Ask the Outlanders: Questions for the Bookreaders

[toolazy]

15 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

 

  Hide contents

 

This happens pretty much the same in the book as it was on the show. There's a lot of speculation who the ghost is--I assume it's Jamie--but Diana has said she'll reveal that in the final book.

 

Diana has said that the ghost is most definitely Jamie and that she will reveal the circumstances that brought him there at the end of the final book.  Just the thought of learning how that came about makes me want to cry, because it is almost certainly sad.

[NeenerNeener]

I'm doing a re-watch of the show prior to the Season 3 start, and I'm hating TV Brianna all over again. It's been ages since I read the books, and I don't remember wanting to slap Book Brianna like I do TV Brianna. Was early Book Brianna this much of a brat?  Also, I don't think I like the actress they hired, so that doesn't help.

[DittyDotDot]

37 minutes ago, NeenerNeener said:

I'm doing a re-watch of the show prior to the Season 3 start, and I'm hating TV Brianna all over again. It's been ages since I read the books, and I don't remember wanting to slap Book Brianna like I do TV Brianna. Was early Book Brianna this much of a brat?  Also, I don't think I like the actress they hired, so that doesn't help.

It probably comes down to perception, but,

Spoiler

yes, IMO, book Brianna was a somewhat bratty teenage know-it-all in the books. She grows out of it somewhat, but I think Brianna is supposed to be a child of that generation who emerged in the wake of WWII; the generation who grew up with electricity and indoor plumbing and a lot more options than their parents ever dreamed of at their age. I think her entitled and somewhat arrogant attitude is a purposeful contrast to the children like wee Ian who were raised in the wake of Culloden.

Personally, I didn't have an issue with the actress or the portrayal on the show as much as I did with Brianna in the books. Brianna is just such a thin character in the books until around book 7 or 8, IMO.

[nitrofishblue]

I just recently became acquainted with the show. I have never read any of the books. Until last month I had no access to Starz so I never saw any shows. Well, I corrected that fact the past week. I binge watched the first two seasons with the On Demand feature. I finished season one then watched the season three first episodes then just completed season two. My husband was pissed at me because I watched it in the kitchen leaving him to watch his Mountain Men in the living room. I really enjoy shows like Outlander. I will be honest and say that Game of Thrones is still number one but now Outlander is number two. I have a long wait for Game of Thrones to be back and I now have a show I can really enjoy in its absence. I see why folks aren't thrilled with the character Brianna .

[mjforty]

Although to be fair to Brianna, we do come upon her at a very difficult time in her life.  Her father has just died and then shortly after that she finds out that he's not her biological father and that her actual biological father is some Scot from the 18th century.  That's a lot to take in for anyone and Brianna is only 18 or 19 years old.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, mjforty said:

Although to be fair to Brianna, we do come upon her at a very difficult time in her life.  Her father has just died and then shortly after that she finds out that he's not her biological father and that her actual biological father is some Scot from the 18th century.  That's a lot to take in for anyone and Brianna is only 18 or 19 years old.  

Two years had passed when she learns Frank wasn't her biological father. She's 20 when we first met her in Dragonfly in Amber and the in season two. She was 18 when Frank died. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[mjforty]

It's still only two years since her dad died when she finds out he's not her biological father.  It's not that long a period of time. 

[WInterfalls]

On 9/4/2017 at 3:25 PM, NeenerNeener said:

I'm doing a re-watch of the show prior to the Season 3 start, and I'm hating TV Brianna all over again. It's been ages since I read the books, and I don't remember wanting to slap Book Brianna like I do TV Brianna. Was early Book Brianna this much of a brat?  Also, I don't think I like the actress they hired, so that doesn't help.

Yeah she was. When Claire finished telling the story Brianna grabbed a fireplace poker and threw it through a window. So I think she might be better on the show. On the other hand a friend of mind who had a very similar conversation with her mother as an adult (though without the time travel) found Brianna's brattiness way worse on the show. But I honestly think it's because she was too close to it and seeing it can be more visceral than reading it. 

