The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

[CalamityBoPeep]

3 hours ago, Summer said:

Just did a quick google search and found several different ways to say it but one seemed to be more common which isn't either of the ways I was thinking:  "MAR suh lee"  with emphasis on the MAR.  That's actually a very pretty pronunciation.  Maybe that is how the priest pronounced it, I can't remember.   

That's the way I've always read it. Of course I've always had some difficulty working out which syllables to emphasize when I speak, so who knows? My father is from Baltimore ("Bul'more") and my mother is Scottish. Talk about screwing with a kids' speech patterns...

At any rate. "MAR-su-lee" always sounded prettiest in my head, so that's what I went with.

[GHScorpiosRule]

This is very...mean? of me, but I always pronounced it as you would for Chicken Marsala, except with the ending being "eee" sound! Mebbe I should Google how to pronounce Marsali?

[CalamityBoPeep]

So, just called my mom (aka: Mum ;-) ) and she went with the emphasis on the second syllable.

Then I griped to her about Loaghaire's name, and the fact that she did me no favors in the pronunciation department by marrying a man from Baltimore. ;-) She laughed and I said, "Seriously. Who needs that many letters to spell 'Leery'???"

She laughed again and said "Scots, o' course."

[Archery]

I love the passage where Claire proudly reveals that she did, in fact, name their child after Jamie's father, Brian.  And Jamie's like, That's awful!  Until he realizes that it's actually meant to be Bree-na, not Bree-ANN-uh. 

[Dust Bunny]

I've said it "mar-Suh-lee" all this time, but I do like the emphasis on the first syllable. I'm changing it in my head from now on. (Watch, it'll be something completely different, on the show.)

[Clawdette]

I've always thought-pronounced mar suh LEE with the emphasis on the last syllable.  This is a perfect example of how individualized each person's reading experience is. (And why screen adaptations are so tricky when we have our own interpretations)

[AheadofStraight]

Does anyone have the audio book to check there, out of curiosity? (I've always pronounced it Mar-SAUL-ee, oops)

[Summer]

You know with all this talk of the pronounciations of the names it got me thinking that Diana really likes to mess with our minds with all these unique spellings vs pronunciations.  Beauchamp, Laoghaire, Marsali, etc.  If I hadn't seen the show first and was reading Outlander I would have pronounced Claire's last name was Beau-champ and Laoghaire (or however the hell you spell it) as Leog-hair.  It just seems unnecessarily confusing, but hey, I didn't write the books....

[morgan]

Very interesting all the pronunciations!  I always have read it as MARsalee.  Maybe because my name starts with the same 3 letters and emphasis on first syllable.  I still read Laoghaire as Leog-hair even though now I know it's Leery.  Beauchamp started with the French pronunciation but shifted once it was made clear in first book that she went by the English pronunciation.  

Edited September 14, 2016 by morgan

[DittyDotDot]

Well, if she changed the spellings I would assume Diana would be blasted for not using the traditional spelling. I mean, Diana didn't make these spellings up.

[Dust Bunny]

2 hours ago, morgan said:

Very interesting all the pronunciations!  I always have read it as MARsalee.  Maybe because my name starts with the same 3 letters and emphasis on first syllable.  

Oh funny - my first name also starts with those 3 letters, with the emphasis on the second syllable of three. Wow - I guess I was pronunciation-biased without knowing it. 

[emilyplum]

On 9/14/2016 at 11:16 AM, AheadofStraight said:

Does anyone have the audio book to check there, out of curiosity? (I've always pronounced it Mar-SAUL-ee, oops)

It is marSAULee (emphasis on the 2nd syllable), at least according to the audiobook narrator Davina Porter (whom I adooooooooore). 

[emilyplum]

Although, Davina Porter also never calls Laoghaire Leery...it's more Leer-ah.  Who knows. 

She also has Brianna as "Bree-ah-na" pronounced that way by both Bree and Claire in the audiobooks, not the Bree-ANN-ah that Bree used herself on the show.  Who knows. 

(Just a sidenote to add that lord have mercy please let Diana finish all of these books before Davina Porter retires or worse, because I can't IMAGINE a voice that's not hers reading them to me.)

[katville]

20 minutes ago, emilyplum said:

It is marSAULee (emphasis on the 2nd syllable), at least according to the audiobook narrator Davina Porter (whom I adooooooooore). 

Woot. That is how I pronounce it in my head.

[LMR]

Ok, I saw something on Tumblr (not the most reliable of sources, I know,  but still) that made me concerned (and also made me realise that maybe I don't trust RDM with the source material as much as I want to that I have even entertained it).

 

It was basically that instead of Mary McNab come to the cave before Jamie is arrested it will be Laorighe and that as a result one of her daughters will be Jamie's. Realistically, I don't think this will happen but I was surprised by how much it sadly wouldn't surprise me if they did that. As it is I really don't know how they are going to retcon the whole Jamie knowing about L's role in having Claire almost burnt as a witch. I guess having Jamie father one of kids might negate that... Ugh. It annoys me to contemplate.

