Ask the Outlanders: Questions for the Bookreaders

[bluebonnet]

Hi Book readers! I'm up to date on the show and want to read the books now, but I'm not so sure I want to get ahead of the show. Which book(s) correspond(s) to what we've seen so far? Thanks!

 

 

The first book, Outlander.  It follows that book fairly close so we're just a bit further than the halfway point.  

Edited April 19, 2015 by bluebonnet

[auntlada]

Can anyone give me a better descriptions of the genre of this series?  I've been considering picking it up but it's listed as both historical fiction and romance.  I hate romance novels. I love historical fiction.  I guess I'm just wondering if the books are full or purple prose and long winded sex scenes where no one can talk about their genitalia without strange euphemisms?

 

I remember reading something by Diana Gabaldon early on (sometime before books 4-plus) that the publisher classified Outlander as romance because it's easier to sell books, especially first books by unknown authors, when they are classified as a genre. It's not really romance, though, because it doesn't follow the (word I can't think of right now) of the romance genre. I would call it more fantasy (because of  the time travel)/historical fiction, with more historical fiction than fantasy. If it weren't for the time travel, there would be no fantasy.

 

There are sex scenes, but no euphemisms for genitalia. The only time I recall a scene like that in any of the books is when someone is reading a romance novel that was lying around.

[Dejana]

I remember reading something by Diana Gabaldon early on (sometime before books 4-plus) that the publisher classified Outlander as romance because it's easier to sell books, especially first books by unknown authors, when they are classified as a genre. It's not really romance, though, because it doesn't follow the (word I can't think of right now) of the romance genre. I would call it more fantasy (because of  the time travel)/historical fiction, with more historical fiction than fantasy. If it weren't for the time travel, there would be no fantasy.

 

There are sex scenes, but no euphemisms for genitalia. The only time I recall a scene like that in any of the books is when someone is reading a romance novel that was lying around.

 

Conventions? I see a certain amount of disappointment with the series as it goes on from fans who got into Outlander because of the Jamie/Claire love story, but then they get frustrated when the story doesn't "go" like they were expecting, as a typical romance novel would (that's not the only reason people might be dissatisfied with the series as it goes on, of course).

 

The series doesn't go the "throbbing member" route but there are a number of sex scenes throughout and they're not of the fade-to-black variety. It can be a bit much if love scenes aren't your thing.

[Nidratime]

The series doesn't go the "throbbing member" route but there are a number of sex scenes throughout and they're not of the fade-to-black variety. It can be a bit much if love scenes aren't your thing.

 

 

Wow. You have no concept of romance novels. They are not about the sex. They are primarily about the central focus on the romance, on the relationship between a couple, their struggles, and the happily ever after.

[Dejana]

Wow. You have no concept of romance novels. They are not about the sex. They are primarily about the central focus on the romance, on the relationship between a couple, their struggles, and the happily ever after.

 

All I was saying that the amount and nature of the love scenes in the books might not be to everyone's taste, especially for the original poster who mentioned not being a fan of the romance genre in general. I never said that romance novels are only about sex. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by Dejana

[Nidratime]

I think the fact that people here think that romance is all about "throbbing members" and "purple prose" evidence that they haven't been reading romance currently, if at all since the 1980's. It's a huge, huge genre and things are not what you think. The only must haves in a romance is that the central story should be about the relationship between a couple or couples and that there should be a happily ever after (HEA) of some sort -- not always what you might think, i.e., the HEA can be "suggested". The other stuff you all mention is purely up to the author's discretion -- if they so choose to go that route -- and actually laughable by romance enthusiasts.

[auntlada]

I think "conventions" is the word I wanted.

 

And, yeah, I haven't really read a romance novel since the 1980s, when I was in college. (And then, I did tend to prefer ones with good sex scenes.) I don't read them now. I don't think they're bad necessarily (although some are, as some books in all genres are bad); they're just not what I enjoy reading.

 

One of the things I recall Diana Gabaldon saying about how Outlander didn't really fit in the romance genre was that Jamie and Claire got married (and were happy about it) early on, whereas in most romance novels (at least at the time -- it was published in 1991, so not far of the 1980s), the couple did not get happily together until the end of the book -- and then readers imagined them living happily ever after.