[Athena]

As a reminder this it the Ask the Outlanders thread for questions and answers on the books. If you wish to continue discussion of any topics here, please do so in episode, speculation, or season threads. Thank you. 

[Hybiscus]

Does Lord John Grey ever learn of Jamie's rape by Black Jack Randall.  I know in the books he does see Jamie's scars because in Voyager (which is as far as I've read) Jamie is flogged for the tartan.  But does he ever learn how Jamie got the scars (if it's in Voyager, I don't remember) and the rest of the story?

[WatchrTina]

9 hours ago, Hybiscus said:

Does Lord John Grey ever learn of Jamie's rape by Black Jack Randall.

The short answer is no.  Neither Jamie nor Claire has ever told John about that episode (at least not in the first 8 books.)  But John does come to suspect that Jamie has been raped.  There is an episode in one of the Lord John books (I think it's Brotherhood of the Blade) where Jamie and John have a really horrible conversation that ends with Jamie putting his fist into the wall just inches from John's face.  The context and content of that argument lead John to suspect something of what happened to Jamie, though of course he doesn't know any details nor does he know who was the culprit.

As for Jamie's scars, no I don't recall John and Jamie ever having a conversation about them.  John would not have seen them until that awful day in book 3

Spoiler

when he had to have Jamie flogged

and after that, the topic of floggings was probably one John carefully avoided with Jamie.

Edited September 29, 2017 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

I'm a book reader, but I can't recall if we ever receive an explanation for the following:

1. Why does the earl of Ellsmere not flip out before Geneva gives birth" He had at least 5 or 6 months when he knew Geneva was pregnant with another man's child.

2. Why was Geillis able to choose her landing zone in the past?

 

Thanks!

[DittyDotDot]

51 minutes ago, AD55 said:

1. Why does the earl of Ellsmere not flip out before Geneva gives birth" He had at least 5 or 6 months when he knew Geneva was pregnant with another man's child.

Spoiler

As I recall, the Earl had been to bed with Geneva, but was incapable of doing the actual deed. I believe, at first, he didn't say anything publicly because he didn't want that knowledge to get around. But, with Geneva dead, he could then sully her reputation without fear of Geneva sullying his own.

 

51 minutes ago, AD55 said:

2. Why was Geillis able to choose her landing zone in the past?

Spoiler

We still don't know exactly how the stones work, but, it seems you can control where you land by concentrating and thinking of a person or place you want to go to. Geillis also used a blood sacrifice--which I'm not sure does anything--and gem stones to protect herself, but I'm not sure that had anything to do with where she landed as much as surviving the trip.

Edited October 2, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Nidratime]

I'm assuming this is a spoilery thread.... Okay, I hid my answer....

Spoiler

 

1.) I believe Ellsmere *does* flip out earlier. When Jamie and the Dunsanys go to Ellesmere's estate to tend to Geneva during the birth, Jamie overhears talk from the servants that Geneva and her husband had been battling with each other for months. But, why he didn't try to harm her or call her out, publicly, I don't know.

2.) You recall, in the season two finale, that Claire discovered Geillis'/Gillian's notebook when she visited Gillian's husband who was ultimately killed by Gillian before she went through the stones. That notebook had research that Gillian had done on time travel which purportedly helped her to figure out how to steer herself to a certain period of time -- via different methods she believed might do the trick, like sacrifice, gems, whatever. She wanted to get to the time period in Scotland before the final Jacobite rebellion in order to try and influence the outcome. Claire, on the other hand, just went accidentally and so ended up about 200 years in the past. Remember, when Claire returned to the 1940's, she was wearing a gemstone which ended up burning up during the transition.

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Nidratime

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I'm assuming this is a spoilery thread, so we don't need to hide anything.

It is a spoilery thread, but as per the instructions at the start of the thread, we're supposed to spoiler tag our responses so that non-book readers can decide what exactly they want to be spoiled on or not. 

[AD55]

Thanks, DittyDotDot and Nidratime.

Spoiler

I remembered that Geillis had done a lot of research, and I remembered the part about thinking of someone, but I thought it needed to be someone you knew and cared about, which is why another character, whom I won't name since there are no double spoiler tags, was upset when a particular person followed them through the stones.

