Audrey · @LadyRaven15

29th Jul 2014 from TwitLonger

An open letter to Vanity Fair's Joanna Robinson

An open letter to Vanity Fair's Joanna Robinson

Dear Ms. Robinson,

I just finished reading your articled published on the Vanity Fair's website, entitled "Does the New Outlander Series Have What it Takes to Be More Than Just a Bodice-Ripper?". I am frankly surprised that this article was written by a woman. What kind of woman would disparage a show apparently geared towards her own sex in such an unimaginative way?

(I look up at the article author's name again. Nope, it's a woman. I didn't make this up.)

Since when is it a mistake for a show's main audience to be composed mainly of women? If you were at the San Diego Comic-Con, you will surely have noticed that Outlander's fan base is made up of much more than "your dear old mum". I have been attending many Outlander fan events in the past year, and I assure you, that is the most inaccurate picture one could paint! Women of all ages, all backgrounds, and all walks of life have flocked to these events. I myself have not yet hit 40, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not an old mum yet.

Shows such as Battlestar Galactica or Sons of Anarchy have an audience mainly composed of men (although many women have joined the fan base), but I've yet to read an article deprecating its value because of it. Why do so for Outlander? I don't get it. Are we not in 2014?

Your article is rampant with shaky comparisons and fallacious observations. If you have even read Outlander, you would know that there is no wit in the phrase "Fifty Shades of Plaid". It's weak and tasteless. It's also an indication of rather poor journalism. There is nothing remotely close in genre or storytelling between the two novels, aside from the readership's main sex. It's a sad, lazy parallel.

Let me address this one paragraph alone:

"What luck do you think fans of the series will have convincing their uninitiated friends and loved ones that this isn’t just some Celtic Woman concert come to life? The plot description alone is a hard sell: Claire Randall, a married World War II nurse, gets sent back in time to 18th-century Scotland and gets swept up in a romance with highlander Jamie Fraser. What follows is a stereotypical love triangle (complicated by, you know, time travel) and a plot that zig zags through decades and continents. Those Game of Thrones dragons look tame in comparison."

I can't even read this without having a really bad taste in my mouth. A Celtic Woman concert come to life? Huh?

It is NOT a story about a love triangle. It is a story of survival (complicated by, you know, life in the 18th century and war). It's the story of this incredibly strong woman who needs to not only fight for her life, but to adapt to a new world and grieve for another. It's a story about human nature, each character showing their true nature when confronted with their fears and when put in the absolute worst circumstances. Calling it a romance is just as bland and unstudied as calling Star Wars a story about stars and space.

As far as men go, I have many male friends who have given in and read the books. Yes, you know, those books we rabid fans pre-order months in advance? They've read them all and are absolutely hooked. Husbands, young men, old men. They love that story about this strong lass, the fascinating Scottish history, the politics, the mystery, the theme of survival, loyalty, and the three-dimensional characters. It's rich storytelling at its best. Stating that men won't love the show is, in my opinion, stating that men only love blood and guts. Why would they be entertained by something like intelligent plots? It's demeaning, isn't it?

You should give @Writer_DG's books a try! Who knows, you might be the next one trying to convince your male friends to give it a go! Because Outlander is the story of a kick ass chick who doesn't back away from a fight. Write an article about that, and I assure you, most men will be in the bag.


Reply · Report Post