[Nidratime]

One of the things I recall Diana Gabaldon saying about how Outlander didn't really fit in the romance genre was that Jamie and Claire got married (and were happy about it) early on, whereas in most romance novels (at least at the time -- it was published in 1991, so not far of the 1980s), the couple did not get happily together until the end of the book -- and then readers imagined them living happily ever after.

 

 

And that is not even true, which suggests that Diana, herself, is not an expert on the genre. I've read a number of romances focused on a marriage from the word go -- on a couple already married going through trials and tribulations -- marital problems, potential divorce -- or a couple who had separated, reuniting. The problem is we have people defining romance who have no idea what they're talking about. That includes the general public, critics and authors.

 

Diana's problem was that, at the time she was publishing Outlander, the romance genre, prodominately written and read by women was ghettoized by the publishing  industry, by critics and by bookstores -- not taken seriously because it was about and by women. In the meantime, books based on Star Wars and Star Trek, i.e., fantasy, science fiction, and even comics "loved by many" -- unlike romance, which apparently "nobody read or loved" and had no bookshelves devoted to them -- were actually saving the butts of the publishing industry. Romance was propping up the whole shebang, so that they could sell their "legitimate" fiction. Women and romance were doing it. You can thank us later, New York Times book critics!

 

[Nidratime]

I can't recall myself.

Why didn't Geillis remember that Claire tried to prevent her from going back in time in 1968? Is this some kind of weird time loop? Did she not recognize her?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[peacefrog]

I can't recall myself.

Why didn't Geillis remember that Claire tried to prevent her from going back in time in 1968? Is this some kind of weird time loop? Did she not recognize her?

She asks Claire if it was her in Voyager. Geillis was already going through when Claire, Roger and Bree got there. Geillis remembers what Brianna looked like from the brief glimpse. Also in MOBY we learn that Geillis went further than 1743. Can't remember exact year but I think around 7 years. So when she met Claire in 1743 a lot had happened to Geillis already.

[placate]

Diana's problem was that, at the time she was publishing Outlander, the romance genre, prodominately written and read by women was ghettoized by the publishing  industry, by critics and by bookstores -- not taken seriously because it was about and by women. In the meantime, books based on Star Wars and Star Trek, i.e., fantasy, science fiction, and even comics "loved by many" -- unlike romance, which apparently "nobody read or loved" and had no bookshelves devoted to them -- were actually saving the butts of the publishing industry. Romance was propping up the whole shebang, so that they could sell their "legitimate" fiction. Women and romance were doing it. You can thank us later, New York Times book critics!

 

Ya, I haven't read many romance novel since 2009 but I don't think I like them.  I prefer Babylon 5 novels as opposed to Star Trek or Star Wars.  I feel like I'm lacking in the experience and might read the first novel.  I have a bit of a back log but Raising Steam > Brave New World > Outlander is how I'm going to base my queue.  Just happy that throbbing manhood isn't a thing.

[Hybiscus]

Hi Book readers! I'm up to date on the show and want to read the books now, but I'm not so sure I want to get ahead of the show. Which book(s) correspond(s) to what we've seen so far? Thanks!

We're not quite 2/3 through the first book. I believe season 1 will correspond directly with book 1.

[auntlada]

And that is not even true, which suggests that Diana, herself, is not an expert on the genre. I've read a number of romances focused on a marriage from the word go -- on a couple already married going through trials and tribulations -- marital problems, potential divorce -- or a couple who had separated, reuniting. The problem is we have people defining romance who have no idea what they're talking about. That includes the general public, critics and authors.

 

Diana's problem was that, at the time she was publishing Outlander, the romance genre, prodominately written and read by women was ghettoized by the publishing  industry, by critics and by bookstores -- not taken seriously because it was about and by women. In the meantime, books based on Star Wars and Star Trek, i.e., fantasy, science fiction, and even comics "loved by many" -- unlike romance, which apparently "nobody read or loved" and had no bookshelves devoted to them -- were actually saving the butts of the publishing industry. Romance was propping up the whole shebang, so that they could sell their "legitimate" fiction. Women and romance were doing it. You can thank us later, New York Times book critics!

The not getting married or being happy together was certainly true for all the romance books I read in the 80s, particularly Harlequins, and there were tons of shelves in bookstores and grocery stores devoted to them. It was hard to find anything besides romance or crime thriller (or boring nonfiction) in the stores I went to. If romance was saving the publishing industry, the books must have been on shelves somewhere because we weren't buying online then.

