S03.E08: First Wife

[millahnna]

1 hour ago, GingerMarie said:

Would be very unrealistic if they did not have feelings of jealousy, resentment, uncertainty as well as that first blush of total bliss of seeing each other again'. 

Conceptually, I'm all good with this.  I don't remember this part of the book well, but I fell like it's been ramped up on the show and it's a change I approve of on paper, so to speak.  It's the execution that isn't working for me.  Having Jenny call them out on it a bit helped; at least someone is acknowledging that they are acting like children.

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

But that's not how it happened in the show, right? Jamie handed it right over. Didn't he have a reason for that?

They changed the story a bit.  TV!Jamie is suffering from a greater level of despair after not finding any sign of Claire. He assaults John -- seizing him from behind. Book!Jamie never touched him.  TV!Jamie provokes John -- choosing that moment to reveal that yes he DOES recollect when they first met and yes he DOES remember John's humiliation.  And then he gives John back his sword offers his neck.  None of that happens in the book but I fully support the change. It was all done to accelerate things and to make it unnecessary for John to blackmail Jamie by threatening Jamie's family (which the TV viewers might have had a hard time getting over.)  TV!Jamie, surprised by John's refusal to harm him (despite Jamie's provocation) and probably a bit shell-shocked at finding himself still alive, brings the episode to a close by "confessing" (but not really) to John and offering the gem as proof the story is true (just like in the book). It's a tidy bit of writing and a nifty way to condense the plot. You're not at all surprised to see the two of them playing chess shortly thereafter and being clearly more relaxed and friendly with one another . . . until they're not.

Edited November 8, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, millahnna said:

I'm kind of inclined to agree with the AV Club reviewer on this one; Jenny is the only person on this show with a lick of common sense right now.  

That's really the only thing that particular reviewer got right.  I've never read reviews of television shows that miss the point more often than she does. 

[FnkyChkn34]

12 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I meant originally in the 1940’s. Thanks @Nidratime  

Oh, I gotcha. The other part of the comment was about the second time she went back, so I was confused.  

[DittyDotDot]

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Actually Im still surprised that frank was never accused of Claire’s murder (I guess 21st century thinking here), but without a body or a crime scene the idea that she left him made more sense to the police. 

I believe he was suspected of doing harm to Claire at first, but he had an alibi, as I recall, with Reverend Wakefield. And, yeah, I'm pretty sure the police thought she had left him. We didn't really see Frank's side of things in the book, but on the show that's how it seemed to play out.

[WatchrTina]

8 hours ago, toolazy said:

I've never read reviews of television shows that miss the point more often than she does. 

I just went to look at the review (I didn't know AV Club did them), saw that she gave this episode a C+ and backed slowly away without bothering to read it.  In the one sentence of the summary that I glimpsed before fleeing I saw that she called the episode "boring."  

Words fail me. 

[FnkyChkn34]

27 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I just went to look at the review (I didn't know AV Club did them), saw that she gave this episode a C+ and backed slowly away without bothering to read it.  In the one sentence of the summary that I glimpsed before fleeing I saw that she called the episode "boring."  

Words fail me. 

I tend not to read reviews at all, especially after I've seen something.  I know if I liked it or not - I don't need someone else to try to tell me if I liked it or not. ;-)  

[WatchrTina]

On 11/7/2017 at 0:24 AM, LadyBrochTuarach said:

Upon rewatch something I noticed... Laoghaire looks like a young Mrs. Fitzgibbons !  Anyone else see this? 

That's so funny that you said that because I read somewhere that Nell (as Laoghaire) is actually wearing the same wig they put on Mrs. Fitz.  And they both wore that matron's bonnet (an 18th century fashion that Book!Claire rejects).  Now I'm sure that the costuming and wigging were a deliberate call-back to Mr. Fitz.  She was Loughaire's grandmother after all.

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

That's so funny that you said that because I read somewhere that Nell (as Laoghaire) is actually wearing the same wig they put on Mrs. Fitz.  And they both wore that matron's bonnet (an 18th century fashion that Book!Claire rejects).  Now I'm sure that the costuming and wigging were a deliberate call-back to Mr. Fitz.  She was Loughaire's grandmother after all.

I don't know where I read it, but some have said how the show did a bad job of "aging" Hudson. Well, her character is supposed to 36ish. I know times were more harsh then, but I don't have a problem with her NOT looking like an old crone. Even if her character is a harridan, and her reaction to seeing Claire again just reinforced that she was putting on an act in "The Fox's Lair."

