Starla May 20, 2015 Share May 20, 2015 What I couldn't understand out about Sandringham was how he knew Jamie was trying to thwart the rebellion. On the surface, Jamie and Prince Charlie were bffs, and Jamie pretended to support the rebellion, hence his name later showing up on the list of Clan leaders supporting the cause. I can't recall him or Claire ever telling anyone about their true plan to stop the rebellion. Maybe Mother Hildegarde figured it out when she helped translate the coded music message, but I can't imagine she had any interaction with Sandringham. The thing I found most interesting about this plot line was Claire wondering if Sandringham's death might have been the trigger that caused the rebellion to fail, since he may have been able to provide money for supplies and weapons. Maybe she and Jamie inadvertently caused the thing to happen that they were trying to prevent, and Culloden and all that followed was as a result of their interfering. Gotta love the time travel headaches. 3 Link to comment
WatchrTina May 21, 2015 Share May 21, 2015 Jamie acts like Prince Charles' BFF when he's around the Prince but when he's at court (where the Prince is not allowed) Jamie was quietly trying to discourage the rebellion by letting it "slip" (repeatedly) that the Prince doesn't really have a lot of support back in Great Britain, that the Scots are too busy fighting among themselves to rally to his cause, that anyone who invested in a rebellion would likely lose all their money, etc. He says at one point that he's not too worried about the Prince hearing about his being two-faced on the topic of the Prince's rebellion because the Prince is never at court. (In fact, the Prince clearly never DID find out Jamie's true feelings since he had no scruples about forging Jamie's signature on that blasted declaration). But The Duke WAS at court and given that he is a plotter extraordinaire, it's not surprising that he sussed out that Jamie was actually working as a wet blanket on the flames of rebellion. What I think is unclear is whether or not the Duke really wants a Stuart on the throne of Great Britain. I suspect he's more like Lord Lovat -- trying to play it both ways. For all we know, he's like Peter "Chaos is a Ladder" Baelish on Game of Thrones and he wants a rebellion for selfish reasons, believing that he can profit from the turmoil created by it and not much caring who wins. Link to comment
lianau May 21, 2015 Share May 21, 2015 That's how I see it too . Especially since Frank and Reverend Wakefield also weren't sure of Sandringham's loyalties . I guess he'd always support the winning side . Link to comment
auntlada May 21, 2015 Share May 21, 2015 So, I finished this this morning. And I don't know, if it was something the editor missed or what. In Outlander, Geillis told Claire, or had it written down, 1967; here, at the end of Dragonfly, it's 1968, just as it was told on the show. It was a mistake (I think on the part of the editor too because a good editor should just know crap like this) but a mistake in the first book at the very beginning. She set the book in 1945 and talked about rationing ending, etc., but it wouldn't have been in 45. I think it was a British editor who pointed it out when it was first published in the UK. So they changed it to 1946, which bumped everything else up a year and changed the years in later books to not match. I had thought they were changing it in later printings, but I guess not. I have no idea where I read that. It was years ago. Link to comment
methodwriter85 May 21, 2015 Share May 21, 2015 One of my favorite DiA scenes is Jamie's horror at seeing Claire's newly-waxed armpits and the idea of body hair removal in general. Hilarious how that was what convinced him that Claire could be getting up to worse things than volunteering at a Parisian hospital. Makes me wish we could somehow witness his reaction to modern day manscaping! That was one thing that did not make the show, as Jamie looked very manscaped. LOL. 1 Link to comment
stormy June 1, 2015 Share June 1, 2015 200 pages left of Dragonfly in Amber and I don't know if I can read another of these books. This one seems so tedious to me compared to book one. I want to know what happens to these characters because I care about them but the story is dragging on and some of interactions between Claire and Jamie are ridiculous to me. The above comments of Claire's waxing is a perfect example. Surely Claire would explain some things most women in the 1940's did regularly. She's very outspoken so I find her taking a stand sometimes and others she seems clueless doesn't fit her character. Link to comment
