Unpopular Opinions: Overheard While Traveling Through the Stones

[GHScorpiosRule]

Aye, aye, I suck at titles, sae if anyone come up with a better one, have at it!

I thought it might be nice to have an Unpopular Thread for us buik readers so we're not hampered by unwittingly letting information/knowledge we know leak when talking about the show and what are our unpopular opinions!

I'll have to go back and see what would be considered unpopular here.

Edited October 12, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[GHScorpiosRule]

Silly me! I was under the impression I had to think of one from only this season!

This was a very hot button issue back when the show premiered, but I haven't changed my mind:

I do not, and never thought that when Jamie spanked Claire, that it was abuse. Yeah, yeah, in the buik!Claire said he "beat me within an inch of my life" and yet, she wasn't beaten to a pulp. I take "beat" to mean, he used his fists to punch, her body, her face; not wallop her behind with a belt. I didn't care for the upbeat music they played while Jamie was running around trying to get Claire over his lap. And Claire gave as good as she got.

[Nidratime]

Here's three potential titles:

Overheard While Traveling Through the Stones

Overheard in Claire’s Surgery

Whispering in Laoghaire’s Ear

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Nidratime said:

Here's three potential titles:

Overheard While Traveling Through the Stones

Overheard in Claire’s Surgery

Whispering in Laoghaire’s Ear

I like the first one! I'll go ahead and change it!

[FnkyChkn34]

I guess this is an unpopular opinion for the Book Talk thread... and I've expressed it elsewhere, but I'll post again just for a topic of conversation.  I don't like DG's writing.  I don't think she's a great writer, grammatically speaking.  She's a great story teller and developer of characters so in that sense she's a decent author, but not a great "writer."  Her syntax and grammatical errors just make me cringe.  Her lack of a character bible and confusion of dates and timelines also really annoys me.  I started watching this show and reading the books shortly after I'd been reading the Game of Thrones books, and the differences are very apparent.  George RR Martin clearly has character outlines and detailed timelines and rarely confuses history, backgrounds, etc.  DG can't even get characters' ages, birthdays, and dates of death right.

[melody16]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

 DG can't even get characters' ages, birthdays, and dates of death right.

I completely agree with this.  I am re-reading Echo in the Bone and I was trying to figure out the differences in ages between Willie and Brianna and none of it was making sense to me.  If anyone knows, can they let me know? Sorry if this isn't the right thread but it was driving me batty this morning.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

21 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I guess this is an unpopular opinion for the Book Talk thread... and I've expressed it elsewhere, but I'll post again just for a topic of conversation.  I don't like DG's writing.  I don't think she's a great writer, grammatically speaking.  She's a great story teller and developer of characters so in that sense she's a decent author, but not a great "writer."  Her syntax and grammatical errors just make me cringe.  Her lack of a character bible and confusion of dates and timelines also really annoys me.  I started watching this show and reading the books shortly after I'd been reading the Game of Thrones books, and the differences are very apparent.  George RR Martin clearly has character outlines and detailed timelines and rarely confuses history, backgrounds, etc.  DG can't even get characters' ages, birthdays, and dates of death right.

@FnkyChkn34! I think we share the SAME BRAIN!!!!???If you've ever gone through the buik threads, I've said this EXACT same thing, but I was more, erm, shall we say, blunt? About how I think she's a horrible writer, was and is in need of an aggressive copy editor, uses too much "purple Prose" and wordy, wordy, Mcwordy, wordyyyy!!!! That said, the world she created is one I love and she gets it with the character beats. I've admitted maybe I'm just biased because my favorite author Nora Roberts, has set the bar so high, but she is the Gold Standard for me when it comes to authors who can write romance, relationships and characters that are so believable and language and dialogue so real, that I have to remind myself they're not real people.

Ahem.

Topic? Giving you a virtual High Five! ???????