17 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I tend not to read reviews at all, especially after I've seen something.  I know if I liked it or not - I don't need someone else to try to tell me if I liked it or not. ;-)  

I NEVER read reviews for the same reason. Pretty much because I don't need another person nitpicking or whining complaining about a show/episode that I love. And so many get it wrong. It's like they have no clue what this show or the characters are aboot.

[WatchrTina]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know where I read it, but some have said how the show did a bad job of "aging" Hudson

I wonder if they were book readers who resented the fact that we didn't get to see "fat" Laoughaire? I'll confess that a wicked part of me was secretly looking forward to that but it's probably for the best that they didn't go there.  Can you imaging the accusations of "fat-shaming" we would have heard if they'd put Nell in a fat-suit?  I thought the aging of Nell Hudson was fine.  They needed her to be instantly recognizable to viewers who had not laid eyes on Laoghaire since episode 208 in "The Fox's Lair."  It also would not have made sense for her aging makeup to be more severe than Sam and Cait's and we've cheerfully accepted their seeming immortality.

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I wonder if they were book readers who resented the fact that we didn't get to see "fat" Laoughaire? I'll confess that a wicked part of me was secretly looking forward to that but it's probably for the best that they didn't go there.  Can you imaging the accusations of "fat-shaming" we would have heard if they'd put Nell in a fat-suit?  I thought the aging of Nell Hudson was fine.  They needed her to be instantly recognizable to viewers who had not laid eyes on Laoghaire since episode 208 in "The Fox's Lair."  It also would not have made sense for her aging makeup to be more severe than Sam and Cait's and we've cheerfully accepted their seeming immortality.

Was Laoghaire fat in the books? I know Geillis gets fat, but I don't remember Laoghaire being described as fat.

Anyway, I agree, they've done fine with the aging. It's been 20 years, but they're not old cronies or anything...yet.

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I wonder if they were book readers who resented the fact that we didn't get to see "fat" Laoughaire? I'll confess that a wicked part of me was secretly looking forward to that but it's probably for the best that they didn't go there.  Can you imaging the accusations of "fat-shaming" we would have heard if they'd put Nell in a fat-suit?  I thought the aging of Nell Hudson was fine.  They needed her to be instantly recognizable to viewers who had not laid eyes on Laoghaire since episode 208 in "The Fox's Lair."  It also would not have made sense for her aging makeup to be more severe than Sam and Cait's and we've cheerfully accepted their seeming immortality.

Oh dear. I wonder if this means Geillis will still be her skinny ass self. I don't care if they fat-shame. Geillis turns out to be this grotesque behomoth and I want Lotte in a fat suit! 

But yeah, I don't recall as Laoghaire being fat. I just recall she preferred that skinny twit of a man who was Jamie's opposite in every respect, physically.  But I will defer to @WatchrTina who has read these buiks over and over again.

[WatchrTina]

9 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Was Laoghaire fat in the books?

Okay fine, make me go look.  It reads thus:

Quote

She was nearing forty and no longer slender, having thickened considerably.  The skin was still fair, but weathered, and stretched plumply over cheeks flushed with anger.  Strands of ashy hair straggled out from under her respectable white kertch.  The pale blue eyes were the same, through -- they turned on me again, with the same expression of hatred I had seen in them long ago.

4 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Oh dear. I wonder if this means Geillis will still be her skinny ass self.

Weel, did you see the teaser trailer for the second half of the season?  Look closely.  I think your question has already been answered.

Edited November 8, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Weel, did you see the teaser trailer for the second half of the season.  Look closely.  I think your question has already been answered.

Aye, I ken. BUT. My Godmother, when she was going through a tough time, gained weight, but her arms and legs remained slim! So...I'm holding out a slim hope. But I'm prepared for them deviating.

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Okay fine, make me go look.  It reads thus:

Quote

She was nearing forty and no longer slender, having thickened considerably.  The skin was still fair, but weathered, and stretched plumply over cheeks flushed with anger.  Strands of ashy hair straggled out from under her respectable white kertch.  The pale blue eyes were the same, through -- they turned on me again, with the same expression of hatred I had seen in them long ago.

Oh, see, I read that as she didn't have the body of a 16-year-old anymore. More shapely, as most of us are as we get older, but not necessarily fat. 

[FnkyChkn34]

23 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Oh dear. I wonder if this means Geillis will still be her skinny ass self. I don't care if they fat-shame. Geillis turns out to be this grotesque behomoth and I want Lotte in a fat suit! 