[Nidratime]

The not getting married or being happy together was certainly true for all the romance books I read in the 80s, particularly Harlequins, and there were tons of shelves in bookstores and grocery stores devoted to them. It was hard to find anything besides romance or crime thriller (or boring nonfiction) in the stores I went to. If romance was saving the publishing industry, the books must have been on shelves somewhere because we weren't buying online then.

 

I was being sarcastic -- although today, with the death of major bricks and mortar booksellers -- it is harder to find romance on the shelves. Many of your "hip" independent bookstores won't carry romance because they look down upon it and the same is true of used bookstores, which consider themselves "hip" and deep. I'm *not* talking about used bookstores in small towns or library sales/library bookstores. (Living in a big city, though, I have had a harder time finding romance in independent sellers' stores.) This may be changing, however. There's been an attempt lately by newspaper critics to cover the books, book festivals to include the genre, and independent bookstores to take up the slack left after places like Borders, Waldenbooks, etc. went belly up. Plus, a big push back by readers and authors, demanding products they couldn't get formerly through these sources.

[Cubisa]

They are still in Outlander. Each season will be one book, although there are rumors that some of Dragonfly in Amber will appear at the end of this season.

[NoNeinNyet]

The first season is only going to cover the first book.

[Friendly Lurker]

What's the line that 

they're talking about in the spoiler thread? Something About Captain Randall's brother?

Spoilering because it's a question about a spoiler. If you read the spoiler thread then you're all good to click.  

[CatMack]

Big spoilers for the end of book 1, slight book 2 spoilers, slight show spoilers

 

When Randall is raping Jamie, he at one point calls out the name Alex (and asks Jamie to tell him he loves him).  If I recall correctly, when Claire hears this she remembers Randall has a brother named Alexander (from Frank's family tree research).  In the second book we do meet his brother Alex.  Randall seems to genuinely love his brother, but that odd moment, calling out the name during sex, is never really revisted.  He doesn't seem to have any incestuous feelings for his brother, and while Alex is a common name no other Alex is ever connected to the line either.  So I honestly don't care that they apparently cut it for the show.  It raises questions that Diana never answered.

[Friendly Lurker]

Perfect answer, thank you! I'd lost interest in the books by that point so only vaguely recall events, and certainly don't recall any dialogue.

[Nidratime]

Was there a prisoner named

Alex

?

[bluebonnet]

Was there a prisoner named

Alex

?

Yes.  

Alex McGreggor, the owner of the bible Jamie carries around.  Alex hanged himself after something happened with Randall (likely raped).  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I saw this in one of the book threads,  MOBY? What is MOBY? Eh?

[CatMack]

It's a short version of the 8th book title, Written in My Own Heart's Blood.  I don't really remember why that's the abbreviation, since it's not a straight acronym. 

[Athena]

I saw this in one of the book threads,  MOBY? What is MOBY? Eh?

 

 

It's a short version of the 8th book title, Written in My Own Heart's Blood.  I don't really remember why that's the abbreviation, since it's not a straight acronym. 

 

According to this blog, it's a play on the pronunciation of the actual abbreviation MOHB -> MOBY.

[GHScorpiosRule]

According to this blog, it's a play on the pronunciation of the actual abbreviation MOHB -> MOBY.

 

 

Ah, thanks.

 

Okay, i have another question---

Do Laoghaire and Jamie D-i-v-o-r-c-e, or does she DIE?

I don't mind knowing. Just something to look forward to for me. Thanks!

Edited May 11, 2015 by Athena
Spoiler tags as this is not in the TV show.

[bluebonnet]

Err, realized I was wrong and CatMack did a much better job explaining.  

Edited May 11, 2015 by bluebonnet

[CatMack]

It's not really a divorce, because Claire being alive means it was never a legal marriage with Laoghaire.  That's why it's so complicated.  I think Ned says something to the affect that Laoghaire has a serious legal claim against Jamie and could make his life pretty hard for 'tricking' her into a fake marriage.  Even though Jamie legitimately thought Claire was gone for good (that she was "dead" as far as the rest of the 17th century was concerned) he was technically a bigamist.  That's why they end up being pretty generous with Laoghaire and the money, so that aside from receiving payments she's contractually bound to leave them alone from now on.  

