LMR

Ignore the spoiler bar. Its there by accident and I can't get rid of it! He's definitely had a hair cut. There have been a few pics both from fans who've bumped into him in the street and a few events (such as him being announced president of Bloodwise, Scotland) where his hair is shorter (but curly, he's obviously hit the GHDs for the BAFTAS). There have also been pics from set where he has much longer hair so they must be using hair pieces.

His exact words are 'Call me Ishmael' which is the very famous first line in the book Moby Dick. I assume that Joe's words at this point are a reference to this and its a tongue in cheek sort of exasperation that comes with not really understanding what his son is doing, coupled with his sense of humour that leads him to this line. I do think DG very definitely attempts to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Ishmael encountered in the 18th C is an ancestor of Joe and his family though. Its not especially subtley done imo, either.

I just loved this. Jamie and Claire talking about Jamie and Claire is one of my favourite things and fond as I am of some of the other characters, they continue to be what I read the books for and this is just lovely. Whilst I'm not clear on how long they were at the abbey for, I am a little suspicious on the actual timeline, but it makes for a beautiful moment so I am willing to forgive it.

I think the thing I hate so much about the Bonnet story line from start to finish (inc the whole Roger shit show) is that it all relies so much on the whole 'when people get the wrong end of the stick but don't bother to actually ask' trope. One of the better things about the series (for me) is that it up to this point does a decent job of avoiding just this kind of melodrama and then it flings itself full force into it. But you're right - RDM loves a villain and given that Bonnet is the 'big bad' across a good number of books I imagine we will see a LOT of him. Hopefully they can/will at least tidy up some of the worst bit up. I also hope they can find an actor of Tobias Menzies' calibre, his portrayal went a long way towards justifying RDM's playing up of his role.

Here's a thought. Do you think if they move the action straight to NC they might leave out Bonnet? Although that subplot takes up, what three books? Four? Its actually entirely possible to tell the tale without him in it. The only real impact is Ian joining the mohawk and there are other ways of achieving that. (The parentage of Jem, again, is a question that you know will be resolved from the get go - one of the ongoing themes in the books is men stepping up in this respect there was no way Roger was going to prove to be the exception to that rule!) The whole 'misunderstanding' in the woods makes me froth at the mouth with annoyance and lets face it there is enough rape in the first two seasons for us to be able to live without this one. Maybe its because much as I love Roger, Brianna wrecks my head, but its a sub plot I don't like in the books and if the show could see its way to dropping it entirely, I would love it. I'm clutching at straws aren't I?

Anyone watching Versailles? I know it just premiered in the states but I watched it on Netflix at the start of the summer (I'm a brit living in SE Asia!). Its definitely worth a watch during droughtlander if you like historical drama. Its very much in the Tudors mould. (Which full disclosure I hated because I am a history teacher and know too much about the period to be able to fully enjoy the liberties they took with the actual History, but I know a lot of people LOVED). The costumes are absolutely gorgeous and it definitely made me want to go to France. I also think some of it actually was filmed on location as its a french co-production.

This is a thing between books and show. Whilst BJR is a massive presence in the books, the show has intensified that quite significantly (particularly with the Frank backs and the link that always brings). Even in DIA BJR is a sub plot to the bigger things, especially once back in Scotland. In the TV show he's definitely more front and centre (though to be fair this could as much be about the nature of TV vs Book and the amount of story that has had to be pared out to make a narrative that works on TV and isn't too sprawling). I agree though, the fact its taken her 7 books to properly circle back round to it, suggests its not a story she's all that interested in, but maybe since they are back in the relative peace of the Ridge in Bees, there will be more room for backstory.

I just read the same re Romann Berrux. I'm assuming that maybe they'll keep Wee Fergus for the Dunbonnet stuff and then from Edinburgh on it will be adult Fergus. Even though in the book timeline Fegus is mid to late teens and could reasonably (ish) we played by his older versin I do think that part will be more powerful with the younger version, both in terms of audience attachment (I can't imagine Leap will happen more than 2-3 episodes in) and the power of the imagery.

I'm ok with seeing Culloden. I think as viewers we need that pay off. We spent a whole season working up to it, Claire and Jamie are separated because of it, so given the differences in mediums and just the more episodic way it will have to unfold on TV, it might (especially for non-book readers) be a bit of a let down (maybe?) We don't see it in the book because we can't see it from Jamie's POV as he doesn't remember, but in a TV medium we can see it and still have Jamie not remember, because its not a tightly bound to the perspective of individuals. As an adaptive device it works for me.