Edited October 12, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, melody16 said:

I completely agree with this.  I am re-reading Echo in the Bone and I was trying to figure out the differences in ages between Willie and Brianna and none of it was making sense to me.  If anyone knows, can they let me know? Sorry if this isn't the right thread but it was driving me batty this morning.  

Hmmm...let me take a crack...Bree would have been born in November 1746, had Claire remained. And when did Jamie and that twat do the deed? seven years later? ten? I'll have to go back and rewatch "Of Lost Things" to confirm.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, melody16 said:

I completely agree with this.  I am re-reading Echo in the Bone and I was trying to figure out the differences in ages between Willie and Brianna and none of it was making sense to me.  If anyone knows, can they let me know? Sorry if this isn't the right thread but it was driving me batty this morning.  

Oh God, not Echo in the Bone!! There is so much time wonkiness in that book, I had to stop trying to figure it out. That said, I believe William and Brianna are about 12 or 13 years apart.

ETA: What @Grashka said while I was trying to do the math.

Edited October 12, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Future Cat Lady]

I also don't think that DG is a very good writer. She's obviously has no outlines and no notebooks about characters and events. She also forgets and retcons things she's written.

The first 3 books had a semblance of structure, but after that it's just a series of events. There is no theme or specific time frames. It's hard to remember what happens in each books after the 5th one.

 She uses rape for drama purposes. 

The book could be better if she actually accepted criticism and let a good editor do his/her job. I always had the feeling that her publisher let's her do whatever she wants because a)she's must be a pain in the ass if you try to change anything she's written, and  b) the books sell no matter what. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, Future Cat Lady said:

I also don't think that DG is a very good writer. She's obviously has no outlines and no notebooks about characters and events. She also forgets and retcons things she's written.

The first 3 books had a semblance of structure, but after that it's just a series of events. There is no theme or specific time frames. It's hard to remember what happens in each books after the 5th one.[/quote]

She has said that she doesn't outline her books.  She writes individual scenes and then stitches them together.  The result is a lot of really excellent individual scenes that require lame plot contrivances to relate to each other.   

1 hour ago, Future Cat Lady said:

 She uses rape for drama purposes. 

She's hardly alone. 

1 hour ago, Future Cat Lady said:

The book could be better if she actually accepted criticism and let a good editor do his/her job. I always had the feeling that her publisher let's her do whatever she wants because a)she's must be a pain in the ass if you try to change anything she's written, and  b) the books sell no matter what. 

I don't know if she uses beta readers but she probably should.  

[FnkyChkn34]

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

 

As far as mistakes with characters ages are concerned, I only recall three major ones: Roger referring to Claire as "beautiful 60 years old woman" at the beginning of DIA, Claire referring to herself as 48 years old when she was writing a letter to Brianna in "Voyager" (while she should have been 50) and Claire mentioning Jamie being supposedly 25 when he first met Fergus in Paris....but his 25 birthday came several days after Culloden. 

One word. Faith. 

DG has no clue when Faith was conceived, how long Claire was pregnant, and when Faith was born/died. No. Clue. This was a huge event in the main characters' lives, and DG mucked it all up. Something as big as this being so confusing drives me insane. 

[DittyDotDot]

15 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I guess this is an unpopular opinion for the Book Talk thread... and I've expressed it elsewhere, but I'll post again just for a topic of conversation.  I don't like DG's writing.  I don't think she's a great writer, grammatically speaking.  She's a great story teller and developer of characters so in that sense she's a decent author, but not a great "writer."  Her syntax and grammatical errors just make me cringe.  Her lack of a character bible and confusion of dates and timelines also really annoys me.  I started watching this show and reading the books shortly after I'd been reading the Game of Thrones books, and the differences are very apparent.  George RR Martin clearly has character outlines and detailed timelines and rarely confuses history, backgrounds, etc.  DG can't even get characters' ages, birthdays, and dates of death right.