But yeah, I don't recall as Laoghaire being fat. I just recall she preferred that skinny twit of a man who was Jamie's opposite in every respect, physically.  But I will defer to @WatchrTina who has read these buiks over and over again.

I never got the impression that Geillis turned in to a grotesque behemoth.  I thought she just got standard overweight, not like "My 600-lb Life" overweight.  (I'm sorry, I definitely don't mean to be rude, but I'm but sure how else to say it.)  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I never got the impression that Geillis turned in to a grotesque behemoth.  I thought she just got standard overweight, not like "My 600-lb Life" overweight.  (I'm sorry, I definitely don't mean to be rude, but I'm but sure how else to say it.)  

Hmm. Maybe it was DG's description? I've only read this once, and it was part of a marathon of reading all the buiks after I watched the first season, while undergoing chemo, so my memory, which is otherwise very good, is fuzzy on some of the details.

[CalamityBoPeep]

I finally have a chance to sit down and weigh in here. Just to add to everyone's great comments. I loved it. Especially the fight between Jamie and Claire. So fantastically acted. I loved the grit, the rough edges in it, the powerful emotion. Well done! 

I found the reasoning for everyone's actions... Jamie's, Claire's, Jenny's & Ian's... solidly scripted and justified. When this show delivers, it delivers. I feel like they do get the angry angsty emotional beats pretty well, as writers. All in all, I'm a happy book-reader and viewer this week. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by CalamityBoPeep

[MadameKillerB]

I'm still feeling like C and J's "chemistry" is off. I don't mean that they are conveying how complicated it would be to come back together after 20 years. I mean, it feels flat between them. They are both great actors. I see them working LOL I don't know...maybe it's the writing? Or maybe it's the source material (this book)? I'm just not feeling it the way I felt it Season 1 or even Season 2.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

That's so funny that you said that because I read somewhere that Nell (as Laoghaire) is actually wearing the same wig they put on Mrs. Fitz.  And they both wore that matron's bonnet (an 18th century fashion that Book!Claire rejects).  Now I'm sure that the costuming and wigging were a deliberate call-back to Mr. Fitz.  She was Loughaire's grandmother after all.

Too funny! I'm glad they did that, it reinforces that she is related to some old characters that we loved. 

 

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know where I read it, but some have said how the show did a bad job of "aging" Hudson. Well, her character is supposed to 36ish. I know times were more harsh then, but I don't have a problem with her NOT looking like an old crone. 

I feel like it's okay that they aged her. She lost her home at Leoch, most if not all her family. She's widowed twice over, has two children, and hasn't had an easy time of things. So I can live with it. In the book, before Claire walks into the printshop, she sees a women with her children. The women looks much older than Claire does, but is in fact younger. So I assume people aged quicker back then, and maybe they went off of that. 

[LadyBrochTuarach]

11 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

 

Weel, did you see the teaser trailer for the second half of the season?  

What!?!?!? Where!? I haven't seen it! I haven't found it either! Do you have the link? 

 

3 hours ago, MadameKillerB said:

I'm still feeling like C and J's "chemistry" is off. I don't mean that they are conveying how complicated it would be to come back together after 20 years. I mean, it feels flat between them. They are both great actors. I see them working LOL I don't know...maybe it's the writing? Or maybe it's the source material (this book)? I'm just not feeling it the way I felt it Season 1 or even Season 2.

I felt the same as you up until this episode. I feel like it did a much better job this episode, but I really hope that this week we get an even stronger J&C relationship on screen. It's just not what it used to be anymore ?But I love Outlander, so I live with it ! 

I think you're right, it's probably the writing. As was last weeks fiasco attributed to poor writing. Ahem. Grrr. See last episode convo thread for the numerous complaints on that. ?

[WatchrTina]

42 minutes ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

What!?!?!? Where!? I haven't seen it! I haven't found it either! Do you have the link? 

Try this.  I'm not POSITIVE it will work -- you might have to log into STARZ.com to see it.  But here you go.

https://www.starz.com/video/4074c0e0-bf70-44b8-8504-7f9b2195dec0

[LadyBrochTuarach]

12 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Try this.  I'm not POSITIVE it will work -- you might have to log into STARZ.com to see it.  But here you go.

https://www.starz.com/video/4074c0e0-bf70-44b8-8504-7f9b2195dec0

THANK YOU! I'll try it out ? I'm in Canada so I don't think I can get Starz here ? Episodes don't air here until late Sunday night. Which means either a really late watch after I finally get my son to bed, or watching it in increments while he naps on Monday ?