DittyDotDot August 11, 2015 Share August 11, 2015 So, I finally started Dragonfly in Amber a week or so back. I'm about 70 percent in and seriously, this one has been harder to get through than the first one. It's not just the long-winded writing style of beating a dead horse to death, and then some, but the plotting and, TBH, I'm finding Claire a very hard pill to swallow right now. It's funny, I thought I would prefer this one, because the story structure seemed like it would suit my tastes more. And for a while I was enjoying it, right up until they put us back in the 1740s. I loved following Roger in digging up the past, that actually worked really well for me. I kinda wish the book switched back and forth between the time periods more, I think that could've helped the book immensely. I guess, in the end, I really don't find all the political intrigue all that intriguing. And I have a hard time with the idea that Jamie spent two years previously in France as a soldier because he had a price on his head in Scotland and no other choices, but now has a rich uncle that can set him up in Paris. But, he still has a price on his head in Scotland for the same crimes and now more. Oh and not only does he now have a cushy lifestyle, but is embraced at court too. Seems like somebody really wanted to write a book about political intrigue in France, but got an advance to write the next chapter of Jamie and Claire instead. Add on top the plotting nonsense of Claire insisting Black Jack can't be killed just to pacify the need for the time travel aspects...I just can't. Don't even get me started on Claire out and out blaming Jamie for the miscarriage without taking on any responsibility for her own actions in it. And now they're heading off to war and Claire is questioning Jamie about interrogating a soldier...seriously, she lived through WWII, did she think Jamie was going to go out on the battlefield armed with hugs and kisses? I'm really finding DiA Claire very confusing and frustrating. Please tell me we'll go back to Roger and Brianna and the 1940s soon. Give me some hope, please. Speaking of flogging dead horses: sheesh, enough with Jamie getting his backside tanned as a child! I have no issues with the issue itself, but I don't need another story of a spanking to understand that Jamie was a mischievous child and his father took a strong hand with him. The things that Gabaldon gets fixated on sometimes just perplexes me! 2 Link to comment
chocolatetruffle August 11, 2015 Share August 11, 2015 Here is some hope (and Mods feel free to delete this if you think its a spoiler): Based on what you liked about this book, you will love the next. 1 Link to comment
MsProudSooner August 12, 2015 Share August 12, 2015 I had similar feelings in DIA. All I can say is that the last part of the book made me unable to resist reading Voyager. 2 Link to comment
DittyDotDot August 13, 2015 Share August 13, 2015 So, your saying I will not be able to resist torturing myself further? Great! Hee! No, thank you guys. Your encouragement helped me keep soldering on. Now, if I could only get some time off so I can get back to it. ;) 2 Link to comment
WatchrTina August 15, 2015 Share August 15, 2015 (edited) Sam's been tweeting about the joys of night shoots and Stanley Weber just posted this tweet: https://twitter.com/stanleyweber/status/632479218606149632 Which makes me go hmmmmmm. The only reason for a night shoot is a scene which must take place outdoors at a location. When are Jamie and le Comte St. Germain together in an outdoor night scene in DIA? The only one I can think of is the attempted assault on Claire in the alley on the way home from l'hopital des anges -- the time Murtagh ends up in a canvas sack and Fergus has to scurry across rooftops to fetch Jamie to come to the rescue. The assailants are all in masks but I THINK le Comte is one of them. Is that right? Or is there another outdoor night scene between Jamie and le Comte that I'm not thinking of? Edited August 15, 2015 by WatchrTina Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 15, 2015 Share August 15, 2015 (edited) No, you're right--Le Compte Germain was one of the assailants that night--when she said she was Blanche la Dame, it was what caused them to run, but not before one of the men raped Mary. Which...ugh. I hope the rape is not shown. Edited August 15, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot August 15, 2015 Share August 15, 2015 I don't know if it was ever 100 percent fully-confirmed it was the Le Comte St. Germain in the alley, but Claire definitely believed it to be. I just read that stuff, I should have a clearer picture of it all, but I think you're right GHScorpiosRule and WatchrTina, that's the only outdoor night scene I can think of. I hope they just touch on the rape of Mary. I mean, I guess it does have to happen for Mary not to get married off to...what's his name. Maybe they're going to shift some things though? Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 15, 2015 Share August 15, 2015 I don't know if it was ever 100 percent fully-confirmed it was the Le Comte St. Germain in the alley, but Claire definitely believed it to be. I just read that stuff, I should have a clearer picture of it all, but I think you're right GHScorpiosRule and WatchrTina, that's the only outdoor night scene I can think of. I hope they just touch on the rape of Mary. I mean, I guess it does have to happen for Mary not to get married off to...what's his name. Maybe they're going to shift some things though? I'm pretty sure that when she saw Le Compte in King Louis' chamber thingie, it was also confirmed for me. The rape can be referenced to, as the fallout from Mary's fall of grace is what leads to her romance with Alex, Black Jack's younger brother. Or not. They can just have the romance, but since he's sick, he still asks Black Jack to marry her to give his child a name. And it's her child that is Frank's direct ancestor. Link to comment
DittyDotDot August 17, 2015 Share August 17, 2015 OMG, you guys, I just read the part where Claire and auld Simon have the exchange about him having prostatitis--at dinner none-the-less. I don't know why, but it had me howling. How she described her holding up her fingers to demonstrate what happens to the urethra...I haven't been that amused by Gabaldon's writing since the hedgehog joke back in book one. See I knew she had it in her. ;) 1 Link to comment
mary2013 August 17, 2015 Share August 17, 2015 I don't think St. Germain was involved. Sandringham's butler was the ringleader, and I don't think St. Germain was involved in Sandringham's plotting. Link to comment
DittyDotDot August 18, 2015 Share August 18, 2015 (edited) Oh, your right mary2013. I just read the part where Claire gets taken to Sandringham. Claire was definitely of the impression that it was St. Germain previously. But, Claire's certain of a great many things until we're told they aren't so. Sandringham's servant was the one with the mark on his hand though and Mary also recognized him as such. I guess St. Germain could've been one of the other two men, though, judging by the rumors surrounding him, but I got the impression one of the men might've been one of the banker brothers. I guess I need to finish reading the book now. ETA: What a magnificent little devil Murtagh is, though! Edited August 18, 2015 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
Summer September 20, 2015 Share September 20, 2015 I am about 3/4 way through, they are at Lallybroch and Jamie just got the letter naming him as one of the supporters of the rebellion (or something like that) I went into this book with open eyes, having read a million spoilers. I was curious how I would feel about this one with all the changes with Jamie and Claire. Also, I wanted to test my theory that the only reason I liked reading Outlander was due to my love for the show. I am not enjoying this book for a lot of reasons. I was weirded out by the beginning (and I KNEW full well it began in the 1960's), I can't explain it but seeing Claire without Jamie for so long and being so secretive bothered me. I have heard Ron Moore kind of hint that they are not going to start Season 2 the same as the book and I think that's a good idea, like I said, I knew what to expect and it freaked me out a little, I can't imagine how jarring that would be for unspoiled non book readers who have no idea what to expect. I disliked the entire Paris section. The politics, the new characters, the plot, etc. Too much going on. Skim city for me. One thing I just can't warm up to is Book!Claire. I am so happy that Caitriona has managed to portray Show!Claire with a little more softness and appeal. On a positive note, I am glad I read what happened when Claire loses Faith. I thought we would be treated to a tender, albeit sad, scene of Jamie comforting Claire when she loses the baby, similar to Poldark when Ross has to tell Demelza Julia died (oh the heartbreak, but such a lovely scene for the two actors). I now know that is not how that scene plays out AT ALL, so I'm glad I have the heads up. And Diana's writing is really getting on my nerves. As much as I like the dialogue she creates for her characters, like many have stated, where is her editor?? She says the same thing over and over. How many times does she have to mention how warm Jamie is? Or how many times Claire rubs his chest. And, yes, we get it that Claire has a high sex drive, but the first thing she asks Jamie after she and Mary are attacked is "Oh, Jamie I wish you could make love to me right now" Really?? I have to be honest I have no desire to see any of Paris played out on TV, save maybe for the red dress scene. I do have Voyager, too, only to read the print shop reunion scene and then I think I will just wait for the show to start again. Link to comment