In general, like with most art, I think "good" or "great" writing is in the eye of the beholder. While I agree Diana could use a good editor--but that's hardly unusual to writing these days, IMO--I also think she writes very vivid character scenes. So, it all depends on what you're drawn to. If you're in it for a great over-arcing plot where every little detail is part of the whole, you'll definitely find her books lacking. But, for me, I'm more interested in the smaller ideas, character beats and being able to both see and feel the scene in my head than the actual plot.  

14 hours ago, Grashka said:

Interesting like perspectives can differ. I've tried to read Nora Roberts a couple of times and failed, for me it felt only slighty above Harlequin novel. I don't know, maybe I came across her early books or something.

I could never get into Norah Roberts either.

9 hours ago, toolazy said:

She has said that she doesn't outline her books.  She writes individual scenes and then stitches them together.  The result is a lot of really excellent individual scenes that require lame plot contrivances to relate to each other.   

I tend to think of these books as a collection of short little character dramas where almost each chapter--or scene--can stand on it's own. Which works for me since I tend to love a good short story!

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I could never get into Norah Roberts either.

AHEM! It's NorA. No h. And yes, Nora, like most romance authors, got started with Silhouette and her early stuff was like Harlequin, but hers were a step better except for a handful. I've read everything and anything since I was a tween and can tell you that she was the first author to give us the male/hero's POV, something I am thankful for. We all have different tastes, and that's okay.

Topic--I'm not sure how unpopular this is, but I do know that I resent that the show didn't provide with casual and non-buik readers, that Frank was a philandering, serial cheating, racist jerk. And that Sandy was not the long suffering mistress who waited for years. Like I said in the episode thread "Freedom and Whiskey" how I pulled out Voyager, and went straight to the print shop scene, I had to look for it, and did come across the scene where Frank tells Claire he's taking Bree away.  It wasn't for culture or to learn about England or go to Oxford. She was 17. He wanted her to be swaddled and "protected" from what was happening in the States, and said it was better than having her "fuck a black man!" like Claire was doing, because "EVERYONE knew" that she and Joe were having an affair. The conversation took place in bed, and Claire knew it was probably Frank's "latest" who was making demands, and his reaction confirmed it. I've said and continue to say, if they were going to flesh Frank out, then show EVERYTHING. And I don't agree it would have made him look cartoonish. At this point, people are sympathizing with him for putting up with Claire's indifference and "good for him!" for finding a woman who loved him.  What the fuck ever.
 

[melody16]

Thanks everyone! So when Brianna first meets Jamie and is pregnant with Jem, she is about 24 years old? That would make sense if she is about 30 in 1776 (when she and Roger go back to the future). 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

In general, like with most art, I think "good" or "great" writing is in the eye of the beholder. While I agree Diana could use a good editor--but that's hardly unusual to writing these days, IMO--I also think she writes very vivid character scenes. So, it all depends on what you're drawn to. If you're in it for a great over-arcing plot where every little detail is part of the whole, you'll definitely find her books lacking. But, for me, I'm more interested in the smaller ideas, character beats and being able to both see and feel the scene in my head than the actual plot.  

When reading a book, I want it to be well written in addition to a good story.  I want excellent sentence structure, grammar, syntax, etc.  I don't want to read a book that's as poorly written as a bunch of tweets strung together (clearly an exaggeration, but also what I'm afraid future generations are devolving to).  I want to read a book and know why a publisher said "this is a great book" rather than think to myself "my high school essays were better written than this, why aren't I a famous, rich author too?"  Know what I mean?  

[melody16]

17 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh God, not Echo in the Bone!! There is so much time wonkiness in that book, I had to stop trying to figure it out. That said, I believe William and Brianna are about 12 or 13 years apart.

 

Ha I know! But I haven't read it since the week after it came out.  I wanted to refresh my memory.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I hate what happens in Echo. I think I stated in the buik thread, for a series that has time traveling and magickal stuff, it didn't have to happen!

[melody16]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I hate what happens in Echo. I think I stated in the buik thread, for a series that has time traveling and magickal stuff, it didn't have to happen!

I'm trying to remember what happens in Echo and I can't (hence the re-read!).  Will check the book thread after I finish.  I have enjoyed your observations a lot!