The entire Geneva story line is so contrived. I keep hoping I've forgotten something that will make the actions of the characters make sense, but that thing doesn't seem to exist.

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, AD55 said:

Thanks, DittyDotDot and Nidratime.

  Reveal hidden contents

I remembered that Geillis had done a lot of research, and I remembered the part about thinking of someone, but I thought it needed to be someone you knew and cared about, which is why another character, whom I won't name since there are no double spoiler tags, was upset when a particular person followed them through the stones.

The entire Geneva story line is so contrived. I keep hoping I've forgotten something that will make the actions of the characters make sense, but that thing doesn't seem to exist.

Well, in the book, Geneva threatened Jenny and Ian.  So I guess that was supposed to make sense?  Also, it had been another how many years for Jamie?  Maybe he just wanted to...

[WatchrTina]

10 hours ago, AD55 said:

1. Why does the earl of Ellsmere not flip out before Geneva gives birth" He had at least 5 or 6 months when he knew Geneva was pregnant with another man's child.

What I'm about to say is about history, not from the books, so I don't think most of it needs to be masked.  Disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer or British -- I just read a lot of historical fiction. 

 From what I understand, in this period a child born to a married couple was legitimate in the eyes of the law, full stop.  It didn't matter if he came six months after the wedding.  It didn't matter if he looked NOTHING like the father.  In the time before DNA tests all you had was common law and common law served, in part, to put a check on the worst aspects of human nature.  It's not hard to imagine a disgruntled father deciding to disinherit a disappointing child (or punish a wife he now wants to discard) by claiming that the mother was unfaithful and that "her" children were not his.  It was in the best interest of society to set up laws to prevent a husband from being able to say "I did not father that child" because it would be impossible to prove who was telling the truth.  You get a sense of this in season 1 when

Spoiler

Colum reminds Dougal that any child that Gellis Duncan bears will be acknowledged as her late husband's son.  Dougal would never be able to claim him (any more than Dougal could claim Hamish.)  

I'm not sure how this would play out for, say, a ship's captain who returned from the sea after a year's absence to find a pregnant wife.  I presume HE might be able to declare the child a bastard but in the case of Lord Ellesmere,

Spoiler

since he was cohabiting with his wife when she became pregnant, his hands are tied.  He cannot strip her child of its rights as his legal heir.   Even if he kicked Geneva out of the house and she returned to her parents' home, her child would still be his heir in the eyes of the law.  To him that's the worst possible outcome -- his wealth passing into the hands of a child that has not even been raised by him.  I think that's why he won't let the child go and why he is so infuriated by its very existence -- infuriated to a murderous degree.  I also assumed there were HUGE fights between him and Geneva about the baby before it was born but that he didn't kick her out of the house because it would cause a humiliating scandal (his claim of never having consummated his marriage would become common knowledge.)

Edited October 3, 2017 by WatchrTina

[theschnauzers]

The law in Great Britain at the time, which carried over to the United States after independence as part of the common law, was that a child born in wedlock was the lawful child of both married man and woman in the marriage.

That is why William Ransom is the Ninth Earl of Ellsmire in both the books and on TV. They have it exactly right. The fact that Jamie is the biological father had no legal status in the courts. And Lady Isobel, presumably is William,s godmother which would be how she came to be his stepmother, and her marriage to Lord John made him his stepfather.

[AD55]

On 10/2/2017 at 10:08 PM, theschnauzers said:

The law in Great Britain at the time, which carried over to the United States after independence as part of the common law, was that a child born in wedlock was the lawful child of both married man and woman in the marriage.

That is why William Ransom is the Ninth Earl of Ellsmire in both the books and on TV. They have it exactly right. The fact that Jamie is the biological father had no legal status in the courts. And Lady Isobel, presumably is William,s godmother which would be how she came to be his stepmother, and her marriage to Lord John made him his stepfather.

