The Jacobite Clans of the Great Glen 1650-1784 by Bruce Lenman (1984) has a lot of info about Simon Fraser.
Cool, thanks!
the Lovat traits that I haven't come across in nonfictional sources
What are those?
I was vague because it's hard to pin down. Old-man lechery is the easiest one to put into words. Being remarkable among their contemporaries for cunning and pursuit of self-interest.
And even harder to explain: the *attitude* in their dialogue in the respective books. Idk, Frey just pinged me as Lovat (and it took me embarrassingly long to realize that "Frey" *might* come from "Fraser", if I'm not imagining this).
By the way, I haven't actually read/watched Outlander--in fact, I've sort of avoided it. Do you think it's good? And (I suppose a partly separate question) did the author do good research?
I haven't watched it (I don't really like to watch things), but I've read all the books. I don't like all the books, but especially the first few, I like a lot and I reread them constantly. I'll be buying book 9 when it comes out next month. They've never made it to the point of triggering fannishness with me, though. I don't obsess about them, I don't make up stories about the characters in my head, I don't have feels about the characters when I'm not reading the book, and I don't read fanfic.
Are they good? That's a different question. :P Gabaldon does a lot of things really well, but whether or not you like the overall effect really depends on the reader. A lot of people really hate these books, or, judging by reviews, seem to have gone in expecting one kind of book and been very confused by getting a different kind.
If you're the kind of person who demands strict historical accuracy, you will be disappointed and possibly, like one person who was ranting at me, throw the first book violently across the room within a couple chapters and then rant at online strangers about it years later. :D
To her credit, Gabaldon did a *lot* of historical research, and the books are overflowing with period detail and a ton of characters, events, and practices that I myself don't know as much about as she does.
But she makes *so* *many* divergences from history, from creative license of the "this is the story I want to tell, accuracy be damned" sort to rookie ones for no apparent reason, like Louis XV as the grandson of Louis XIV, that even when I read these books as a teenager (when I cared a lot more than I do now about historical accuracy), I was outraged.
Apparently her depiction of 1945 Scotland was so, so inaccurate that the British publishers had her change it to 1946 just to make it less egregiously wrong, because no self-respecting Brit would be able to maintain suspension of disbelief. 1945 Scotland is not something I know anything about, but the person who was ranting at me about it on the internet was so furious that they were never able to read any further than this part. (For my own edification, I tried to get them to give me examples of inaccuracies, but they were like, "EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING in the opening chapters is wrong." So I learned nothing.)
I've gotten to the point where historical accuracy in fiction matters very little to me. I'd rather read something with characters I care about and a plot where I want to know what happens next, than read something less interesting set in a place and time that precisely matches what we know of the historical time and place. I just tell myself going in that all historical novels are set in a parallel universe, and I spare myself a lot of frustration that way. It's all the easier in a series like Outlander, where there's magic, time travel, and dinosaurs (okay, one dinosaur, but still). If Herodotus wrote multiple works in this universe, sure, why not.
If your reaction to my strategy is, "You don't have to make excuses for the author's fuckups," which was the reaction of that person who was ranting at me, then historical accuracy is going to be a dealbreaker for you in these books. If your reaction is that it's more important that the worldbuilding feel real than that it be accurate, and that Homer and Shakespeare didn't exactly stick to the historical facts either, then you might like them.
(There are other things, like the graphic rape and torture, that don't bother me but might bother you.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Outlander
Date: 2021-10-16 01:41 pm (UTC)Cool, thanks!
the Lovat traits that I haven't come across in nonfictional sources
What are those?
I was vague because it's hard to pin down. Old-man lechery is the easiest one to put into words. Being remarkable among their contemporaries for cunning and pursuit of self-interest.
And even harder to explain: the *attitude* in their dialogue in the respective books. Idk, Frey just pinged me as Lovat (and it took me embarrassingly long to realize that "Frey" *might* come from "Fraser", if I'm not imagining this).
By the way, I haven't actually read/watched Outlander--in fact, I've sort of avoided it. Do you think it's good? And (I suppose a partly separate question) did the author do good research?
I haven't watched it (I don't really like to watch things), but I've read all the books. I don't like all the books, but especially the first few, I like a lot and I reread them constantly. I'll be buying book 9 when it comes out next month. They've never made it to the point of triggering fannishness with me, though. I don't obsess about them, I don't make up stories about the characters in my head, I don't have feels about the characters when I'm not reading the book, and I don't read fanfic.
Are they good? That's a different question. :P Gabaldon does a lot of things really well, but whether or not you like the overall effect really depends on the reader. A lot of people really hate these books, or, judging by reviews, seem to have gone in expecting one kind of book and been very confused by getting a different kind.
If you're the kind of person who demands strict historical accuracy, you will be disappointed and possibly, like one person who was ranting at me, throw the first book violently across the room within a couple chapters and then rant at online strangers about it years later. :D
To her credit, Gabaldon did a *lot* of historical research, and the books are overflowing with period detail and a ton of characters, events, and practices that I myself don't know as much about as she does.
But she makes *so* *many* divergences from history, from creative license of the "this is the story I want to tell, accuracy be damned" sort to rookie ones for no apparent reason, like Louis XV as the grandson of Louis XIV, that even when I read these books as a teenager (when I cared a lot more than I do now about historical accuracy), I was outraged.
Apparently her depiction of 1945 Scotland was so, so inaccurate that the British publishers had her change it to 1946 just to make it less egregiously wrong, because no self-respecting Brit would be able to maintain suspension of disbelief. 1945 Scotland is not something I know anything about, but the person who was ranting at me about it on the internet was so furious that they were never able to read any further than this part. (For my own edification, I tried to get them to give me examples of inaccuracies, but they were like, "EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING in the opening chapters is wrong." So I learned nothing.)
I've gotten to the point where historical accuracy in fiction matters very little to me. I'd rather read something with characters I care about and a plot where I want to know what happens next, than read something less interesting set in a place and time that precisely matches what we know of the historical time and place. I just tell myself going in that all historical novels are set in a parallel universe, and I spare myself a lot of frustration that way. It's all the easier in a series like Outlander, where there's magic, time travel, and dinosaurs (okay, one dinosaur, but still). If Herodotus wrote multiple works in
this universe, sure, why not.
If your reaction to my strategy is, "You don't have to make excuses for the author's fuckups," which was the reaction of that person who was ranting at me, then historical accuracy is going to be a dealbreaker for you in these books. If your reaction is that it's more important that the worldbuilding feel real than that it be accurate, and that Homer and Shakespeare didn't exactly stick to the historical facts either, then you might like them.
(There are other things, like the graphic rape and torture, that don't bother me but might bother you.)