[Clawdette]

While I understand their reasons for doing so, I think the team made a mistake in adapting Claire's return to Scotland and the initial reunion screen.  Book readers had no problem filling in the empty spaces.  I visited my sister and brother-in-law this week and they are fans of the series but haven't read the books.  I'd term both of them insightful and intuitive.  The first thing my sister mentioned was "How did Claire get back?  Did she go back through the same stones?  She was suddenly just there."  My brother-in-law wasn't buying Jamie fainting.  I explained how it occurred in the book with Jamie thinking Claire was a vision until she touched him.

So while I think they've done a good job in condensing so much material, I think these are two areas that may have been "misadapted" for non-book readers.

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, Clawdette said:

So while I think they've done a good job in condensing so much material, I think these are two areas that may have been "misadapted" for non-book readers.

I'm not sure what other non-buik readers online or other boards think, but a good number of the ones here loved or liked the last five minutes.

[Archery]

Huh.  I thought it was fairly obvious that Claire would go through the same stones and that there was some passage of time before she stepped out of the coach. They used the same "vehicle" device before, transitioning from Boston to Paris.

My UO:  both Brianna's and Joe's accents are perfectly fine.

[GHScorpiosRule]

And both Matt Roberts and Toni Graphia talk about how they couldn't show the walking through the Stones, because they were in South Africa, and it would be an expensive and logistical nightmare. As it was, it took a long time to do the transition with the puddle.

[FnkyChkn34]

The costume and scenery changes were obvious, as was her conversation with Bree and Roger before she left about how she was going to travel through the stones, what they read in Geillis' journal, the gem stones, etc.  I'm sorry to hear that it wasn't obvious that she traveled through the stones to a non-book reader.  I guess I thought it would be.

[Eureka]

3 hours ago, melody16 said:

Thanks everyone! So when Brianna first meets Jamie and is pregnant with Jem, she is about 24 years old? That would make sense if she is about 30 in 1776 (when she and Roger go back to the future). 

I think so. Brianna is a year younger than my mom and when Jem is in 1980, he is 10 isn’t he? That’s a year older than I am, and my mom had me when she was 24. Yes, that was a roundabout way of getting there, but I think it works. Lol.

[Nidratime]

Since the show, itself, doesn't make the transitioning through the stones a big deal -- I mean, showing how it happens, not that it's easy or anything -- it seems silly to have to show it every time. The first time was necessary just because it was the first time, and showing Claire going back to the 1940's was necessary only because it was a big emotional deal between Jamie and Claire. This time they brought Roger to Boston and kept him there with Bree, so Claire was going to be on her own and it just didn't seem necessary to show her doing what we've seen her do twice before. I can understand the logic, even if it was also a question of being logistically difficult.

[toolazy]

5 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

The costume and scenery changes were obvious, as was her conversation with Bree and Roger before she left about how she was going to travel through the stones, what they read in Geillis' journal, the gem stones, etc.  I'm sorry to hear that it wasn't obvious that she traveled through the stones to a non-book reader.  I guess I thought it would be.

Sometimes I think that the Outlander show runners seriously underestimate viewers' intelligence and sometimes, I'm not so sure. 

[areca]

I think Sam and Cait are at the point where they can barely tolerate each other.  I don't see some great friendship, I don't see some great chemistry.  Don't know what went wrong, but they remind me of Fillion and Katic but are not yet to Willis and Shepherd levels.  Their joint appearances are utterly painful to watch.

Edited October 29, 2017 by areca

[Nidratime]

You posted a similar comment on the other unpopular opinions thread without any evidence other than your own opinion. Please give examples.

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

You posted a similar comment on the other unpopular opinions thread without any evidence other than your own opinion. Please give examples.

Well, it's the unpopular "opinion" thread, so that's obviously the place for people to each have their own opinion.  That said, however, I too am interested in examples, because I definitely haven't seen it either.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Well, it's the unpopular "opinion" thread, so that's obviously the place for people to each have their own opinion.  That said, however, I too am interested in examples, because I definitely haven't seen it either.