That's good to hear anyway. 10 episodes was way too few. I still think that Outlander was best served by its original 16 episode run (though without the 6 month hiatus)

It will be interesting to see how they manage it. I do not think they can keep Claire and Jamie apart for too long, but agree that they have a lot of story that needs to be told. I'll be very interested to see how they do that. Part of me thinks flashback, but that would cut Bree and Roger's stuff right down as so much of Claire's story is told to Roger. I wonder will they do something like they did in Season 2. Start at the end (or in this case the middle) and then work back. It gets Jamie and Claire back together from the start which then gives them room to unpack the rest of the story. I don't know that I can wait another year...

I really hope so. Its too awful to contemplate. Its really gotten under by skin as a theory though, maybe its because I've just reread Voyager and I'm still very much in the story and feeling the feelings!

I heard the 10 thing from S&S too (I think I mentioned it on another thread). I do hope it is 13 episodes. There is just so much to get through in book 3. There are like 3 different stories, just in the back half!

Ok, I saw something on Tumblr (not the most reliable of sources, I know, but still) that made me concerned (and also made me realise that maybe I don't trust RDM with the source material as much as I want to that I have even entertained it). It was basically that instead of Mary McNab come to the cave before Jamie is arrested it will be Laorighe and that as a result one of her daughters will be Jamie's. Realistically, I don't think this will happen but I was surprised by how much it sadly wouldn't surprise me if they did that. As it is I really don't know how they are going to retcon the whole Jamie knowing about L's role in having Claire almost burnt as a witch. I guess having Jamie father one of kids might negate that... Ugh. It annoys me to contemplate. For what its worth I suspect that given they cannot not do Geneva (though please god, fix that before it hits the screen) and they have to have L, I think they will likely cut the Mary seen altogether. They only have 10 episodes so as it is I think a lot of the front half will be bunched (unless they do a lot of flashback, as I can't imagine we will be made to wait more than 3-4 episodes before Print shop unless they want a full scale fan riot), having Jamie involved with 3 different women in that time, regardless of the situation, will harm the story they are trying to tell. I works in the books (just, I could live without both Geneva and L) as you get a better sense of the time elapsed and the lonliness Jamie endures, but I think that will be much more difficult on TV. Mary and the scene in the cave could be easily removed without impacting the story so I won't be surprised if she is. And if this fan theory is the alternative I hope verra keenly they do.

I'm pretty excited about the casting. Re LJG, I have so say, despite having read the books several times its only in my most recent reading that the idea of LJG being shortish and delicate looking really caught my attention. As a result, colouring aside I think the casting here is right on the nose. He's very much how LJG from Voyager on looked in my head. He's very handsome, but in a very different way to Sam's Jamie and I think that contrast is the main key to the differences in their physical presences. Both Fergus and Marsali are almost exactly perfect (my only question with the latter will be how effectively they age up Nell Hudson because right now they look like sisters, its a very good physical match)

Frank probably is a fairly good representative of a man in his position, particularly when once again we put it into the context of the times, where blended families where less common (but by contrast the 18th C world its much more common, due to the hardships of the time and the fact that people often had multiple marriages through widowhood, there are lots of incidents both in Voyager and going through future books where not only Jamie, with Fergus and later Marsali and Joan but others raising children who have lost people which is interesting from an anthropological point of view). If we are to believe Claire (and on this I'm inclined to as it fits with the Frank we see in Outlander as opposed just to this book), Frank takes Brianna on as much for his own sake as Claire's. Frank is a decent guy and a good father to Brianna. What he's not is a good husband to Claire (once she returns), and how he actually even tries is open to debate - there is definitely evidence for both sides. But then Claire isn't an especially good wife to him either (again not necessarily through any fault of her own), the difference being we never really get to see things from Frank's POV so we have to read more into his actions as we don't see his motivations. Also girl is our hero, we know that she is meant to be with Jamie and poor Frank is always going to pale in comparison and I find it almost impossible not to bring that bias to the table when I read Frank. Jamie even when he's messing up (and as much as I enjoyed Voyager, I spent a LOT of the first half yelling "FFS, Jamie" at my kindle), is still James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie Fraser *swoons slightly*

Whilst I agree about Frank being a man of his times with regards to his less than progressive views, I'd be of the opinion that he's terrible in Voyager. However, it can be argued though that most of what we see of Frank is through Claire's eyes and she is often an unreliable narrator, I'd also be of the opinion that his behaviour generally is pretty shoddy in places. That being said, I think a lot of that maybe comes from the fact that he underestimated the weight of what Claire had in the 18th C and the extent which she would grieve it and could never really forgive her for that. In turn Claire appreciated what Frank did for her and Brianna but also could never really forgive Frank for being Frank and not Jamie.