Spoiler

 

I know the ins and outs of the law of succession, but the earl's rage doesn't make sense to me since he's had several months to get used to the idea he had a cuckoo in his nest.  I buy that he might have given Geneva a hard time off stage. He knew he would have to acknowledge the child, which no doubt stuck in his craw. Since an earl can only be tried in the House of Lords, perhaps he was confident that he could get away with stabbing his son to death (it happened accidentally while he was cleaning the knife!), but I still think it was weird he would choose that instead of acknowledging the child. Again, he had months to think this through, so I don't buy his flying into a rage at his birth. Perhaps it was because he was hoping for a daughter, who wouldn't be able to inherit his title and lands. I kind of don't buy that either. It was common knowledge that a lot of the heirs in England were not their fathers' sons, even if it wasn't talked about in polite company. Just my opinion, but I think it's more likely that he would have sucked it up in order to have an heir. After all, who needs the aggravation of having Lord Dunsany accuse him of murder? As you say, he couldn't have used William's parentage as an excuse for a crime of passion, since William was legally his. For the same reason, there was no need for him to threaten the child so the Dunsanys wouldn't have him. They had absolutely no legal claim to William.

I'll stop trying to make sense of this. I've always thought the sole purpose of the Geneva plot was to give Jamie a son. So we have the unlikely blackmail plot (we can't have Jamie having a child with a wife who is not Claire); Geneva and Ellsmere both have to die, so Jamie can have access to his kid; and John has to marry Isabel to put Jamie's mind at ease and ensure that Jamie will continue to have some connection to William. John's marrying Isabel is the most likely of the outcomes, since he would do that for Jamie, but I have to do a lot of hand waving for everything that comes before.  I like William, so I'm glad he's around. Plotting isn't DG's strong suit, but there's plenty of other stuff in her books  to keep me reading. And now I'm completely OT. Sorry Athena!

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by AD55

[koboldin]

Question:

Spoiler

when Roger, Claire, and the kids return to the future, are we given any sense of the state of Fraser's Ridge? I can't remember anything other than dipping into the gold, but it seems bizarre they wouldn't want to know how the settlement was doing. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[WatchrTina]

Good question, for which I don't have a good answer.

Spoiler

 I don't recall them ever talking about Fraser's Ridge once they get back to the 20th century. They go straight to Joe in Boston, deal with the baby's medical issue, and then they end up back at Lallybroch, in Scotland.  It's only the late 60's / early 70's right?  So there is no internet or Google Earth with which to easily check out what has become of the property.  But it does seem like rather a glaring hole in the narrative that they never check out what has become of Jamie & Claire's settlement.

[koboldin]

7 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Good question, for which I don't have a good answer.

  Hide contents

 I don't recall them ever talking about Fraser's Ridge once they get back to the 20th century. They go straight to Joe in Boston, deal with the baby's medical issue, and then they end up back at Lallybroch, in Scotland.  It's only the late 60's / early 70's right?  So there is no internet or Google Earth with which to easily check out what has become of the property.  But it does seem like rather a glaring hole in the narrative that they never check out what has become of Jamie & Claire's settlement.

Spoiler

Thank you for your quick contribution! I thought that had to be the case. And yes, no Google in 1978 :-)

Edited October 6, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 hours ago, koboldin said:

Question:

Spoiler

when Roger, Claire, and the kids return to the future, are we given any sense of the state of Fraser's Ridge? I can't remember anything other than dipping into the gold, but it seems bizarre they wouldn't want to know how the settlement was doing. 

 

Spoiler

I think you mean Roger and Bree. Claire remained on Fraser’s Ridge with Jamie.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[DittyDotDot]

9 hours ago, koboldin said:

Spoiler

Question: when Roger, Claire, and the kids return to the future, are we given any sense of the state of Fraser's Ridge? I can't remember anything other than dipping into the gold, but it seems bizarre they wouldn't want to know how the settlement was doing. 

 

Yes and no:

Spoiler

I believe they didn't look up the state of Fraser's Ridge in history because, if I recall properly, they decided they wouldn't live in the past and it would be better for everyone, especially the kids, if they didn't talk about it or dwell on where they came from and moved forward. But, they did get those letters from Claire and Jamie that detailed their lives in the past. I can't remember if they shared them with the kids or not, but it seems like they only opened one here and there and maybe hadn't read them all at the time Jem was kidnapped... . 