For what its worth I suspect that given they cannot not do Geneva (though please god, fix that before it hits the screen) and they have to have L, I think they will likely cut the Mary seen altogether. They only have 10 episodes so as it is I think a lot of the front half will be bunched (unless they do a lot of flashback, as I can't imagine we will be made to wait more than 3-4 episodes before Print shop unless they want a full scale fan riot), having Jamie involved with 3 different women in that time, regardless of the situation, will harm the story they are trying to tell. I works in the books (just, I could live without both Geneva and L) as you get a better sense of the time elapsed and the lonliness Jamie endures, but I think that will be much more difficult on TV. Mary and the scene in the cave could be easily removed without impacting the story so I won't be surprised if she is. And if this fan theory is the alternative I hope verra keenly they do.

[Clawdette]

I would think Jamie having another daughter would be a deal-breaker for Diana. She might not have veto power but she could sure raise a huge stink. 

[LMR]

3 hours ago, Clawdette said:

I would think Jamie having another daughter would be a deal-breaker for Diana. She might not have veto power but she could sure raise a huge stink. 

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

[LMR]

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

 

I don't know that I can wait another year...

[AheadofStraight]

How does everyone feel about them filming Culloden when that is basically something we never really see in the books because Jamie doesn't remember? The big mystery has always been how did BJR end up dead on top of him? Are we going to see this? Wonder if they consulted with DG or made it all up? Just random thoughts I had this morning....

[abbey]

According to an interview I heard with Maril this morning it is going to be 13 episodes not 10.  I can understand them leaving Mary McNabb out as we never really saw her at Lallybroch so why bring her up?  But they better not send Laoghaire in her place.  That would be blasphemy!!!  Just leave out the entire scene.  I am looking forward to who they cast as Geneva. 

[Nidratime]

1 hour ago, AheadofStraight said:

How does everyone feel about them filming Culloden when that is basically something we never really see in the books because Jamie doesn't remember? The big mystery has always been how did BJR end up dead on top of him? Are we going to see this? Wonder if they consulted with DG or made it all up? Just random thoughts I had this morning....

On another message board someone reported that Ron did, indeed, ask Diana if she knew what happened with Jamie at Culloden. Apparently, she's writing about that part of the story now in her 9th book and told him what she was writing. So, I'm guessing they will incorporate the important aspects of what she told them, although I supposed they might put their own spin on it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

My understanding is that we will be seeing the battle at Culloden in real time, and not being told by Jamie, so for me, it's not even a question of "how can we know since Jamie doesn't remember?" Frankly the sneak peek from the ET mag has me pretty excited about what did happen.

Also, since Ron has deviated from the buiks before, him expanding or showing us Culloden is something I don't mind at all.

[LMR]

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

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, LMR said:

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

Exactly! Plus Sam

showed a "short" less than 15 seconds of Jamie saving a fellow highlander fighting a redcoat. Shooting the redcoat, then nodding to the fellow Highlander, and then fade to black. I'm soooo hoping that was a sneak peek for next season.

[morgan]

I don't mind seeing Culloden in the show.  I'm looking forward to seeing (hopefully!) some favorite book scenes, but I've come to see and expect new stuff in the show.  Knowing Ron is excited for the battle and for the ship stuff going in probably shapes my expectations for the season.

I think the real question is which will come first...the new book or season 3?  If Diana really is planning on answering the whole "what happened at Culloden" question in this book, I would think she would like chance to be first.  That said, maybe she isn't all that interested in it.  There is so much more to the books than BJR and Culloden.  They were pivotal of course, to the overall story, but there is just so much more.  

[LMR]

This is a thing between books and show. Whilst BJR is a massive presence in the books, the show has intensified that quite significantly (particularly with the Frank backs and the link that always brings). Even in DIA BJR is a sub plot to the bigger things, especially once back in Scotland. In the TV show he's definitely more front and centre (though to be fair this could as much be about the nature of TV vs Book and the amount of story that has had to be pared out to make a narrative that works on TV and isn't too sprawling).

I agree though, the fact its taken her 7 books to properly circle back round to it, suggests its not a story she's all that interested in, but maybe since they are back in the relative peace of the Ridge in Bees, there will be more room for backstory.

[Petunia846]

I think we'll definitely see season 3 before the new book. There'd be a lot more chatter about the book if it was anywhere close to publication, and spring of next year will be here before we know it.

My hope is that they show Culloden and what happened to BJR and get him out of their systems so we never have to hear about him again going forward. Let's wrap that character up in a nice bow and move on with the story. I'm so, so, so over him. I'd rather drop him now altogether, but I know that's not reasonable, so let's just hope this is the end of Black Jack.

