1. 10/7/09 The Fiery Cross by Diana Gabaldon (976 pages)

So my first thoughts, in my first entry for this year were mostly about how disappointed I was in myself for year two. FORTY books less than year one? What the hell? I then proceeded to blame Diana Gabaldon for this. I don't know that it was her fault, and even if it was it certainly wasn't very sportsmanlike of me to mention it. I did, however, spend two months (+) rereading her Outlander series in preparation for the release of book 7. That took up a huge amont of time and I STILL wasn't ready when the book came out. This is where the pages counts come it.
Then I moved on to what I actually read.
I really enjoy the way Diana Gabaldon writes, and I have always devoured her books as quickly as I was able. This one was no different, but I remember being vaguely disappointed the first time. Now that I've read it three or four times, I would say that its grown on me. That being said, I think the editing could be quite a bit tighter. She starts by describing- in extreme detail- one day. This goes on for more than 100 pages. There's nothing there that I hate, or definitely think should be gone, but I'm not an editor, am I? I like long books, and I'm no enemy of detail, but that is a looong day.
I also think that the whole book feels like a placeholder between the action, and after having read 976 pages, its startling to realize that if there was an overarching plot, I missed it. I feel this every time I read it.
I do, however, have a strong love and appreciation of Diana Gabaldon's style, and after I'd read the book a couple of times, I decided that if I look at it as a story about Jamie and Roger, rather and one about Jamie and Claire, it gelled better for me. I like to think about it as a sub-genre of Epic Bromance, starting with everyone being bothered that Roger is presbyterian and ending with he and Jamie hainvg Special Vengeance Trips together, I may have interpreted an overarching plot for myself.
It will never be my favorite Outlander novel, but there are some great bits in there, and I really love the last line. But why, oh, why does she continuously need to torture her fabulous main characters in such creatively monstrous ways (a la Roland Emmerich)?