I just think "opinions" about the actual actors, as people, rather than their roles, their acting, or even how the story is being told should at least be based on something.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Nidratime

[WatchrTina]

Just a reminder that this website has an "ignore user" function.  If you click on your own name in the top right you'll see an option for "ignored users". Click on that and it will take you to an area where you can specifically enter a user name so that their posts no longer appear in your feed.

[Nidratime]

Thanks. Forget about that sometimes.

[juniemoon]

I've been lurking in this forum so long, my Laoghaire could be leggings. I've been reading the regular forums -- itching the whole time (from suppressed dissent, not my Laoghaire) -- and forgot, until recently, about Unpopular Opinions. Bless you all. I hope you will indulge.

I'll start by confessing that my love-hate with DG and these books -- and by extension, this series -- is pretty intense. I started watching the series before reading any of the books, and I was so traumatized -- and I am no prude and have been a fan of some pretty graphic films and shows -- by the Jaime-rape scenes in S1, I thought to myself, there is no way Outlander has so many devoted fans unless the book version is somehow less graphic, or able to be imagined as such. (UO #1: Sorry, I'm one who thought those scenes were both homoerotic and torture porn.) So I started reading, and yes, I could read those scenes and, although still disturbing, see them as more "tolerable." But the main thing was, I was dealing with an extended period of profound loss and stress at the time, and (UO #2, thankfully shared by some of you here!) DG's mostly bad, occasionally luminous writing transported me to some other world I badly needed as an escape. And that's how I got here. 

I read books 1 - 4 purely to escape/forget. I actually preferred the parts where DG loses herself (and her story, ha) in minute detail, even when it was obviously excessive and in need of a good edit. What I didn't care for were those jarring parts where it seemed like she had a bad, trope-y romance writer whom she called upon to step in with OTT dialog or some quirky fetish that a focus group must have said turned readers on. I've read other comments about DG's seemingly split personality, and I seriously wonder if she's managed to keep a tone-deaf writing partner a secret. Or just googled DIY romance writing and clumsily followed the instructions, like a horny 12-year-old. (I adopted a habit of saying out loud, "Oh, Diannnnna, why???" whenever she went too far; you all know what I mean!)

Which brings me to UO #3: I'm with those who see little chemistry between TV Jaime and Claire. I get it; I've loved some shows so much, my imagination fills in what's missing to satisfy my head and heart's version of things -- and book readers have even more material to substitute for what's not here -- but this isn't one of them. Sex isn't chemistry, and IMO, these two characters, while fond enough of each other, are missing real spark. I struggle every week to find reasons to keep watching, and sometimes there's a single lovely moment, and sometimes it's as simple as "Sam's so pretty," but that's all I see. I honestly can't say how much of it is the writing or the acting -- sometimes Sam and/or Cait transcend the material, and sometimes the dialog and/or plot contrivances are just too dreadful to overcome.

I've given up on the books after #4 -- I've made it to a less perilous place in my life, and I noticed DG wasn't the medicine I needed anymore (and I notice many book readers said this was one of the hardest to get through, and I agree; I was bored stiff) -- but I'll admit that the beginning of Voyager was my favorite part of the entire saga so far. DG described loneliness so starkly, so viscerally, some of her passages brought tears. I was so hoping the series would let Sam embody this prolonged period of profound suffering, but no, it was one episode of Big Bearded Caveman, a quicky tour of prison, and one ep of Helwater, which brought his alienation to a bittersweet crescendo in the books but was over in an hour on TV. (I wish they would have covered only up to the actual voyage this season, cutting most of Claire's years in Boston, giving Jaime his due and time to breathe, but that may be UO #5.) 