Edited May 11, 2015 by CatMack

[GHScorpiosRule]

Meep! Sorry for not spoiler tagging! I hope I didn't ruin it for anyone.

 

And thanks CatMack for answering.  I suppose Gabaldon didn't bring up the fact that

Claire could be a bigamist, when she married Jamie due to her being married to Frank? Or it was a non-issue since only Jamie knows about Frank?

  I mean why provide more

ammunition for the hosebeast

, ye ken?

Edited May 12, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[bluebonnet]

Meep! Sorry for not spoiler tagging! I hope I didn't ruin it for anyone.

 

And thanks CatMack for answering.  I suppose Gabaldon didn't bring up the fact that

Claire could be a bigamist, when she married Jamie due to her being married to Frank? Or it was a non-issue since only Jamie knows about Frank?

  I mean why provide more

ammunition for the hosebeast

, ye ken?

The only reason it became an issue for Jamie is because Claire returned to his time.  If Jamie had somehow arrived in the 1950's or Frank in the 1750's, then perhaps the bigamy claim would be a thing.  Both Jamie and Claire had every reason to think they wouldn't see one another again, especially after nearly two decades.  

 

I don't really get the hosebeast thing.  Laoghaire is just sort of pitiful and her situation is sad.  

[auntlada]

Meep! Sorry for not spoiler tagging! I hope I didn't ruin it for anyone.

 

And thanks CatMack for answering.  I suppose Gabaldon didn't bring up the fact that

Claire could be a bigamist, when she married Jamie due to her being married to Frank? Or it was a non-issue since only Jamie knows about Frank?

  I mean why provide more

ammunition for the hosebeast

, ye ken?

 

Claire discusses it with one of the monks in book 2 (I think -- maybe book 1? -- I'm not sure where the dividing point is between those books). He says that basically, she isn't a bigamist because when she is married to Jamie, Frank hasn't been born, and when she is married to Frank, Jamie is dead. Not in so many words, but that's the gist of it. He says her marriage to Jamie technically predates her marriage to Frank, even though it doesn't for her.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Claire discusses it with one of the monks in book 2 (I think -- maybe book 1? -- I'm not sure where the dividing point is between those books). He says that basically, she isn't a bigamist because when she is married to Jamie, Frank hasn't been born, and when she is married to Frank, Jamie is dead. Not in so many words, but that's the gist of it. He says her marriage to Jamie technically predates her marriage to Frank, even though it doesn't for her.

 

D'OH! Right, that's right. I should have remembered that, considering I'd just finished Outlander last week. Jeebus.

[Liser78]

I just wanted to post in this thread to bring it up top; to remind the non-book readers that may be struggling to decide if they are going to come back for season two (please do!) that there are people here that would love to answer questions without spoiling everything.  If we could sooth some fears....

[Nidratime]

There've been a number of questions I've wanted to answer or comments I wanted to expand upon in the "no book reading" thread, so I would love it if someone would give me an excuse to do so here! ;-)

[AD55]

I think this is the right place to post this, but let me know if it should be in the season 1 or the books vs show thread. I'm curious if folks who have read The Exile believe the TV show did a good job of representing Jamie's POV in The Reckoning and the final two episodes.

Edited June 9, 2015 by AD55

[zoey1996]

I just re-watched Episode 101, Sassenach, and have a question.  Claire narrates that she intends to keep using her maiden name, Beauchamp, because if she's to be ransomed, she doesn't want to be returned to Frank.  Did she really mean Jack?  Was it in the book?  Because otherwise, to me it doesn't make sense that she wouldn't want, at that point in the plot, to return to Frank in 1945.  Thanks!

[ElsieH]

She's not convinced at that point that she is in the past. She just thinks she has encountered trouble, and doesn't want her husband Frank to get hurt because she has no idea yet that he is 200 years away.

Edited June 9, 2015 by ElsieH

[zoey1996]

She's not convinced at that point that she is in the past. She just thinks she has encountered trouble, and doesn't want her husband Frank to get hurt because she has no idea yet that he is 200 years away.

Makes sense now - thanks, Elsie!

[Summer]

Long time lurker, first time poster, non book reader here.  I have a question about the end of Dragonfly in Amber and don't mind being spoiled. 

My understanding is at the end of the book Jamie sends a pregnant Claire back through the stones to protect her and the baby.  I'm curious as to the thought process as they both know what will happen at Culledon why can't they hide in a safe place until the battle is over? Why are they so sure Jamie will die at Culledon? 