DittyDotDot September 20, 2015 Share September 20, 2015 And Diana's writing is really getting on my nerves. As much as I like the dialogue she creates for her characters, like many have stated, where is her editor?? She says the same thing over and over. How many times does she have to mention how warm Jamie is? Or how many times Claire rubs his chest. I was just complaining about this the other day. Not only does she repeatedly tell us character traits over and over again, but she'll repeat what the plot is over and over again. At first I thought she was bringing readers, who may not have read the first book, up to speed, but no, she tells us the stuff that happened earlier in the same damn book again. The books could be a whole damn bit shorter--and tighter and easier to read--if she cut a lot of the chaff, IMO. It's such a shame because sometimes she does get it right. Oh, and I too had a hard time warming up to Claire. I actually wouldn't say i totally have warmed up to her, but I don't find her as frustrating as I did in this book. She didn't bother me so much in the first book, but this one I found her rather stuck up and annoyingly self centered a lot of the time. 1 Link to comment
Summer September 20, 2015 Share September 20, 2015 I was just complaining about this the other day. Not only does she repeatedly tell us character traits over and over again, but she'll repeat what the plot is over and over again. At first I thought she was bringing readers, who may not have read the first book, up to speed, but no, she tells us the stuff that happened earlier in the same damn book again. The books could be a whole damn bit shorter--and tighter and easier to read--if she cut a lot of the chaff, IMO. It's such a shame because sometimes she does get it right. Amen, TripleD! And I just remembered another one that drove me nuts: Jamie is CONSTANTLY 'gathering Claire up onto his lap" The first time he did that was back in Outlander at Castle Leoch when she had just arrived and he thought she was a recent widow and back then, the first time he did it, I thought it was sexy and cute, but after the millionth time reading it, I'm over it completely! Oh oh oh and how the side of his mouth twitches, if I have to read that one more time.... Oh, and I too had a hard time warming up to Claire. I actually wouldn't say i totally have warmed up to her, but I don't find her as frustrating as I did in this book. She didn't bother me so much in the first book, but this one I found her rather stuck up and annoyingly self centered a lot of the time. You hit the nail on the head! I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was that I didn't care for, but you described it perfectly. It's funny because I have an absolute girl crush on Show!Claire and I WANT to feel the same about Book!Claire and I just don't. Link to comment
DittyDotDot September 20, 2015 Share September 20, 2015 Just wait until she starts using "alacrity", Laurie. Oh, and the number of times "goose flesh" is used per book... You hit the nail on the head! I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was that I didn't care for, but you described it perfectly. It's funny because I have an absolute girl crush on Show!Claire and I WANT to feel the same about Book!Claire and I just don't. I'm on book 6 and I personally think if you can stick with the books, Laurie, Drums of Autumn is probably when Claire is at her most palatable. I actually love Claire quite a bit in that book. 2 Link to comment
MsProudSooner September 23, 2015 Share September 23, 2015 (edited) I was just complaining about this the other day. Not only does she repeatedly tell us character traits over and over again, but she'll repeat what the plot is over and over again. At first I thought she was bringing readers, who may not have read the first book, up to speed, but no, she tells us the stuff that happened earlier in the same damn book again. The books could be a whole damn bit shorter--and tighter and easier to read--if she cut a lot of the chaff, IMO. It's such a shame because sometimes she does get it right. Just a thought - suppose the first book of the series that you read wasn't Outlander? I've always supposed some of the repetition