Thanks for letting me at last say my piece. Honestly, I'm not a traditional romance reader, and I'm one tough customer when it comes to selling me "true, forever love," but these books took me somewhere I needed to be at a time in my life I'll never forget. I probably yearned for a specific version of this series as much as devoted book fans yearn for the next chapter. That it's not what I'd hoped is no surprise, really. I take what I can from each episode and marvel at all of your passionate insights.

[lianau]

I like Lord John, Hal  , William , Ian , Rachel and that group more  than  Jamie and Claire .  I also enjoy Lizzie and the Beardsley twins.

[Atlanta]

10 hours ago, lianau said:

I like Lord John, Hal  , William , Ian , Rachel and that group more  than  Jamie and Claire .  I also enjoy Lizzie and the Beardsley twins.

I like all of those characters, but I wish Lord John didn't get so much time in the main novels. He's got his own series.

[Summer]

Wanted to touch on the conversation in the "Doldrums" book talk thread regarding Sam's acting and figured I'd best put it in this thread.  Some were saying that his acting is hit or miss, which I agree with.  I was thinking about the silly video that came out a few months ago where Sam and Catriona go to couples therapy as Jamie and Claire.   Now, I 100% get that the video is a parody and meant to be silly and funny (which is was, I  watched it a few times and cracked up every time!) but what stood out to me was how much Sam was overacting.  Again, I get it that it was not meant to be serious and the director could very well have told him to "play it up" but in my opinion Catriona came off so much funnier,  with her quiet annoyance, eye rolling and clutching tissues in her hand.   It seemed to me that Sam was very obviously trying to show producers and casting directors that he could do comedy and he was trying wayyyyyyy too hard to be funny and therefore he wasn't nearly as funny because it was so forced.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

25 minutes ago, Summer said:

Wanted to touch on the conversation in the "Doldrums" book talk thread regarding Sam's acting and figured I'd best put it in this thread.  Some were saying that his acting is hit or miss, which I agree with.  I was thinking about the silly video that came out a few months ago where Sam and Catriona go to couples therapy as Jamie and Claire.   Now, I 100% get that the video is a parody and meant to be silly and funny (which is was, I  watched it a few times and cracked up every time!) but what stood out to me was how much Sam was overacting.  Again, I get it that it was not meant to be serious and the director could very well have told him to "play it up" but in my opinion Catriona came off so much funnier,  with her quiet annoyance, eye rolling and clutching tissues in her hand.   It seemed to me that Sam was very obviously trying to show producers and casting directors that he could do comedy and he was trying wayyyyyyy too hard to be funny and therefore he wasn't nearly as funny because it was so forced.  

I ken, I'm biased, but I disagree. As for the therapy video, that was a love letter for the fans. I doubt very much it was made to show any producers anything. I think they all know they have good actors in both Cait and Sam. And the point of the parody is to make it overexaggerated with one, while there is always a "straight man" which Cait was. But, potatoes and potahtoes and all that.  Because the one thing I can say with 100% certainty is that Sam does his damndest to make sure he puts/translates as much of buik!Jamie onto the screen as he can. He reads the buiks, and I so very much appreciate all the physical mannerisms (like the tapping of his fingers when Jamie is thinking or perturbed, to using his left hand to lift a quill or the inkpot because in the buiks, he's left-handed, while Sam is right-handed) and infusing emotion, be it rage, humor, passion, grief, in the buik dialogue that also makes it to the screen. And when it fails, I blame the writers and directors.

Sue me.?????

Edited November 13, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[FnkyChkn34]

I agree, @GHScorpiosRule.  IMO, that parody was completely silly and goofy, and I don't think anyone was taking it seriously.  (I thought it was stupid and didn't even really care for it, but I know others who found it very funny.)  If neither of them were great "actors" in it, so be it.  I'm sure neither one was using or will use it as an audition tape. ;-)  

[GHScorpiosRule]

And just to add, I am not a fan of Gabaldon's writing, as my many, many comments through the individual buik threads will attest. I wasn't interested in seeing this show, at all. I'd only read up to a third into Voyager before I'd given up.  But then I saw Sam in one of the early trailers before the show premiered. I'd decided I was going to give the show a chance based on that alone. Aye, I can be verra shallow.????????But watching him, and Cait and really all the actors, and I was hooked. Especially Cait and Sam. And after the first season, I picked up Outlander and burned my way through to buik eight, whose title I'm blanking on. So I'm not wedded to the buiks. That said, I do have my favorite moments, emotional beats, character beats that I wish would have made it on the show, but didn't. I've already beat my chest and clutched my pearls, so I'm resigned that not all of the ones I think should make it, will, and not all of them translate well to screen.