 

LOVE the insight of the book readers!

 

Thanks!! 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Athena
Spoiler tags.

[Nidratime]

I read Dragonfly in Amber a long time ago so I'm sure there's more others can add to this answer, but I can give you part of it.

 

As you know from the TV series, Claire is pregnant right now. Things don't go so well with that pregnancy. When she gets pregnant again, they are very fearful she will have another difficult pregnancy and want to give her all the modern medical advantages that she'd have in her own time. Plus, since Jamie is going to Culloden, they don't know what's going to happen to him. They know it's going to be a massacre and they aren't sure he will survive.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Summer:

 

What Nidratime said. I recently re-read Dragonfly In Amber, and

Jamie doesn't think Claire will be able to come back, and he fully expects to die at Culloden; if not there, then probably he thought he'd be executed for killing Dougal, which was self-defense, but the witness only came in at the end.

 At least, that's how I read it. Gabaldon is the Queen of Ambiguity in some things.

[Summer]

Ah, makes sense!  Thanks so much! 

[WatchrTina]

 

I'm curious if folks who have read The Exile believe the TV show did a good job of representing Jamie's POV in The Reckoning and the final two episodes.

The Exile is Diana's graphic novel that re-tells the Outlander story from other points of view -- not just Jamie's.  It basically has a 3rd-person omniscient narrator (to the extent that you can do that in a graphic novel).  It covers Jamie's return to Scotland (Murtagh meets him at the coast) through Claire's choice at the stones.  So no Wentworth episode in The Exile.

 

As for "The Reckoning" the confrontation between Jamie & Claire on the way back from Ft. William is skipped over in The Exile.  They go straight to the tavern and, it being a graphic novel, that conversation is shortened as well.  So I don't really have a good answer for you  I don't think the The Exile actually adds anything to your understanding of Jamie's motivation except for one point.  In The Exile, after Claire goes up to bed, Dougal tells Jamie to bring her back down so that he (Dougal) can punish her.  Jamie refuses, saying if she's to be punished it's his job as husband.  I'm glad they left that out of the TV show.  I prefer the idea that Jamie punishes Claire because he thinks that's the correct, honorable thing to do.  He's trying to do his duty as husband and see justice done AND ensure that the men will continue to help him protect Claire.  I prefer that motivation to his doing it because if he doesn't, Dougal will.

 

I'm glad I read The Exile but I can't recommend it.  The artist's renditions of the characters are off-putting much of the time and the story is really too complex to be effectively conveyed in comic book form with voice and thought bubbles.  There is also a side-plot that is revealed because you see Murtagh's point of view and I hate that plot so I'm happy it doesn't exist in the show or the big book.

[AD55]

In The Exile, after Claire goes up to bed, Dougal tells Jamie to bring her back down so that he (Dougal) can punish her.  Jamie refuses, saying if she's to be punished it's his job as husband.  I'm glad they left that out of the TV show.  I prefer the idea that Jamie punishes Claire because he thinks that's the correct, honorable thing to do.  He's trying to do his duty as husband and see justice done AND ensure that the men will continue to help him protect Claire.  I prefer that motivation to his doing it because if he doesn't, Dougal will.

Thanks! I see your point -- it's almost more despicable if Jamie beats Claire only so that Dougal won't. If that had been his only motivation, he should just have told Dougal to get stuffed.

[rhiamon]

(Since I'm a bit paranoid about spoilers myself, apologies in advance if I overuse the tags a bit!)

 

I've just rewatched e11 The Devil's Mark

and for the first time I noticed during Claire's confession scene in the woods that it's now spring! Judging from the greenery, quite late in spring as well - I would have guessed late May time or so. The first time I watched S1, I got the impression things happened rather quickly following the return to Leoch, but now I'm not so sure. When Jamie & Claire met Munro in Both Sides Now, Jamie says they've been married two days. Later, he tells Claire that it will be Yuletide when they return to Leoch (I'm assuming the detour to Fort William didn't delay them overmuch, and that it was indeed Christmastime when they got back). Did the events in The Reckoning happen over much longer than the episode made it seem? Or did By the Pricking of my Thumbs and The Devil's Mark happen after a bit of a time jump I never noticed? Basically, how much time did Claire and Jamie spend at Leoch before Jamie's exile and Claire's arrest?