The rehash of the Jenny/Claire tension annoyed me. I read the books on a binge (all 8 in 6 weeks) so obviously the happenings of voyager weren't many years removed from me when I read the Scotland scenes which then seemed to go over the same ground. It would have made much more sense to have Claire's inability/refusal (depending on who you are) become an issues separate to that which created new tensions between them and maybe reignited some long damped down resentment rather than make it about Laoighrie (who's name I will never be able to spell). That tension still existed re She Who's Name I Cannot Spell between Jenny and Jamie was slightly more realistic given that its clear that whilst Jenny made the match for the best of intentions it was clear very quickly it was a very bad idea and between her guilt about that and Jamie's guilt about going through with it it caused friction between them. The stuff with Ian, it just killed me. You felt the grief between the family. The second half of the book is definitely the stronger and it benefits from having a much brisker pace. The whole confusion about Jamie's death thing could have been dragged out unbearably but it was resolved quickly enough that it was enjoyable but didn't become one of those scenarios in which there is confusion and mix up that can quickly become frustrating. I like the Hunters. I enjoy the very different perspective they bring. They are refreshing without being naive and I think despite their pious life choices are actually surprisingly worldly, but in a different way from say Jamie or wee Ian. I agree Roger is much better in the 18th C. Bree does not appeal to me regardless of location. She's clearly supposed to be written as uncompromisingly forthright but always just strikes me as tactless and obnoxious.

I really enjoyed this book, it might have been one of my favourites of the 'Epics'. After a bit of a lull, I thought both this and EITB picked up the pace again but it wasn't constantly PERIL, even allowing for what happened to Claire. (at least on the 18th C side of things anyway) I have to say I've really enjoyed how Jamie's death and subsequent resurrection have changed the dynamic in the Jamie-John-Claire relationship. Despite LJG's higher social standing I always felt like his feelings for Jamie was what made it the relationship of unequals and whilst those feelings might still be there I do feel like the marriage to Claire and the revelation to Jamie has actually freed LJG a bit. Given Jamie's reaction in the aftermath of his revelation I feel like LJG is a bit more 'eh f**k it' about stuff and feels less of a need to dance around the subject (especially given he has no idea why Jamie is actually so appalled by his feelings in the first place). The relationship is definitely strained but I don't get the sense from the book that its irredeemable so I've actually enjoyed a slightly sassier more autonomous Lord John. I enjoyed a lot of the Roger stuff, but I still cannot bring myself to care that much about Bree. I have tried and I have failed. Of all the POV characters we have she is probably the one I find least readable (apart from some of the William stuff, but I still find him more likeable). All the peril she faces in the last two books and I still can't seem to invest in her as a character.

First up adaptation thoughts I have to say I'm a bit conflicted about how this book will play out on the screen and what I want from it. As excellent as the first half of the book is, in many ways, I've read it a couple of times and I'm very much going through the motions until I get to what I know (even in the first read) is coming. The reunion. On the one hand, the book does lend itself to a two series split, but I agree, not having Claire and Jamie together for a full season wouldn't fly for me. There are lots of great things about the books and TV series, but for me the thing that keeps me coming back is the love story between Jamie and Claire. The best moments of the books are when they are together, the show is at its best when it portrays their relationship, to have them separated for more than a few episodes is probably as much can reasonably be tolerated. Having it all play out in flashback, might work, but again it would need to be carefully parsed. I'm interested to see how they spin the Laoirghe (sp??) plot given in the show Jamie is fully aware of her involvement in attempting to have Claire burnt as a witch. I'm also really hoping they remove the problematic elements of William's conception from the show as well. That scene made me really dislike Voyager despite the fact its one of the stronger books apart from that and I have studiously skipped it in re-reads. Book thoughts in general (edited both for clarity and detail) With regards to the long separation, I think it was unavoidable once they decided to get involved in the 45 (or at least at the point when BPC chose to involve Jamie). Once the decision to have Claire go back through the stones was made, even without all the stuff going on on Jamie's side, Claire couldn't/wouldn't leave her child and couldn't know whether or not it would be possible for Bree to travel even if Claire had been inclined to look for Jamie. The Claire sections in the book break my heart. I don't know that they are as compelling or as well written as some of the Jamie bits, but something about it really speaks to me. Maybe its that the 20th Century (even distant 20th C) is more relatable, maybe its Claire as wife and mother is more relatable, but I feel her pain in the books, I feel her loss of Jamie. Jamie has so much going on that I feel some of that gets lost in his other responsibilities. The print shop, well, lets just say its something I revisit whenever I feel a little blue. I enjoy the back half of the book, its a pretty enjoyable romp compared to the heavy going first half and whilst the constant peril at sea gets a bit much sometimes, but I also enjoy spending time with the characters here. The wedding and turtle soup are particular favourites. If the series decides to keep Mr W, I really hope they fix him and make him less of a racial stereotype. I don't know what Herself was thinking with this.