Edited October 6, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Athena]

Anything not on the show must be spoiler tagged. Posts have been edited. Thank you.

[GHScorpiosRule]

27 minutes ago, Athena said:

Anything not on the show must be spoiler tagged. Posts have been edited. Thank you.

Yikes! Sorry @Athena!!!

[koboldin]

Apologies! I'll spoiler tag in the future!

Spoiler

Yes, I meant Brianna and Roger. :-)

 

see, I feel a lot of the incurious impulses we find in the later books is really a result of lazy plotting. It returns to the need to reach a story point, not from the developed personalities of the characters. 

[lianau]

5 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yes and no:

  Hide contents

I believe they didn't look up the state of Fraser's Ridge in history because, if I recall properly, they decided they wouldn't live in the past and it would be better for everyone, especially the kids, if they didn't talk about it or dwell on where they came from and moved forward. But, they did get those letters from Claire and Jamie that detailed their lives in the past. I can't remember if they shared them with the kids or not, but it seems like they only opened one here and there and maybe hadn't read them all at the time Jem was kidnapped... . 

About the kids

Spoiler

I'd love to know how Jemmy handles this . Born in the 18th century , old enough to remember that , transported into the 20th century , getting used to that and then back to the 18th century . Mandy is probably young enough to forget the 20th century if they stay long enough in the past 

[mjforty]

On 10/3/2017 at 8:46 PM, AD55 said:

  Hide contents

 

I know the ins and outs of the law of succession, but the earl's rage doesn't make sense to me since he's had several months to get used to the idea he had a cuckoo in his nest.  I buy that he might have given Geneva a hard time off stage. He knew he would have to acknowledge the child, which no doubt stuck in his craw. Since an earl can only be tried in the House of Lords, perhaps he was confident that he could get away with stabbing his son to death (it happened accidentally while he was cleaning the knife!), but I still think it was weird he would choose that instead of acknowledging the child. Again, he had months to think this through, so I don't buy his flying into a rage at his birth. Perhaps it was because he was hoping for a daughter, who wouldn't be able to inherit his title and lands. I kind of don't buy that either. It was common knowledge that a lot of the heirs in England were not their fathers' sons, even if it wasn't talked about in polite company. Just my opinion, but I think it's more likely that he would have sucked it up in order to have an heir. After all, who needs the aggravation of having Lord Dunsany accuse him of murder? As you say, he couldn't have used William's parentage as an excuse for a crime of passion, since William was legally his. For the same reason, there was no need for him to threaten the child so the Dunsanys wouldn't have him. They had absolutely no legal claim to William.

I'll stop trying to make sense of this. I've always thought the sole purpose of the Geneva plot was to give Jamie a son. So we have the unlikely blackmail plot (we can't have Jamie having a child with a wife who is not Claire); Geneva and Ellsmere both have to die, so Jamie can have access to his kid; and John has to marry Isabel to put Jamie's mind at ease and ensure that Jamie will continue to have some connection to William. John's marrying Isabel is the most likely of the outcomes, since he would do that for Jamie, but I have to do a lot of hand waving for everything that comes before.  I like William, so I'm glad he's around. Plotting isn't DG's strong suit, but there's plenty of other stuff in her books  to keep me reading. And now I'm completely OT. Sorry Athena!

 

If I’m remembering correctly, Ellesmere and Geneva do have huge arguments during her pregnancy.  It’s alluded to in the book.  Ellesmere’s hands are tied somewhat because Geneva’s from a pretty influential family.  Ellesmere can’t just accuse Geneva of infidelity without any proof without provoking retribution from Geneva’s family.  And he has no proof.  Sure, he can say he and Geneva never consummated their marriage but how does he prove it?  And all Geneva has to say is that it’s not true.  He said/she said.  Nothing changes and he now has an influential family as his enemy.  I think once the babie’s born and Geneva dies, he goes a bit crazy.  In his mind, his whoring wife is dead and his heir is not of his blood.  It’s too much for him to bear.  Also, remember in the book, he goes to,throw William out the window, not stab him with a knife.  He can always claim it was an accident, that he meant to fake the throw and the baby slipped out of his hands.  Since it took a lot to get a conviction of a peer, he probably would have gotten away with it.