was like a recap at the beginning of a TV show - 'So far in our story.....' I know how lost I've felt when I started reading a book and felt like I walked in on the middle of a movie because it weren't the first book in a series and vital plot points were left out. Also, the books were published several years apart. I'm reading them one after another but if It was years between books instead of days, I would need the reminders of what happened in previous books. Edited September 23, 2015 by MsProudSooner 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot September 23, 2015 Share September 23, 2015 (edited) Just a thought - suppose the first book of the series that you read wasn't Outlander? I've always supposed some of the repetition was like a recap at the beginning of a TV show - 'So far in our story.....' I know how lost I've felt when I started reading a book and felt like I walked in on the middle of a movie because it weren't the first book in a series and vital plot points were left out. Also, the books were published several years apart. I'm reading them one after another but if It was years between books instead of days, I would need the reminders of what happened in previous books. Like I said, at first I thought that's what she was doing and just ignored it--as I do recaps on TV shows. But, what I was actually commenting about is how she repeats stuff within the same book. For instance, if there's a letter received at the beginning of the book: she'll describe it in detail and tell us who it's from and why it's important. Sometime later, in the same book, someone will be thinking about that letter and she'll describe the letter in detail, where it came from and it's importance, all over again. Sometimes she'll do it two or three times in the same book. That coupled with her need to use the same phrases and words repeatedly rather than finding a different or unique way of saying basically the same thing, makes me think she's a very limited writer, in some ways. It doesn't annoy me enough to stop reading, just something I noticed. Edited September 23, 2015 by DittyDotDot 1 Link to comment
CalamityBoPeep September 24, 2015 Share September 24, 2015 Like I said, at first I thought that's what she was doing and just ignored it--as I do recaps on TV shows. But, what I was actually commenting about is how she repeats stuff within the same book. For instance, if there's a letter received at the beginning of the book: she'll describe it in detail and tell us who it's from and why it's important. Sometime later, in the same book, someone will be thinking about that letter and she'll describe the letter in detail, where it came from and it's importance, all over again. Sometimes she'll do it two or three times in the same book. Ever since I read Diana's description of how she writes (oh, so many moons ago), I've always figured this particular problem is very much related to her method. Later scenes (in the book) could be written well before earlier scenes, and she just probably never goes back to tidy things up, with the whole structure in place, since she's always pressed for time and basically the books seem to get edited as she goes, rather than in one whole chunk. I wish they'd plan some time in the production schedule to let a fresh editor give the entire book a solid read through before they print galleys. But it seems like once she finishes the writing, everything on the publishing end is just rushed through to get the book on the stands by their preferred holiday release date. (Or in the next book's case, probably in time with an Outlander season's start). So frustrating, but eh... whatever. At this point, I've given up hope for a good rip-and-slash editor. 1 Link to comment
Andorra September 25, 2015 Share September 25, 2015 I found the waxing scene hilarious, but DID women really remove their body hair on a regular basis in 1946?? In the UK? I doubt that. I remmeber well that even in the 80s it was not comon here in Germany. Some of my friends did, others didn't. And the generation of my mother wouldn't even shave their legs to that time. I also remember well a scene from the "Sissi" movie with Romy Schneider http://members.home.nl/atijdeman/images/sissi27.jpg which was filmed in 1956 she has no shaved arm pits. It was normal back then, but it looks weird if you watch it today. Link to comment