[Quickbeam]

I really hate the whole Jocasta subplot that spilled over in several books. I loved all the day to day stuff on Fraser’s Ridge. Too many rapes and rape attempts. I hated Jamaica. When I read the books in one solid kindle bundle ( which I do not recommend) I got really good at skim reading. 

[meatball77]

I've always been of the opinion that once you get beyond about three or four books in a series that many authors essentially are writing their own fan fiction.  They've ended their planned arc and it's just a huge plot mess after that.  I think this happened with the Outlander series about halfway through book three but is truly evident in book four (I'm cold and almost dead but lets go at it in the woods).  I've been reading the books and I've totally given up about a third of the way through book five because there is no plot. . .

Another thing that often happens in popular series is that the authors take control and start ignoring their editors so the books get longer and longer. .

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

Another thing that often happens in popular series is that the authors take control and start ignoring their editors so the books get longer and longer. .

It was evident to me that Gabaldon had control from the get go- I’ve mentioned it in the buik threads, but she SERIOUSLY needed an aggressive copy editor even as far back as Outlander. And now? It’s too late.

As for the show, for the most part, I’m enjoying so much this season, because like the buik, a lot more from Jamie’s POV and he’s been kicking the material out of the fucking park! Both he and Cait have been great.

And I still don’t give any fucks about Marsali.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Wow! It's been almost five years since I posted here.

I've been rewatching seasons 1 and 2, and I have to admit, those early seasons are soooooo guid! I miss Jamie's short, thick, mop of waves and curls! I miss SCOTLAND. And while I didn't like how Ron didn't show us Claire's struggle to remain with Jamie, I find I miss him as the show runner. Roberts is guid, but Ron was better; and I miss Ira and Anne Kenney's writing.

And here's a funny thing STARZ does. In the first half of season two (I'm at where they've returned tae bonny Scotland and they're preparing tae fight tae win Culloden), the closed captioning had "talking in Gaelic" whenever Jamie said "I dinna ken" or "dinna fash yeself", which, what? I can understand "Mo Nighean donn" because that IS Gaelic.

I found myself fast forwarding a lot of "Wentworth Prison" and some of "To Ransom a Man's Soul" because Randall is just so gross. That thing that Menzies does, sniffing and talking through his nose just curls my innards in a bad way. And I just can't watch Jamie's rapes.

And Wee Fergus! Watching when Jamie first sees him and hires him to do his spying, my brain cleared. I didn't think Fergus was a prostitute--just that the show had Randall rape him. But it was in the non-buik thread I think, for the current season where someone stated how he was a prostitute or something. I love all of Jamie's "ye wee fool" and "ye wee bastard" when they're in France.

And I miss Jenny SO, SO, SO MUCH. I don't know if they can get the original actress back when Jenny shows up again.

And I wouldn't mind any flashbacks with Steven Cree's Ian!

Wot?

And then there's this:

On 11/24/2017 at 3:17 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I still don’t give any fucks about Marsali.

Who knew that by season 4, she'd be one of my favorites?

[Noneofyourbusiness]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And Wee Fergus! Watching when Jamie first sees him and hires him to do his spying, my brain cleared. I didn't think Fergus was a prostitute--just that the show had Randall rape him. But it was in the non-buik thread I think, for the current season where someone stated how he was a prostitute or something. I love all of Jamie's "ye wee fool" and "ye wee bastard" when they're in France.

I don't think he was officially a prostitute, but I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the first time something like that happened to him.