[DittyDotDot]

From the Spoilers thread....

12 minutes ago, koboldin said:

  Hide contents

Was it ever rationally explained in the books why - WHY - the Fraser/Murray/Silkie stash of coins and stones was left on such a dangerous and far away island instead of being hidden in a secure but less deadly location??? I know, it's for plot, but come on! It's just so ... ugh. 

Hidden in spoiler just in case.

Yes, but I'm not sure it actually makes total sense...

Spoiler

It is explained why it's there--if I remember right, Geillis was trying to get it to Dougal for the war effort, but...shit, I can't remember now why it was left on that island...someone else help me out here. I'm sorry, there is an explanation, but I'd need to reread the Geillis portions of Jamaica to refresh my memory.

But I'm sure it was more because Diana had an image of this seal island more than anything.

[koboldin]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

From the Spoilers thread....

Yes, but I'm not sure it actually makes total sense...

  Hide contents

It is explained why it's there--if I remember right, Geillis was trying to get it to Dougal for the war effort, but...shit, I can't remember now why it was left on that island...someone else help me out here. I'm sorry, there is an explanation, but I'd need to reread the Geillis portions of Jamaica to refresh my memory.

But I'm sure it was more because Diana had an image of this seal island more than anything.

Spoiler

Oh! I should clarify - I meant after Ian retrieved some post Jamie's Ardsmuir time. Why leave it there when they KNEW someone else who wasn't them did, at some point, know there was a treasure on the island?

[DittyDotDot]

27 minutes ago, koboldin said:

  Hide contents

Oh! I should clarify - I meant after Ian retrieved some post Jamie's Ardsmuir time. Why leave it there when they KNEW someone else who wasn't them did, at some point, know there was a treasure on the island?

Ooooh! Well yes, there was an explanation for that as well, not an extremely strong one there either, IMO:

Spoiler

Basically, it wasn't their treasure and they didn't feel right about using it, but figured it was okay to use a wee amount of it to help feed and clothe some needy folks--they were careful to only take what they needed. I think there was also some concern about the redcoats still coming around regularly at that time and didn't want to risk getting caught with them, but mostly I just remember them thinking they were stealing and it was wrong to do so.

Edited October 10, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[koboldin]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Ooooh! Well yes, there was an explanation for that as well, not an extremely strong one their either, IMO:

  Hide contents

Basically, it wasn't their treasure and they didn't feel right about using it, but figured it was okay to use a wee amount of it to help feed and clothe some needy folks--they were careful to only take what they needed. I think there was also some concern about the redcoats still coming around regularly at that time and didn't want to risk getting caught with them, but mostly I just remember them thinking they were stealing and it was wrong to do so.

Oh, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Spoiler

So, "it's not ok to steal jewels and coins all at once, but if it disappears slowly over time as we dip in, we can TOTALLY rationalize."

 

With that kind of thinking, the numbskulls deserve to lose the resource. Only slightly joking. :-)

[toolazy]

4 minutes ago, koboldin said:

Oh, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  Hide contents

So, "it's not ok to steal jewels and coins all at once, but if it disappears slowly over time as we dip in, we can TOTALLY rationalize."

 

With that kind of thinking, the numbskulls deserve to lose the resource. Only slightly joking. :-)

Spoiler

Until the events of Voyager, they used most of what they took to turn into cash to send to Jacobites in France who needed help.  They rationalized it by saying that it was meant to help BPC so why shouldn't it help his exiled followers?

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, koboldin said:

Oh, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  Hide contents

So, "it's not ok to steal jewels and coins all at once, but if it disappears slowly over time as we dip in, we can TOTALLY rationalize."

 

With that kind of thinking, the numbskulls deserve to lose the resource. Only slightly joking. :-)

Well, I did say it was a weak explanation. ;) 

[Nidratime]

Spoiler

I thought it was more that they didn't want to draw attention to themselves by having all these coins and stones on them or hidden on their property. If found or if they were discovered with such a cache, I could imagine they'd be seen as the holder of BPC's booty and probably executed. It was better to have it somewhere not connected to them, using it a little at a time not to draw attention.