DittyDotDot September 25, 2015 Share September 25, 2015 Upper class women have been plucking eyebrows and removing body skin since...well, I don't know since when. Romans used to have a system of using pumice stone and the Egyptians, I believe, used some form of arsenic to remove body hair on high-born women. I'm not sure how common a practice it was in the UK, but women shaving their armpits and legs started becoming fairly common in the US in the 1920s. In the early 1900s, women's dress started to become shorter in both leg and arm and those parts of the body started to be seen. By the mid 1920s, shaving products were openly being advertised to women here in the US. It probably took a decade for it to be common practice, though. It's probably one of those things that goes in cycles, too. I remember it being sort of out-of-fashion with the hippie movement in the '70s, but then came back around in the '80s. When I was in college in the early '90s, there were many of us who didn't shave our legs regularly, but armpits were always a must. I think it's reasonable that a 1940s woman like Claire would've done it regularly. Jamie's response to it is so very delightful, though. 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot October 12, 2015 Share October 12, 2015 (edited) Perhaps I should clarify. It's not that I out-and-out dislike Claire--I do find her dry wit and matter of factness verra funny--but as I said in another thread, I think I find Claire to be a great character, but not someone I'd cotton to in real life. It's not even her brashness, but she is very self centered and kind of uppity at times. One of my sisters tends to attract many friends who remind me of Claire and I just I find it exhausting to be in their presence for any length of time, for some reason. I don't begrudge them existing, though and wouldn't wish them harm, just don't particularly want to hang out with them. However, I do find Claire a fascinating character and when the POV shifts from Claire, I do find I miss it greatly. I don't really see much of a difference between the Claire of the books and the one on the show. But, I'm weird that way. I don't see much difference between the Jamies of the book and show either. Weird little sidenote, though, when I read the book, I don't see Sam Heugan in my head. I don't know why, I think Sam's doing a fine job. Maybe I did in the first book, but now that I've progressed in the books, I imagine a less...well for lack of better word, "pretty" Jamie. Edited October 12, 2015 by DittyDotDot Link to comment
DittyDotDot October 26, 2015 Share October 26, 2015 Personally I would never describe SH's Jamie as pretty maybe with the exception of "Je suis prest" scene. Well, I didn't say it was the right word, just the best one I could think of at the time. I still can't think of the right word, but what I mean is more that Sam is a modern man and looks as such, no matter how much dirt and blood they put on him. The Jamie I tend to see when reading the book is just less sculpted and more rugged; someone that might be a bit frightening on first glance. Is there a word for this? Maybe I mean to say someone less charming and more fierce? Like I said though, I think Sam is doing a fine job and I think he captures the spirit of the character even if he doesn't quite match the mental image I have of him. 1 Link to comment
Summer October 26, 2015 Share October 26, 2015 I also didn't picture Sam in my head as Jamie and that is one of the reason's I resisted reading any of the books for so long. I also didn't picture Claire's dialogue with an English accent. I made it part way through Voyager and called it quits. I was introduced to this story through the TV show and that's where I find I'm happy to stay. The books just didn't evoke any real emotion for me. Maybe if I read them first it would have been different. I am grateful to the book readers as I like to know what's going to happen, so thanks all, but I'm sticking with waiting until 2016 when the show comes back on. Link to comment
DittyDotDot October 26, 2015 Share October 26, 2015 (edited) I also didn't picture Sam in my head as Jamie and that is one of the reason's I resisted reading any of the books for so long. I also didn't picture Claire's dialogue with an English accent. I made it part way through Voyager and called it quits. I was introduced to this story through the TV show and that's where I find I'm happy to stay. The books just didn't evoke any real emotion for me. Maybe if I read them first it would have been different. I am grateful to the book readers as I like to know what's going to happen, so thanks all, but I'm sticking with waiting until 2016 when the show comes back on. I totally agree that Claire doesn't sound British in the books--so much so that I forgot Claire was British by Dragonfly in Amber--she sounds American to me. At first I thought Gabaldon wrote her that way to contrast with the other British characters being from a different time, but I