[morgan]

I'm so with you about BJR!  I think I am operating under the assumption that we won't see season 3 until late summer, which gives the book more time.  But prob optimistic thinking (book wise).  

[emilyplum]

Well, I was wrong about Marsali's name pronunciation.  Somebody asked Maril on twitter and she said everyone in Scotland took them to task for the wrong pronunciation (despite the fact that Diana actually wrote out the pronunciation in the book).  It will rhyme parsley, apparently!  That will take some getting used to, but it does make sense to use the correct Gaelic pronunciation. 

[DittyDotDot]

So, I finally started watching S2--three episodes in--and I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion around here, but I loved the change from the book with the addition of the Claire and Frank stuff in the premiere. Thought it was the strongest part of the episode and was kinda sad when it was over. I think they set the stage very nicely for bitterness to grow between Claire and Frank and it was nice to see Mrs. Graham, Rev. Wakefield and a wee Roger again. It was kinda weird they kept Claire's narration after she told Frank her story, and the transition back to the past was very jarring to me, but those are fairly minor nitpicks. 

My only real issue with the premiere was, something about the look of the French sequences wasn't working for me in the first episode--I just didn't "feel" it like I did the 1940 sequences--but that all changed in the second episode and I got fully sucked back into the story. Fergus, Mother Hildegard, Master Raymond, Mark Hawkins and Louise de La Tour were perfect! Almost exact mental images from reading the books. Also, I appreciate they didn't try to have Tobias play Alex too. I always thought it was a little ridiculous how many Randalls seemed to look alike as it was.  

Also, I'm not bothered by the lack of intimacy between Claire and Jamie right now. Even in the book, Jamie was having nightmares and all, so it worked for me Jamie was still having issues with the intimacy too. I actually think that's more realistic than the book. I do have to say, I'm not sure how I feel about how they seem to be pressing the idea Claire is kinda pushing Jamie to change things rather than him being an equal partner in this venture. But, maybe the tide is starting to change on that front with Jamie coming up with the plan to hire Fergus to steal the Prince's correspondence?

Anyway, so far, I think overall they've done a good job of adapting the book. Kinda sad to lose the "oxters" line after Claire shaves things, but the "honey pot" change up cracked me up too, so it's all good. ;)

ETA: Forgot how much I loved Murtagh!! All his grump-a-lumping over how terrible it smelled in France had me smiling like nobody's business. ;)

Edited January 2, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

OMG, you guys, Faith was extraordinary!! So much packed into that one episode. I managed to hold it together until the moment Louise asked to hold the baby...that was it for me, I couldn't stop crying during the rest of the episode. There were a couple scenes from the book I was really looking forward to that we didn't get to see, but nothing I felt like I couldn't live without. I do wish they could've had more time to stretch out the coming back together and given them a bit more time at Lallybroch to heal, but there's still so much to get to, so I understand why they didn't.

And, Fergus? I was prepared to call fowl on his part after Best Laid Schemes, but I think it was okay in the end. More or less. I mean, even though they lost some of the nuance to the situation, they did give us the heart of it and I guess nuance isn't everything. I do hope they keep to Fergus's characterization of knowing things well beyond his years, though. 

As to The Fox's Lair, I didn't really care for that episode at all. Thought all the nonsense with Lagohaire was entirely unnecessary--and this coming from someone who doesn't have the issues most people have with Lagohaire. It could just come down to my disappointment because I really, really wanted to see the scene where Claire explained prostatitis to auld Simon. I know it's entirely unnecessary, but that whole scene had me howling when I read the book and I could've used a big laugh right about then. Plus, I greatly missed the potato feast. I really wanted to see them get a win--and to celebrate--by this point in the season. It's not like there's many of those to come, ya ken?

I have mixed feelings about Je Suis Prest, but the gang is back together again now!!! Love that. ;)

Anyway, I've been really thinking about how different the experience has been reading the book and watching the show this season. Dragonfly in Amber is not my favorite book of the series, but the show has really captured my attention more than the book seemed to. I find it extremely amusing how the French part of the book was very tedious for me to read and seemed to drag on and on and on; I was so relieved when they returned to Scotland and was swept back into the story at that point. But, the French sequences of the show really captivated me starting with the second episode; I wasn't fully ready for them to head back to Scotland. And, now that they're back in Scotland, the show's not doing all that much for me. Weird, no?

[DittyDotDot]

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

I also have very mixed feelings regarding this book vs the show adaptation. I agree that the show has some advantages over the book where "Frasers in Paris" are concerned: they streamlined various storylines very nicely (it particulary worked for me in "Faith" with Louise's part of the story).