[koboldin]

4 hours ago, Nidratime said:

  Hide contents

I thought it was more that they didn't want to draw attention to themselves by having all these coins and stones on them or hidden on their property. If found or if they were discovered with such a cache, I could imagine they'd be seen as the holder of BPC's booty and probably executed. It was better to have it somewhere not connected to them, using it a little at a time not to draw attention.

Totally. 

Spoiler

I would have just removed it to a location known only to myself, and one that wouldn't risk drowning to get to. 

[kelaney]

I read the first book about a year and a half ago.  I enjoyed it quite a bit,  but wasn’t overly enamored with it.  Definitely not enough to pick up the second book.  So I looked up the plot summaries for the other books online and, let’s just say, I though they were weird. (Unpopular opinion, I know).  End of story.  

 

Now I’m watching the show,  though,  and am  enjoyinging them thoroughly.  I’m also around avid readers of the books.  So my question is, should I pick the books back up knowing what I do know—both good and bad—and if so which books should I read?  Or should I leave well enough alone and enjoy the show?  :-)

[LadyBrochTuarach]

I wasn't totally enamoured by the first two books. I watched the first two seasons (fell in love with the story that way) and then read Voyager (book 3) first. I just HAD to know what happened! After I finished reading the rest of the series, I went back and read books one and two. 

It's a jam packed book, and there is a lot happening, but it's also one of my favourite. We get to see more character development from Jamie, which I really enjoyed. Some people stick to the show only, and some do both, it's tough to say. I would suggest reading Voyager first though, if you're caught up currently on all the episodes. 

Maybe someone else can enlighten you a bit more!! There a quite a few people with a lot of outlander knowledge and have a better way with words! 

[morgan]

I think for me when I started reading the books 10 years ago I did because a friend gave me the first one.  I struggled through it to be honest.  But st the end thought it was a good story if nothing else.  Parts fascinated me, parts annoyed me, but I found by the end I was engaged.  I didn’t continue reading the rest for a while because I didn’t realize it was a series at first.  Eventually I did and started picking my way through them and I have come to the conclusion that for me they have their faults but overall tell a rip roaring story!  I find myself re-reading them from time to time, and have read most of the novellas and Lord John stories as well.  

I guess to answer your question, should you read them, I would say why not?  I would start with Voyager and read in order personally.  If you decide to quit, quit.  The only downside is a bit of time reading, right?  If you want, wait till this season is over to start.  Some people like being surprised by what happens on tv so if you fit that bill, hold off on the next book until after season 4.  I find I enjoy the tv series and the books as long as I don’t re-read the book prior to the series.  I have favorite parts that strangely tptb often interpret differently.  Lol.  So i relax more and enjoy the show’s interpretations as long as I don’t hold them so close.  And as Diana says, the books are the books, the show is the show.  They are the same but they are different.  I still see my book people/places as I originally envisioned them vs how the show does.  

Edited October 13, 2017 by morgan

[WatchrTina]

3 hours ago, morgan said:

wait till this season is over to start [reading the books]

I second this.  I have a bad habit of picking up the book and re-reading along with the show even thought I KNOW it's a mistake.  It's the same with Harry Potter and Game of Thrones.  The two mediums (visual vs. written) have to tell the story differently because you just can't fit everything from a book onto the screen.  I always kick myself if I re-read the book while the show is being broadcast because I can't stop myself from wondering "Are they gonna show . . . " or thinking "Hey wait they changed . . . " while I'm watching.  It's been a good long while since I've read the 2nd half of Voyager and I am NOT going to pick it up in the hopes that I can stop doing that for episodes 307 - 313.  All is lost, I'm afraid, for the next episode (306).  That's the Jamie/Claire reunion and the book version of that is SEARED into my brain.  I will (alas) be nit-picking (at least mentally) no matter what they do.