[kwnyc]

On 10/12/2017 at 4:56 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

She's a great story teller and developer of characters so in that sense she's a decent author, but not a great "writer." 

You're right about this. And she also has what I've nicknamed "Stephen King" disease: she's such a popular writer that they don't really bother to edit her manuscripts. 

She's certainly capable of putting together good writing, and the first book has some excellent writing in it. But when you're not going over every chapter, working with an editor to cut & strengthen, but writing faster to get it out there, that's the first priority. (Ask Charles Dickens! Ask J.K. Rowling!)

One of my favorite scenes in the first book is when Claire sees the Loch Ness monster, and in the midst of her unbelievable time-travel journey, affirms one of the great mysteries of our times. (And then when it comes into play later, during her trial as a witch, when someone else who actually saw the monster at the same time is a witness, and gets sent away for being crazy/drunk.) THAT's storytelling.

[SassAndSnacks]

Confession - I was so disappointed in Bees that I'm having a harder time watching the show.  I used to overlook DG's writing style because the singular scenes were so strong, and it didn't really bother me so much how they were all tied together.  But now, I can't overlook it because Bees was such a hot freaking mess.    

I've enjoyed Season 6 so far, but I hate the whole Malva storyline.  When I first read ABOSAA, I was so pissed about this whole development.  It pissed me off more than Claire's rape, which was absolutely unnecessary conceptually, though it did produce one of the better written subplots in the series (ie Claire's rescue, Roger and the drum, Arch Bugg with his ax, Jamie "Kill them all.")  

I tried to re-read Bees again, because everything/one deserves a second chance, but I couldn't get past the third page.  

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And while I didn't like how Ron didn't show us Claire's struggle to remain with Jamie, I find I miss him as the show runner. Roberts is guid, but Ron was better; and I miss Ira and Anne Kenney's writing.

The show now, though not as weak as Season 4, isn't where it was in Seasons 1, 2, and early 3, and I think you hit on the main reason above.  

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Confession - I was so disappointed in Bees that I'm having a harder time watching the show.  I used to overlook DG's writing style because the singular scenes were so strong, and it didn't really bother me so much how they were all tied together.  But now, I can't overlook it because Bees was such a hot freaking mess.    

I've enjoyed Season 6 so far, but I hate the whole Malva storyline.  When I first read ABOSAA, I was so pissed about this whole development.  It pissed me off more than Claire's rape, which was absolutely unnecessary conceptually, though it did produce one of the better written subplots in the series (ie Claire's rescue, Roger and the drum, Arch Bugg with his ax, Jamie "Kill them all.")  

I tried to re-read Bees again, because everything/one deserves a second chance, but I couldn't get past the third page.  

The show now, though not as weak as Season 4, isn't where it was in Seasons 1, 2, and early 3, and I think you hit on the main reason above.  

I couldn't get through book 5, and I'm not sure how I even got that far. Kudos to you for hanging in as long as you did. 

I said this in the recent episode, no book talk thread, but I'll say it again to agree with you - the show jumped the shark in season 3. (Nearly literally; Claire jumping off the ship and swimming to the island where the crazy coconut guy lived only needed an actual shark to make it even sillier.)

[GHScorpiosRule]

Och! I never thought I’d pick up any of these buiks again tae read, but having finished rewatching the first three seasons (UGH!!!! to the last half), I find myself re-reading Outlander, and Show did a pretty good job, so far (I’m up to where Claire hears that singer), of using most of the dialogue and material. I still think they should have used how Jamie was at a monastery and that he had that scar on the back of his head. Wasn’t it Dougal who was responsible for that?

Anyhooo, I’m skimming and just reading the dialogue. Catriona really plays Claire softer than buik!Claire.

Edited March 27, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wouldn’t be upset if this series ends with buik 8-with the way it ended. I haven’t read the latest and I know that it was Jamie’s ghost we saw in season one-the one that Frank saw. I dinna want tae see them die, so I’m okay if the series ends with 8!