In the book, there's just so many side characters moving about, I couldn't keep them all straight at times, let alone care about them. So, yeah, I think it was the trimming of the fat that worked so much better for me in the French part of the show. And, those characters they kept, they really brought to life and made them full-fledged characters--far more than they seemed in the book--specially Louise de La Tour and St. Germain.  I wasn't looking forward to seeing Louise being realized on the show since she seemed so frivolous in the book, but now I'm hoping we get to see her again at some point.

And, as you said, they really made this version of France feel real. I could smell Murtagh's disgust and and felt Claire's discomfort in wearing all those elaborate dresses. But, in the book, France felt unreal and entirely intangible to me, so I just couldn't connect with the place like I could with the Scottish sequences when reading the book.

And just to be consistently back-asswards, I don't care for the look and feel of Lallybroch on the show. Every time I see the exterior of that house, it feels lonely and deserted to me, and the interiors are too big and ostentatious; not at all like the place of life it was described in the book. However, everything else Scotland seems to match up the book and the show for me. Maybe the disparity comes from me setting expectations for Lallybroch and had none of France?

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

On the other hand, there are Claire&Jamie and I definitly prefered how their relationship/interactions were presented in the book (mostly).

I didn't have a problem with Claire and Jamie's relationship in France in the early part of the season, but really wished they'd given us more time with them coming back together after losing Faith. It's almost jarring to go from the last scene in Faith where Jamie and Claire are so far apart to them being so close together at the start of the next episode. Of course, I know they only have so many episodes, so I just have to go with it, but it's a shame they had to skip over the payoff after all the build up.

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

I can't bring myself to care for the way they handled Jamie's PTSD, no matter how much I try to persuade myself. It's not that I think there is something wrong/shameful with Jamie's problem with potency, it's just...for me the whole thing felt like something out of Hallmark movie. It was very modernised IMO and while I know we can't be sure of  the mindset of a young male grown up in the Highlands in 18th century, the whole approach felt off to me.

The PTSD was lacking in some of the nuance the book had in that regard. But, then again, I think the plotting in general lacks quite a bit of nuance compared to the book. It's kinda Diana's way to make something seem completely extraneous and unnecessary until much later when you realize she was just planting seeds to be reaped at a much later date.

For instance, the plan to spoil the Prince's wine venture was fairly complicated in the book that I remember thinking--as Murtagh does on the show--wouldn't it be easier to just kill the damn prince and be done with all this nonsense. However, they managed to make it even more complicated--and almost entirely nonsensical--on the show while also taking away some of the nuance to Claire petitioning the king for Jamie's release.

And, Fergus's rape was totally lacking in the nuance it has in the book. However, I'm not sure it would've mattered what they did on that front. It's a tough subject to tackle and I'm not sure all the nuance would've translated to screen very well. It may have made things even more muddy, I don't know.

Anyway, I'm guessing they were trying to make it clearer to the audience, but I think they also underestimate their audience a great deal. There's some deleted scenes on the DVDs with introductions from Ron Moore. The scene early on in the season where Jamie has the sex nightmare of Claire morphing into Black Jack and then stabbing him started out with more of the love making between Jamie and Claire. Ron said they trimmed it due to time, but also he wasn't sure if the audience would understand it was a dream at first. I was thinking that's the point of a scene like; the audience isn't supposed to realize it's a dream until it turns into a nightmare. And, I was thinking they should've left in what they cut and cut out the part where Jamie stabs Black Jack. But, what do I know?

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

"Fox's Lair" was a disappointment to me despite of the great casting of Lord Lovat himself. I get they were trying to reintroduce Laoghaire and somehow fix her character after basically turning her into satan last season in "Devil's Mark" but IMO it didn't work and I'm still not sure how it's going to work in season 3.

I think I could've gotten behind The Fox's Lair if it didn't feel so rushed and pointless in the end. Plus, it's another one of those things lacking in nuance the book had. 

As to Lagohaire, I think it would've been smarter to leave her out of the second season altogether. I think the problem isn't in trying to redeem Lagohaire--granted they did make her more hateful last season than the book ever did, but I don't think they need to redeem her for Jamie to end up marrying her--but I think they spoiled the shock of what's to come in S3. Again, removing much of the nuance to the situation.

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

Still, I think Scottish part of the show consists of some very strong episodes with excellent acting, my personal fav is "Prestonpans"

I'm really looking forward to Prestonpans. It's probably my favorite battle sequence of all the books in how it's told mostly to Claire after the fact. I'm assuming I'll still prefer the book version of it since I doubt they keep to the same structure as the book, but still am very excited to see it brought to life. Plus, it's one of the few wins Jamie gets in the book. Maybe that's the biggest nuance missing from the show this season, it's hard to imagine Claire spending 20 years pining for this life that's only held disappointment and loss. Whereas the books tell a slightly different story filled with much joy and minor wins mixed in there too.

Edited January 15, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

::sniff:: Angus is now "down among the dead men." I was not prepared for that turn of events. I knew one of them would die after the "what's mine is yours" talk, but I was sure it would be Rupert to die at Prestonpans and then Angus would be the one to die in the church. Well done, show, well done.

