It sounds like this guy did a lot of Internet research on Gabaldon and then flipped through the book to find some juicy quotes. I think the worst part of the whole thing is the picture's cutline, "Diana 'I am not a romance writer' Gabaldon."

Hm. He sounds quite snide, IMO. There's no need to be a huge fan to write a quality review, but one ought at least to be neutral. Especially when the reviewers is a professional.

Frankly, I am quite surprised at the furor negative romance reviews garner. I firmly believe factual, thoughtful reviews are the best & only way to effect a more positive view of romance by outsiders.

Bravo to you for taking a stand.

First allow me to clarify that I am not an expert. However, it is blatantly obvious (even to me) that Mr. Koerner put little thought and research into his article. He has taken snippets of information from various sources and tried to meld them into a cohesive mass, unfortunately for him…it doesn’t hold water.

He states that Diana Gabaldon classifies her books as “historical mysteries”. I know she has written one book, Lord John and the Private Matter, that could be classified as an historical mystery, but the article is specifically focused on her latest book, A Breath of Snow and Ashes, and preceding books in that series. The controversy, as to what genre they fall into would be romance versus fiction, or more specifically, historical fiction …it certainly wouldn’t be mystery. Did he simply pluck that information from somewhere without realizing what was being referred to?

What was the point of his article? Was he disagreeing with Diana Gabaldon’s claim that her books should not be classified as romance? Whether or not these books fall into the romance genre may be controversial, but as someone who has actually read the books, I have an opinion, unlike Mr. Koerner who couldn’t possibly have an opinion because he hasn’t read them.

Or, was it his claim that she achieved her fame by being computer literate and used the latest technology to promote her books? Whatever point he was trying in make was lost in his derogatory name calling such as “nerds” and “geeks”. He continually attacked not only Diana but also her fans on a personal level. Where is the professionalism there?

And specking of professionalism… What I found most frustrating about this review (if one could call it that) is that he gets paid for this tripe. I myself expected more from a Yale graduate.

Wilma

He made her sound so sinister, what with the using of the internet's new-fangled "technology" to lure and entrap unsuspecting, innocent people into reading a 1000 page book. How dare she pioneer a new media market? Indeed, I'm glad he is above catering to those silly internet types.

For sure…how dare she!! lol

I could have continued to comment on this article…but it just seemed inappropriate to take more time to write a comment…than the writer, apparently, took to write the article.

Wilma

My favorite quote from that article:

"Gabaldon's books do include the elements required to appeal to this vast market. True, they're brainier than anything featuring Fabio on the cover (...)"

Aw, snap! Laura Kinsale, CONSIDER YOURSELF DISSED.

If I read it, I'll get annoyed.

I thought a Breath of Snow and Ashes was her finest book since the original book.

OK, so I’ve ducked the brouhaha on dissing Gabaldon’s book since it would require a really long paper to get my points across! Really, I need eye contact when getting into a heated discussion. Meanwhile, I was cooking and cogitating on the sexist inflammatory phrase “bodice-ripper” with daughter (aged 32) who had never heard the term. What did it say to her? A bodice-ripper would be a women’s romance novel with sex. But wouldn’t that be a man’s novel or a who-done-it, since breasts are too soft to rip a bodice, but a man’s hands would work and so this might be a prelude to a rape? Yeah, but it’s still a woman’s novel. Men don’t read fantasies about sex. Don’t they like fantasies? Yeah, but they fantasize for themselves, they don’t read them. They don’t want to read about what they don’t do that women like done to them. It threatens them? Yeah. So the men who read Gabaldon’s novels aren’t threatened? No. Is supper ready?

yup, yup, I see what you mean. Man, this guy couldn't even get his information correct.

My take on “bodice-ripper” would be a romance novel with heated and passionate sex scenes. But I bet you any money… the term was coined by a man.

Wilma

Brendan doesn't get it. Who cares what genre the book is or isn't? All I care is whether it is a well written book. After reading this review (and I use the term loosely), I don't know anything of import about the book.

I was in Barnes & Noble once to buy a Tom Clancy book and was directed to the Men's Fiction section. I was offended by the implication that only men read Clancy's books, just as I am offended by Brendan's implication that only women read Gabaldon's books. I worked at Waldenbooks one summer and men do buy Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series even when she is shelved in Romance. Anytime someone makes an assumption that one gender or the other is not interested in a whole genre of books, I automatically discount their opinion.

http://diet-pills.seeatme.com/new-diet-pill.html new diet pill