Scan barcode
A review by kamrynkoble
Dragonfly in Amber by Diana Gabaldon
adventurous
emotional
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
2023 review:
My initial thought is “whew! Thank goodness it’s finally over!” This book is so ambitious and accomplishes its many plots and themes well. But I was so tired of it and so ready for it to be over that I cannot rank it any higher than a 3.5.
I don’t know if I’ll keep reading this series. I love the first book so much. What I do know, though, is that I’m never revisiting Dragonfly in Amber when I want to give the series another go! I adore Claire and Jamie, but a 40 hour audio book is too much.
2016 review:
I wanted to love this book. I wanted to love this book so badly that I promise I tried to read the bloated paragraphs about absolutely nothing. During the last few pages I was at war with myself, something along the lines of <i>you gave five stars to this novel's prequel! You have to like it! France! Scotland! Claire! Jamie! What's better in a reading life?</i> And yet I don't know if I've ever skimmed more in a novel throughout said reading life.
<i>Dragonfly in Amber</i> by Diana Gabaldon opens up in the modern setting of the time travel romance, with Claire Randall and her grown daughter seeking into the past of a few Scottish highlanders supposedly killed in a famous battle. Readers are then swept back to the 18th-century in Europe, bridging the gap of James Fraser and Claire's last few years of marriage before she returned pregnant, confused, and somewhat deliriously to her first husband.
Said opening of the book was so confusing to me that I had to phone in a friend who has read more of the series than I have, me being a mere Outlander novice. She told me that she was also confused, and I had to come to the harsh realization that dear Ms. Gabaldon made the decision to write in both first and third person without stating narrator changes nor time period changes. Two hundred years, and your only clue to which one it is is if someone's saying "ye ken" or making crude sexual jokes about women's rears and/or horses. Maybe the two combined, if you're lucky.
I'll admit, I was angry. Livid, actually, thinking I would be robbed of Claire and Jamie's adventures as new parents. How dare Ms. Gabaldon skip twenty years after the conclusion of <i>Outlander</i>? However, when the unexplained time jump commenced, I immediately relaxed and tried to forget the drudge of a "modern" portion. Do we read this series for historians cleaning out a dead man's garage? No! We read for Jamie Fraser and I almost had to gather my own revolution in protest.
Nine hundred or so pages later, I had almost forgotten the horrors of the modern portion. Who knew I wouldn't really want to read about Jamie's only living child? But then of course, it came back at the end to earn it's own section as Part Seven. Can I admit to you that I read maybe a few details of it? Maybe a few? At that point I was so exhausted with this novel (it took a whopping twenty days. That's <i>sad</i>. It made me change my reading goal because I was so behind and stressed). I'm sure I'll go back and give the second modern portion the chance that it deserves, but today is not the day.
I truly, truly wish that one of the people who read this book in its early stages would've told the author quite kindly to invest in a red pen. When it's good, it's <i>good</i>. Attention-grabbing story telling that reminds me why the first book earned a perfect rating is definitely there; however, the dreary paragraphs of describing seemingly nothing do not need to be there. Truly, they don't. Your novel does not have to be one thousand pages, I swear. I know you were fifty away, Ms. Gabaldon, and I thank you for not trying to reach this benchmark.
To sum up my feelings, I'm angry at this book. The high parts were breathtakingly amazing, but they were muddled up by so much slush in between. What could have been rich, creamy whole milk has now been diminished to the sad, watery skim my mother buys. Does that mean I won't read the third? Of course not. Let's hope it's only up from here.
My initial thought is “whew! Thank goodness it’s finally over!” This book is so ambitious and accomplishes its many plots and themes well. But I was so tired of it and so ready for it to be over that I cannot rank it any higher than a 3.5.
I don’t know if I’ll keep reading this series. I love the first book so much. What I do know, though, is that I’m never revisiting Dragonfly in Amber when I want to give the series another go! I adore Claire and Jamie, but a 40 hour audio book is too much.
2016 review:
I wanted to love this book. I wanted to love this book so badly that I promise I tried to read the bloated paragraphs about absolutely nothing. During the last few pages I was at war with myself, something along the lines of <i>you gave five stars to this novel's prequel! You have to like it! France! Scotland! Claire! Jamie! What's better in a reading life?</i> And yet I don't know if I've ever skimmed more in a novel throughout said reading life.
<i>Dragonfly in Amber</i> by Diana Gabaldon opens up in the modern setting of the time travel romance, with Claire Randall and her grown daughter seeking into the past of a few Scottish highlanders supposedly killed in a famous battle. Readers are then swept back to the 18th-century in Europe, bridging the gap of James Fraser and Claire's last few years of marriage before she returned pregnant, confused, and somewhat deliriously to her first husband.
Said opening of the book was so confusing to me that I had to phone in a friend who has read more of the series than I have, me being a mere Outlander novice. She told me that she was also confused, and I had to come to the harsh realization that dear Ms. Gabaldon made the decision to write in both first and third person without stating narrator changes nor time period changes. Two hundred years, and your only clue to which one it is is if someone's saying "ye ken" or making crude sexual jokes about women's rears and/or horses. Maybe the two combined, if you're lucky.
I'll admit, I was angry. Livid, actually, thinking I would be robbed of Claire and Jamie's adventures as new parents. How dare Ms. Gabaldon skip twenty years after the conclusion of <i>Outlander</i>? However, when the unexplained time jump commenced, I immediately relaxed and tried to forget the drudge of a "modern" portion. Do we read this series for historians cleaning out a dead man's garage? No! We read for Jamie Fraser and I almost had to gather my own revolution in protest.
Nine hundred or so pages later, I had almost forgotten the horrors of the modern portion. Who knew I wouldn't really want to read about Jamie's only living child? But then of course, it came back at the end to earn it's own section as Part Seven. Can I admit to you that I read maybe a few details of it? Maybe a few? At that point I was so exhausted with this novel (it took a whopping twenty days. That's <i>sad</i>. It made me change my reading goal because I was so behind and stressed). I'm sure I'll go back and give the second modern portion the chance that it deserves, but today is not the day.
I truly, truly wish that one of the people who read this book in its early stages would've told the author quite kindly to invest in a red pen. When it's good, it's <i>good</i>. Attention-grabbing story telling that reminds me why the first book earned a perfect rating is definitely there; however, the dreary paragraphs of describing seemingly nothing do not need to be there. Truly, they don't. Your novel does not have to be one thousand pages, I swear. I know you were fifty away, Ms. Gabaldon, and I thank you for not trying to reach this benchmark.
To sum up my feelings, I'm angry at this book. The high parts were breathtakingly amazing, but they were muddled up by so much slush in between. What could have been rich, creamy whole milk has now been diminished to the sad, watery skim my mother buys. Does that mean I won't read the third? Of course not. Let's hope it's only up from here.