Anyway, Prestonpans did not disappoint. Lots of interesting change ups to surprise me, but stayed true to the books quite nicely. Interesting how they've gotten Dougal into this part of the story and I loved it was him to ride out on the battlefield to test the ground. Knowing what's to come, I'm really starting to feel the loss of all these great characters.

Is Vengeance is Mine the episode Diana wrote? It worked out fine, but felt really rushed at the same time. So much packed into the episode that I wasn't sure anything actually happened when I finished watching it. I really think they needed another episode here showing some of the victories and just how close to the Scots got before it all fell apart. And, I think they needed to show the dire straights more--in the book they were all starving and wearing rags--they were already defeated in spirit by this point.

However, the episode did tie up a lot of loose ends while getting some nice character beats in as well. Once again, I was totally expecting Rupert to die in that church, just like the book, but the show totally subverted on expectations again. Now I'm wondering if Rupert survives Culloden on the show? 

I was somewhat disappointed in how they showed Murtaugh beheading the Duke. It didn't offend me or anything, but I loved the reveal of it in the book; Claire and Jamie's discussion of whether Murtaugh had stopped to steal a ham or something only to have that ham turn out to be the Duke's head. Just so very Murtaugh! I am glad Hugh Monroe survived the ordeal though and it makes sense Murtaugh presented the head to Mary, so I'm cool with it. 

Question, though, in the book, St. Germain had nothing to do with the attack on Claire and the rape of Mary, right? I was thinking it was all the Duke's doing, but wasn't sure. Which reminds me, after Prestonpans, I had a strong urge to re-read Dragonfly In Amber. Especially the Scottish sequences; there's a lot I don't remember all that clearly.

Oh, and by the way, Bear McCreary has outdone himself this season. The score, especially since they returned to Scotland, has been amazing! I especially loved the sountrack in Je Suis Prest. Now I'm off to listen to it on YouTube. ;)

[WatchrTina]

34 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

in the book, St. Germain had nothing to do with the attack on Claire and the rape of Mary, right?

That has always been my interpretation of the books as well.  Le Comte is not a good man.  He absolutely did TRY to kill Claire and I do think that he participated in that group of men who raped women for sport and gave extra points for virgins.  But yeah, my reading of the books is that the specific men who attacked Claire and raped Mary were hired by The Duke and that Le Comte was in no way involved.  I also think that's the way Stanley Weber played it in his death scene.  I think Stanley thought his character WAS innocent of the charge, which makes his performance all the more affecting (at least to me.)  I think the line in the later episode in which the Duke admits he was behind the attack but claims he did it to settle a debt with Le Comte was added to the show so that we can still think of M. Raymond as a "good" guy and not have to think of the moral ambiguities regarding Claire's role in Le Comte's death.  

But the plot thickens later on.  We're allowed to talk about the big books here but what I'm about to discuss happens in a spin-off novella AND I'm giving away but the ending to the novella and a pretty major spoiler for the Outlander universe so I'm taking it behind the spoiler walls.

Spoiler

Le Comte is not dead!  He turns up again in a novella "The Space In Between."  M. Raymond faked his death (he must have some of that stuff Juliet took in "Romeo and Juliet".)  And he is a time-traveler!  How do you like them apples?  I'm convince both characters (M. Raymond and Le Comte St. Germaine) are going to make a re-appearance in the big books.  You heard it here first.

Edited January 22, 2017 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

That has always been my interpretation of the books as well.  Le Comte is not a good man.  He absolutely did TRY to kill Claire and I do think that he participated in that group of men who raped women for sport and gave extra points for virgins.  But yeah, my reading of the books is that the specific men who attacked Claire and raped Mary were hired by The Duke and that Le Comte was in no way involved.  I also think that's the way Stanley Weber played it in his death scene.  I think Stanley thought his character WAS innocent of the charge, which makes his performance all the more affecting (at least to me.)  I think the line in the later episode in which the Duke admits he was behind the attack but claims he did it to settle a debt with Le Comte was added to the show so that we can still think of M. Raymond as a "good" guy and not have to think of the moral ambiguities regarding Claire's role in Le Comte's death.

Thanks! That's how I remembered it, but wondered if I remembered it wrong. I also wondered if the Duke was lying about St. Germaine's involvement? I mean, he later told Jamie that he never meant for any rape, just to scare Claire, which was not what he told Claire earlier. So, I wondered if that was added to imply that we still don't know what was true and not because nothing the Duke has said has turned out to be actually true? 

BTW, I've read the novella too, so maybe I'm being influenced by that knowledge?