finally decided it was maybe due to Claire not really being brought up in England, but all over the world, so her accent is less pronounced. I found it interesting in Outlander when Claire asked Jamie if he thought she was an English spy and he said he didn't think so because her accent was strange. I understand why you would give up the books after Voyager, Summer, I almost quit in the middle of that one. But, this weird thing happened by the end of Voyager--I realized I was invested in Jamie and Claire and just couldn't stop. I didn't read the books until after I saw the first eight episodes and I found I prefer the books...at times. But totally understand why anyone would not continue with them. Edited October 26, 2015 by DittyDotDot 1 Link to comment
DittyDotDot October 28, 2015 Share October 28, 2015 But the relationship between Jamie and Claire? I have not seen that connection, that banter, humor and spark on the screen, at least not yet. And for that I stick to the books. Taken to the show vs. books thread. Link to comment
GrailKing January 15, 2016 Share January 15, 2016 Hi, I don't mind spoilers so put that fear to rest, just tag it for others. I'm still on book one but could someone clue me on the significance of Claire and La Dame Blanche. Link to comment
tcay January 15, 2016 Share January 15, 2016 Jamie visits a brothel with Bonnie Prince Charlie and, in order to excuse himself from the night's activities, he says Claire is a witch and will curse him if he's unfaithful. Hence, she is the White Witch. It pops up a few times in this book and others. Link to comment
GrailKing January 15, 2016 Share January 15, 2016 Thank You, I took it as the white or pale woman. Link to comment
lianau January 18, 2016 Share January 18, 2016 Jamie visits a brothel with Bonnie Prince Charlie and, in order to excuse himself from the night's activities, he says Claire is a witch and will curse him if he's unfaithful. Hence, she is the White Witch. It pops up a few times in this book and others. And later when Claire and Mary are attacked , one of the attackers recognized her as La Dame Blanche and stops the assault on her (it was too late for Mary though) . Jamie than says something about having to find out the number of people his brothel buddies told stories about is witchy wife . Link to comment
GrailKing January 18, 2016 Share January 18, 2016 Is the term used for bitchy, or because of her healing skills? Also is there a thread on predictions for how people think the series/ books end? Link to comment
Athena January 18, 2016 Author Share January 18, 2016 Is the term used for bitchy, or because of her healing skills? Also is there a thread on predictions for how people think the series/ books end? It's more that she has healing skills. For speculation, the books vs the show thread is used for everything, but it encapulates all books so spoilers ahead. There are also speculations for the ending in Book 9 which is not yet published and probably not the last book. Link to comment
toolazy January 28, 2016 Share January 28, 2016 http://www.nndb.com/people/189/000162700/gabriel-aubry-1-sized.jpg http://thesubclubbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Gabriel-Aubry-Hair.jpg http://www.annapremoli.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Ethan-5.jpg Holy mother, he's hot. I totally agree that Claire doesn't sound British in the books--so much so that I forgot Claire was British by Dragonfly in Amber--she sounds American to me. At first I thought Gabaldon wrote her that way to contrast with the other British characters being from a different time, but I finally decided it was maybe due to Claire not really being brought up in England, but all over the world, so her accent is less pronounced. I found it interesting in Outlander when Claire asked Jamie if he thought she was an English spy and he said he didn't think so because her accent was strange. I understand why you would give up the books after Voyager, Summer, I almost quit in the middle of that one. But, this weird thing happened by the end of Voyager--I realized I was invested in Jamie and Claire and just couldn't stop. I didn't read the books until after I saw the first eight episodes and I found I prefer the books...at times. But totally understand why anyone would not continue with them. Her accent would be strange because she's from 200 years in the future. Accents aren't fixed things - they change over time. Aye :-)) That's exactly the thing - Jamie and Claire. I've been embrancing the show more and more upon the rewatching. IMO sans the last couple of episodes it's wonderfully done series on it's own. They have done so many things so well - the