[DittyDotDot]

6 hours ago, kelaney said:

I read the first book about a year and a half ago.  I enjoyed it quite a bit,  but wasn’t overly enamored with it.  Definitely not enough to pick up the second book.  So I looked up the plot summaries for the other books online and, let’s just say, I though they were weird. (Unpopular opinion, I know).  End of story.  

Now I’m watching the show,  though,  and am  enjoyinging them thoroughly.  I’m also around avid readers of the books.  So my question is, should I pick the books back up knowing what I do know—both good and bad—and if so which books should I read?  Or should I leave well enough alone and enjoy the show?  :-)

I'd never heard of these books and watched the first half of the first season totally unspoiled, only had a vague notion what the show was about. While I found the show intriguing--beautiful scenery, amazing costumes and some very colorful characters--it wasn't fully engaging me for some reason. I picked up the first book simply because I was curious where some of the story was going and wasn't sure I'd stick with the show. The first couple books were very difficult to get through, almost stopped reading altogether in the middle of the third, but at some point I realized I couldn't stop reading.

A lot of it will come down to what you're drawn to. Overall, Diana doesn't write very good over-arcing plots, IMO, but does write some poignant, funny and extremely vivid character scenes. For me, who loves a good short story, I tend to think of the books as collections of really nice little short character dramas and not as great epic novels.

So, I can't really tell you if you should read them or not, but can say, after finishing all the main novels and all the novellas, I don't regret it. In fact, even though I don't think you need to read the books in order to enjoy and follow the show, I found I had a greater appreciation for the show by reading the books. And, TBH, I mostly prefer the books to the show.

[TaurusRose]

I read someplace that DG is on her ninth book; how old is Claire (and Jaime) supposed to be at this point?

[koboldin]

5 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

I read someplace that DG is on her ninth book; how old is Claire (and Jaime) supposed to be at this point?

Outlander Wiki

The wiki is a great resource for those questions, but here it is, as of the latest books:

Spoiler

Claire - 62, Jamie - 58

[Athena]

12 minutes ago, koboldin said:

Outlander Wiki

The wiki is a great resource for those questions, but here it is, as of the latest books:

  Reveal hidden contents

Claire - 62, Jamie - 58

The wikia is very spoilery and is not recommended for Non Book Readers / Viewers. Please proceed with caution.

[TaurusRose]

Thanks, @koboldin, @Athena.

[MsProudSooner]

On 10/13/2017 at 1:06 AM, kelaney said:

I read the first book about a year and a half ago.  I enjoyed it quite a bit,  but wasn’t overly enamored with it.  Definitely not enough to pick up the second book.  So I looked up the plot summaries for the other books online and, let’s just say, I though they were weird. (Unpopular opinion, I know).  End of story.  

 

Now I’m watching the show,  though,  and am  enjoyinging them thoroughly.  I’m also around avid readers of the books.  So my question is, should I pick the books back up knowing what I do know—both good and bad—and if so which books should I read?  Or should I leave well enough alone and enjoy the show?  :-)

Here's what I would do in your position.  Read the books but don't read ahead of where the TV show is.  In other words, read Dragonfly in Amber now, since you've seen Season 2.  After Season 3 is complete, pick up Voyager.  I find that if I read a book and see a movie or TV show soon after, I'm usually disappointed in the movie because it lacks the detail of the book.   If you read the books after you see the TV show, the books will add the details the TV show couldn't provide. 

[kelaney]

41 minutes ago, MsProudSooner said:

Here's what I would do in your position.  Read the books but don't read ahead of where the TV show is.  In other words, read Dragonfly in Amber now, since you've seen Season 2.  After Season 3 is complete, pick up Voyager.  I find that if I read a book and see a movie or TV show soon after, I'm usually disappointed in the movie because it lacks the detail of the book.   If you read the books after you see the TV show, the books will add the details the TV show couldn't provide. 

That’s a good idea.  The absolute worst thing to do is what I did while watching Handmaid’s Tale—watched and read at the same time.  Now I honestly can’t remember which parts were in the book and which were in the show!

[auntlada]

Regarding the treasure, it's explained in a short story by Diana Gabaldon and Steve Berry called "Past Prologue" in a collection of short stories called "Matchup." I can't remember the details just now, however.