[WatchrTina]

I think that you are right that we can never know for sure when Sandringham is lying and when he is telling the truth. I think it's clear he did not intend for Mary to be raped -- that spoiled his plans for her marriage to the warty Vicomte -- so it's clear he's not in complete control of events.  But in the book it seems clear he intended to have Claire killed so that grief-stricken Jamie would stop meddling in Jacobite affairs.  (That plan was enacted after his first attempt on Jamie's life failed when Jamie fought them off with a sausage -- and can I just say what a shame it is that THAT scene didn't make it onto the screen.)  It's really never entirely clear in the book if Sandringham really is a Jacobite or not.  I think it's possible he was just a shit-stirrer like Littlefinger on Game of Thrones -- someone who thinks "chaos is a ladder" and who positioned himself to benefit no matter who wins.  There is historical precedent for that -- it's exactly what the real Lord Lovat (grandfather to fictional Jamie Fraser) tried to do and what they depicted in "The Old Fox" episode.  He failed in that, as was hinted at in the episode -- he was ultimately beheaded at the tower of London.  Hmmm, I wonder if that is why Sandringham met the fate he did -- perhaps Diana put him into the story to serve as a surrogate for those real-life, devious, play-both-sides-of-the-fence characters from the uprising like Lord Lovat.

Edited January 24, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Summer]

Diana posted a link on FB that rated all S2 episodes and then asked her follower's what their most/least favorite episodes were.  One person responded that Fox's Lair was her least favorite,  specifically how they brought Leoghaire back and how it didn't work at all.  Diana responded that she told TPTB that bringing her back in that way would not work but they went ahead with it anyway.  She said sometimes they listened to her and sometimes they didn't, most times they did but the Leoghaire issue is one of the few times they didn't....Knowing how snarky Diana can be I kept picturing her in my mind thinking "Told ya, Ron!"  

Edited February 3, 2017 by Summer

[Nidratime]

Well, I wonder what the episode would've been like if they were able to include Mrs. Fitz traveling with Colum as well? I can't remember if she was supposed to accompany him alone or have Leoghaire with her. I guess, with her....

In any event, the Mrs. Fitz actress wasn't available so they had Leoghaire accompany him on her own.

[DittyDotDot]

Yes, I found Lagohair's inclusion unnecessarily weird but, personally, I thought it was weird to have Column in the episode too. I also thought Claire's "vision" part odd too. The whole episode was wonky, if you ask me.

[DittyDotDot]

So, I finished S2 about a week ago, but really didn't feel there was much much to say at the time other than the finale--especially Claire and Jamie's parting--felt really rushed and poorly executed. So much so that I laughed out loud at the quicky they had at the stones. I just didn't feel it. TBH, I just wanted to get to the 1960s at that point.

I think it's very interesting, much like the premiere, how I got sucked into the future parts of the finale more than I did in the past. And, this should probably go in the unpopular opinions thread, but I thought the casting on Brianna was excellent. It's a very hard character to cast and I thought Sophie did a great job selling me on the entitled and hotheaded teenager trying to fit into a world she didn't really belong. I felt Brianna more as a character on the show than I ever did when reading Dragonfly in Amber.

I also thought the change up of Claire visiting Lallybroch and Culloden and reliving some things to be very effective. This is one of those rare things that can be better told on-screen than in writing. And, TBH, I don't really remember what Claire was up to in the book while Roger was doing his historical search around the countryside. Was she trying to track down Geillis?

And, Roger was perfect, IMO! One of my favorite scenes from the book is the rat satire--it's the first time I felt like I knew Roger--and the show did not disappoint me in how they brought it to life. I really enjoyed Roger and Brianna's visit to Fort William.

The ending of the episode was a little hokey, but enjoyed Brianna and Claire's talk and the reveal that Jamie survived was handled pretty damn well, IMO. The only thing I really missed was Fiona being established as a character more, but that's surely to come next season. No need to get too impatient, right?

7 hours ago, Grashka said:

I liked Colum's inclusion - I love the actor.

Oh, I love the actor (and the character), I just thought the way he was written into the episode didn't make sense. While there's many valid reasons I think Column could've been at Simon Fraser's table, a "peace" pact just isn't one that worked for me. But, I also didn't think what they did with young Simon made much sense either. Like I said, the whole episode was wonky to me and felt out of step with the show.

7 hours ago, Grashka said:

In reference to "Dragonfly in Amber" no book talk discussion thread, I wonder if no-readers would feel differenly about Claire return to 20th century if the writers stuck more to the book here, in regard to her situation in 18th century? I mean things like anti-Jacobite British posters, which not only featured "Red Jamie", but also Claire "The Witch" as a wanted person, and Red Coats showing up on Craigh na Dun, with one of them chasing Claire until she pretty much threw herself through the stones.

I totally understand why non-book readers didn't understand the reasoning or feel the urgency, since, I wasn't sold on it either; and I've read the books. I just don't think they established the whole uprising very well or the characters in this portion of the season; the stakes just weren't shown to be high enough, IMO.  It's quite the contrast to how well they brought the French parts of the season into full color for me.

