence of bigotry and bigoted perspectives without leaning into them. I love the richness of her world building and prose, and I love the strength that moments of love and tenderness have- often forgotten in "realistic" historical fiction, and the fact that she does give a female perspective you don't see a lot in historical fiction. But that feminist view of agency isn't always strong in its execution, and only intersectional when it's beneficial for plot or character development. I don't think Gabaldon should stop exploring hard topics. I hate when an authors approach to racism or sexism is to just solve it in a paragraph or bring it up out of the blue seemingly just to say "see I know that bigotry is bad please don't cancel me and give me more money" when it had nothing to do with the rest of the work because it just shows how little weight they actually view these topics with in their day to day life. So, the fact that Gabaldon does choose to approach these topics in a series that could otherwise be your average bodice ripper that romanticizes and misunderstands history shows that she knows these topics aren't a new concern and that they do hold real weight in life that cannot be ignored then or now. But, I really just think it was not given enough time or research outside of a white-feminist view and ends up being detrimental to her literary strengths.