Edited June 20, 2015 by rhiamon

[chocolatetruffle]

(Since I'm a bit paranoid about spoilers myself, apologies in advance if I overuse the tags a bit!)

 

I've just rewatched e11 The Devil's Mark

and for the first time I noticed during Claire's confession scene in the woods that it's now spring! Judging from the greenery, quite late in spring as well - I would have guessed late May time or so. The first time I watched S1, I got the impression things happened rather quickly following the return to Leoch, but now I'm not so sure. When Jamie & Claire met Munro in Both Sides Now, Jamie says they've been married two days. Later, he tells Claire that it will be Yuletide when they return to Leoch (I'm assuming the detour to Fort William didn't delay them overmuch, and that it was indeed Christmastime when they got back). Did the events in The Reckoning happen over much longer than the episode made it seem? Or did By the Pricking of my Thumbs and The Devil's Mark happen after a bit of a time jump I never noticed? Basically, how much time did Claire and Jamie spend at Leoch before Jamie's exile and Claire's arrest?

 

Basically, in the show we don't know how long Jamie & Claire were at Leoch.  She says to Father Anselm in Ransom that 8 months ago she fell through the stones, which was just after Halloween.  But from what we've seen, based on Jamie's Yuletide comment, she's been there a lot less than that.  So it could be that the amount of time that passed between Jamie's banishment with Dougal and the witch trial was a month or more - that's the only way the timeline could work.  

 

In the books, 

Claire & Jamie were at Leoch together for a lot longer. They were also at Lallybroch a lot longer than they were in the show.

.  

 

Basically, the timeline in the show was really compressed - making her "8 months" comment kind of a WTF moment.

[riverheightsnancy]

Ok, I just found out about the show (really loving it) and watched the entire season 1 in about 2 weeks and I am spoilered for season 2 already, so, I am dying to know the following: will Claire ever go back to Frank via the stones? Why or why not? I also wondered if Frank ever searched for her name in the historical records and "found" her listed and somehow figured out that is what happened? Also, why is it that the media for season 2 stated

that they jump ahead 20 years, is the book like that too? Is this one written as flashbacks so that the actors can maintain some of their ages and explain what happened?

. Personally, I am not looking forward to that. 

[WatchrTina]

Okay I'm going to answer your question but these are MAJOR spoilers.  

Yes, Claire goes back through the stones. She goes because despite their best efforts, history unfold just as it did in Claire's history books with the Jacobite rising of 1745 heading for a disastrous conclusion at Culloden. Jamie is caught up in the conflict in a way that is too complicated to explain but he's trapped -- he has to fight at Culloden. He tells Claire to go through the stones -- back to her old life -- and Claire refuses. She wants to stay with him knowing they will probably die together. Jamie then points out that she bears all the signs of being pregnant. He recognizes them from Claire's first unsuccessful pregnancy (the one that begins at the end of Season 1.) He begs her to go back and save his child. Claire goes. Frank takes her back, even though she is pregnant with another man's child. They are not happy together but Frank loves the child and raises it as his own. Claire goes back to school and is trained as a doctor, a surgeon. Then, 20 years later, after Frank passes away, Claire discovers that Jamie didn't die at Culloden as she had believed all those years. So she explains to her daughter who her real father was (that conversation does not go well) and then she goes back through the stones to look for Jamie.  She finds him.  It is epic. The reunion scene is one of my favorites in all 8 books.

Edited June 21, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Liser78]

Also, about Frank

the bookreader never knows either way how much Frank researches the history, or if he found Claire or not in his history books.  Knowing Frank, I believe he would have in the 20 years he had to think about it. And we are given little snipets in later books, but we never know for sure because there are no books from Franks POV.  I don't really care for Frank, I tend to think he did know as much as he could have possibly found out without asking Claire for more details AND he kept the information secret because he is/was a big jealous jerk.

[Starla]

Lame question here.... but can someone tell me how to add a spoiler tag? I don't see a button for it and the

shortcode doesn't give me the nice red tag. Thanks.

[Petunia846]

Type in what you want to say, highlight what you want to be hidden and then click the

red symbol

that's the last button in the reply box. It's like the one for crossing something out, a red circle with a line through it. When you click on it you should get a pop up box and you can just hit okay.