I really think they needed another episode to build up what was being lost and establish how it went from victory to defeat. In the book it was months of fighting and traveling until the money ran out. They were starving and everyone--not just Claire and Jamie--knew the cause was lost. The main reason many showed up on Culloden moor was they knew they'd all be hung as traitors, might as well go down fighting instead.

I felt none of that on the show; I was still riding high on the victory of Prestonpans and just didn't feel this was a beaten army ready to for it to be over. It just seemed they went from Prestonpans to Culloden with little in between.

Add on top the show didn't really establish what Jamie killing Dougal meant for Jamie or what life in the Highlands was going to be like after the uprising. They both believe Jamie will not survive and Claire would most-likely end up dead too; either burned as a witch or hunted as a traitor. Even if Jamie survived the battle and managed to escape being hung for Dougal's death, there was going to be little living to be had in the Highlands for many years after the uprising. Jamie makes the decision really quickly in the book, but there was sufficient groundwork laid, so I felt like sending Claire back through the stones was really the only valid option at the time.

Plus, I really saw Claire's side of things better in the book too. No matter whether Claire chooses to stay in the past to stand with the family she's found or goes back to better healthcare and Frank, she'll be alone and struggling either way. Neither option is particularly enticing to her, so she considers the life she's carrying over everything else. 

Edited February 4, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

23 minutes ago, Grashka said:

How do you feel about the episode "Hail Mary"? I think the acting was excellent, but there were hardly any interactions between Claire and Jamie, which was rather odd given that they were about to part for 20 years in the next one.

It was fine, but nothing that got me excited. I loved Murtagh offering to to step up for Mary, though. That was a nice character beat. Otherwise, pretty much as I said above, I think the time table was too compressed that I couldn't get invested in Alex dying or Claire making a deal with Black Jack.

I've been thinking about this since I posted this morning and I really think they could've easily done a whole season for the French part ending with Jamie getting the letter from the Prince and a whole season with the uprising. I'm usually advocating for shorter seasons with tighter plotting, but Outlander seems be the exception for me. There's just so much going on at times and never enough time to cover it all.

[Summer]

I read this on another board some time ago and was curious how others felt.  The poster said something to the effect that they wished they hadn't read any further than Outlander as the rest of the books went off in so many directions, characters, plots. etc that they are so far away from what Outlander was originally about.  

I was introduced to Outlander strictly via the TV show and I loved every minute of S1.  Every minute. I'm ashamed to admit how many times I rewatched every episode, lol!  I then read Outlander and really wanted to feel what others felt about the series but I just didn't .  I had zero desire to continue the story. I would have been perfectly happy if S1 was a mini series and ended with Jaime and Claire sailing off to France.   I barely watched S2 and have to say have very little interest in S3, save maybe for the print shop scene.  

I completely understand the reasons why so many love the series, the opportunity to follow Jamie and Claire through the years, I totally get that. I'm just wondering if anyone else would have been happy to stop at S1/Outlander book 1? 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Summer said:

I read this on another board some time ago and was curious how others felt.  The poster said something to the effect that they wished they hadn't read any further than Outlander as the rest of the books went off in so many directions, characters, plots. etc that they are so far away from what Outlander was originally about.  

I was introduced to Outlander strictly via the TV show and I loved every minute of S1.  Every minute. I'm ashamed to admit how many times I rewatched every episode, lol!  I then read Outlander and really wanted to feel what others felt about the series but I just didn't .  I had zero desire to continue the story. I would have been perfectly happy if S1 was a mini series and ended with Jaime and Claire sailing off to France.   I barely watched S2 and have to say have very little interest in S3, save maybe for the print shop scene.  

I completely understand the reasons why so many love the series, the opportunity to follow Jamie and Claire through the years, I totally get that. I'm just wondering if anyone else would have been happy to stop at S1/Outlander book 1? 

I too was introduced to Outlander through the show. I watched the first part of S1, then read the book during the hiatus, then watched the second half of S1. Then I proceeded to read the remaining books over the summer.

I mostly picked up the book because while the show was pretty to watch, it wasn't fully engaging me for some reason. It did have some interesting story threads that I was curious about and I was in between books--and, TBH, the cost of Outlander on Amazon was only $1.99 at the time--figured if it wasn't my thing I wasn't out much. I actually grew to appreciate the show more through reading the book and ended up preferring the first half of the show and the second half of the book. 

I mostly read Dragonfly in Amber for the same reasons. I didn't care for it as much as I did Outlander, but two books pretty much means I'm in it at that point, so I bought Voyager. TBH, I prefer the later books to the early ones at this point. Outlander still had the most vibrant characters and the setting is much more evocative, but Diana is best at writing nice little character moments, IMO, and the later books are more a collection of character dramas rather than a big epic story. 