history, the clans, cultural and social clashes, the story of strong willed woman freshly from war zone suddenly thrusted into deeply patriarchal society - all mighty job. Just the way the series is shot, it sometimes makes GOT looks a little plastic IMO (blasphemy I know). But the relationship between Jamie and Claire? I have not seen that connection, that banter, humor and spark on the screen, at least not yet. And for that I stick to the books. I have seen very few people say that they don't think Sam & Cait click onscreen. If they don't click for you, they don't, but I am always blown away by their chemistry. I discovered the books when the show came out so Jamie in the books looks just like Sam in my head but maybe a little bigger. And this is kind of weird but in the first book Claire looks like Cait but by the time we get to DiA she looks like someone entirely different and continues to do so throughout the rest of the books. This probably my failure to imagine an aged-up Caitriona Balfe. I'm curious to see what happens in my brain after I see her aged-up. Link to comment
DittyDotDot January 29, 2016 Share January 29, 2016 Her accent would be strange because she's from 200 years in the future. Accents aren't fixed things - they change over time. Yes, I know that's why her accent would be strange to Jamie. I was just saying that I found the comment funny because I also found Claire's accent strange for a British woman of the 1940s. She uses common Britishisms occasionally--like her constant use of "bloody"--but the way she structures what she says and the rhythm of her speaking doesn't seem to match up for me. It's no wonder everyone thinks she's a spy. But like I said, I think it fits because Claire didn't actually grow up in the UK, but all over the world. Still though, the comment made me smile when I read it and that's all I was saying. Link to comment
toolazy January 29, 2016 Share January 29, 2016 I get what you mean because whenever she uses an expression that is distinctly English, I notice it because it's different. Link to comment
GrailKing February 22, 2016 Share February 22, 2016 Anybody read the preview chapter in Outlander or did you go directly to book two? Looks like it could be an excerpt from chapter 1 or two. Link to comment
GrailKing February 22, 2016 Share February 22, 2016 (edited) It's chapter 6 of DIA. thank you. It's chapter 6 of DIA. thank you. It's chapter 6 of DIA. thank you. WOW real site problem LOL Edited February 22, 2016 by GrailKing Link to comment
asp February 23, 2016 Share February 23, 2016 LOL. I've been having trouble accessing it, too. Link to comment
GrailKing February 23, 2016 Share February 23, 2016 Is the title of book two a call back to the mute ( Jamie's friend) or has a deeper meaning, Duke maybe? Link to comment
DittyDotDot February 23, 2016 Share February 23, 2016 I'm not sure what Gabaldon's take on this would be, but I took it as a metaphor for how so much in this book is "stuck" in history, more than anything. Link to comment
GrailKing February 23, 2016 Share February 23, 2016 I'm not sure what Gabaldon's take on this would be, but I took it as a metaphor for how so much in this book is "stuck" in history, more than anything. Hmm I'll ponder that as I read. Link to comment
GrailKing February 23, 2016 Share February 23, 2016 The internet is such a wonderful thing. http://www.dianagabaldon.com/resources/faq/faq-about-the-books/ Link to comment
GrailKing February 24, 2016 Share February 24, 2016 (edited) OK, I just 2+ chapters in and we are in the late Reverends study the bell rings it's Claire and Brianna they introduce themselves and eventually Roger remembers Claire, she gives him a list of 30 names asking him to find out who survived he finds out she's missing a name, so I remember Claire saying she could not bare or attempt to read Franks works ( not sure if because it was painful for her or something else) someone could enlighten me on it, so where did she get the names ? the way she described Frank's work it was well researched and garnered rave critical acclaim my only other thought is she may had peeked and jot the names or Brianna did, which then leads me to wonder did Frank deliberately leave out Jamie ? 2nd question: Looked like Claire did deliberately spill her drink for fear of Brianna seeing the stones or Lallybroch, but her bringing Brianna to meet Roger seemed strange to me as far as setting them up, what made her think it would work, or did they both set it up to get info on Gellis Duncan ? Seems like Claire is still thinking of Frank fondly at this point. Edited February 24, 2016 by GrailKing Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.