So, in short, yes, I would've been fine with stopping after Outlander/S1--I remember thinking it was a fine ending to the story at that point--but I actually am glad I didn't. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[katville]

I definitely understand the point that the other reader has and sometimes think that I would have been happy if the series had stopped earlier. I read every word of Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber, but once Gabaldon started expanding the universe to other characters' POV, I quickly lost interest and found myself skimming through their parts. I am here for Jamie and Claire.

That being said, I was pretty disillusioned with the series until A Breath of Snow and Ashes, which I absolutely loved. So I found it worth slogging through Diana's hubris to get to that book. 

[morgan]

I was given Outlander 10 years ago by a good friend and it took me a while to get into it, and almost gave up but then got hooked.  I didn't realize it was a series right away so probably another year later till I read DIA and then I just kept reading.  I have re-read them all many times now and tend to see them as almost 2 different series...Outlander, DIA, and Voyager as a trilogy, and then the rest.  At first I was all about Jamie and Claire, but I find what brings me back to the books is that there is just so much to them.  All the other people and their stories make a rich and diverse world that works for me.  Adding the novellas and some of the LJG books just keeps adding layers.  Really looking forward to her maybe doing a prequel with Jamie's parents someday.  

I don't skip stuff in my first read usually, although I will say that with the last book I didn't read it in order.  I read thru most/all the Roger/Bree chapters first, then went back to read through the rest of the book.  The different time lines made that very easy to do with that particular book.  And I was so freaked out about Jem in the tunnel for five years I just had to see that storyline through before I could relax and enjoy Jamie and Claire.

[Dust Bunny]

15 hours ago, katville said:

That being said, I was pretty disillusioned with the series until A Breath of Snow and Ashes, which I absolutely loved. 

Agreed. The first time I read Drums of Autumn and Fiery Cross, especially FC, I felt it dragged the whole series down. ABOSAA, however, absolutely turned it around for me. Not only did I approach Echo and MOBY with more openness, it helped me better appreciate DoA and FC. I'm now listening to DoA via Audible, and I really enjoy it. I think ABOSAA depicted the relationships so strongly that it gave me new eyes for not just the later books, but also the earlier ones.

[Petunia846]

I read the books (all of them) in the summer before the show started and I think the end of Outlander is probably the easiest one to stop at. Everything feels wrapped up, you have the hint of a happy future, and if there weren't anymore books I don't think I'd be angry or sad or anything. Lots of books are just stand-alones. So I can totally understand feeling that way. I enjoyed it enough that I wanted to read more and since it was summer break and I had the time there didn't seem to be much reason not to keep going. It had taken me a little while to get used to Diana's writing style, but once I was in the zone, I could just binge through them. Some of the books definitely drift, but overall I just find her writing to be so engrossing that I enjoy jumping into that world even if they're just standing around shearing sheep or something.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 2/10/2017 at 1:51 PM, Summer said:

I'm just wondering if anyone else would have been happy to stop at S1/Outlander book 1? 

Me.  Ditto to practically everything you said.  

I found the show on a free Starz weekend.  Got hooked.  Watched on Amazon prime.  Read the book during the hiatus waiting for the second half of the first season - and promptly wished I hadn't read the book at all.  It nearly ruined the second half of the season for me.  Still, I watched the show and enjoyed it and looked forward to the second season, even got Starz through Amazon Prime so I could watch "live" this time around.  But then I just couldn't really get into it.  I watched the episodes, yes - but something just seemed lacking to me.  It didn't have the magic of the first season.  

Tbh, I would have liked it better, if the show hadn't adopted the 'each book is a season' mentality and spent more time on Claire in Scotland before she and Jamie got married.  It's an adaptation after all, so that could have been a whole season, imo.

I've tried to read the second book.  Got most of the way through it by skipping about but I had to really force myself.  I know this is a book talk thread, so you're mostly going to get people who really love the books replying.  But I don't love the books.  I don't like the style of writing.  And I can't stand watching the author in interviews.  (This should probably go in the unpopular opinion thread.)  

I'm not looking forward to S3 nearly as much as remember looking forward to S2.  I haven't gotten rid of Starz yet, so I'll probably check out the first episode at least.  

[Summer]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

But then I just couldn't really get into it.  I watched the episodes, yes - but something just seemed lacking to me.  It didn't have the magic of the first season.  

Word 

[toolazy]

The first half of season 1 had a sort of spooky, other-worldly tone that is what initially hooked me.  The air of mystery was gone by the second half of the season, never to return.  Which is fine, because the story moved on, but I'll always love the eeriness of the first few episodes.  

I find that I'm not nearly as eager for season 3 to start as I was six months ago.  Voyager is my favorite book in the series and I'm reluctant to have the scenes in my head replaced by scenes in the show.  Not that I won't be all over it when it finally comes out, because I will.  It just won't be unalloyed happiness.