Edited November 9, 2017 by LadyBrochTuarach
Added stuff

[DittyDotDot]

Here is the version that was posted in the spoiler thread, @LadyBrochTuarach:

[Ziggy]

On 11/7/2017 at 8:02 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

See, I didn't get that at all. Because she didn't talk about things not being the same between them on the cliff; she was talking about the external things-her career, social life, etc. I'm as peeved with him as everyone for marrying that twat, especially since Moore decided to add in that Jamie was very well aware of her hand in trying to set up Claire and see her killed. But the show also showed me, at least, he struggled and kept trying to tell her, and then it was too late and it imploded. And in the buik, she did leave him, running off, and I remember reading that she expected Jamie to come running after her, because that's what she wanted and expected Jamie to read her mind. I'm glad they cut that out, because it was ridiculous for someone of Claire's age to act like she was a teenager.

Claire did talk about how she had a life and a job and everything, so it does almost sound like she's complaining about 18th century life.  But she's really just looking back with rose-colored glasses.  She's completing second guessing everything based solely on Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire.  She feels betrayed because of WHO he married, the fact that he didn't tell her and the fact that Jenny (the person she thought of as a sister) betrayed her as well.

 

In the book when Claire stormed out and said, "I'm leaving," and actually did leave to go to the stones, she was behaving like a teenager.  No doubt about that.  But that's the funny thing about adults, even adults in their 40's and 50's and 80's, we sometimes still behave like teenagers.  It's called being human.

[WatchrTina]

53 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

She's completing second guessing everything based solely on Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire.  She feels betrayed because of WHO he married, the fact that he didn't tell her

You know, the more I think about this the more I'm coming around to the agree with the writers' decision to have Jamie tell Claire about Willie in the print shop scene.  The Laoghaire reveal in THIS episode bruises the relationship badly and that bruise gradually heals as Jamie and Claire team up to rescue wee Ian (and end up having to recuse one another a few times along the way.)  It's probably a good idea to NOT have another "secret" (*cough* lie-of-ommission *cough*) revealed down the road to mar that sense of healing in the relationship.  It's better to see the Jamie/Claire relationship careen from the high of the reunion to the low of the Claire contemplating going back and to then steadily rise again to settle into the rock-solid partnership that is the core of the series.  There will be misadventures a-plenty downs the road that will threaten to tear our OTP apart -- but only physically, never emotionally.  This -- the Laoghaire reveal -- is really the only thing that ever threatens to shake Claire's belief that she and Jamie are meant to be together.  It's the only thing that ever makes her question her decision to return.  Jamie, on the other hand, never once doubts that he wants her to stay -- he only ever fears that he will lose her again -- that's why he calls himself a "coward" in this episode.  He's not used to his actions being motivated by fear.

Yeah, I'm kind of coming around to the TV writers's interpretation of the relationship arc.  I still hate that the early Willie reveal meant that Brianna's photos didn't get the reaction I expected but now I think I understand why they did it.

Edited November 9, 2017 by WatchrTina

[FnkyChkn34]

15 hours ago, MadameKillerB said:

I'm still feeling like C and J's "chemistry" is off. I don't mean that they are conveying how complicated it would be to come back together after 20 years. I mean, it feels flat between them. They are both great actors. I see them working LOL I don't know...maybe it's the writing? Or maybe it's the source material (this book)? I'm just not feeling it the way I felt it Season 1 or even Season 2.

 

12 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

I felt the same as you up until this episode. I feel like it did a much better job this episode, but I really hope that this week we get an even stronger J&C relationship on screen. It's just not what it used to be anymore ?But I love Outlander, so I live with it ! 

I think you're right, it's probably the writing. As was last weeks fiasco attributed to poor writing. Ahem. Grrr. See last episode convo thread for the numerous complaints on that. ?

I feel like that's the point though.  They've been apart for 20 years.  It's going to be awkward between them; they aren't going to have that instant chemistry back again right away.  But to the extent that that's not even working, then I also blame the writing.

[mtsmvfn]

On 11/8/2017 at 5:33 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know where I read it, but some have said how the show did a bad job of "aging" Hudson. Well, her character is supposed to 36ish. I know times were more harsh then, but I don't have a problem with her NOT looking like an old crone. Even if her character is a harridan, and her reaction to seeing Claire again just reinforced that she was putting on an act in "The Fox's Lair."

I NEVER read reviews for the same reason. Pretty much because I don't need another person nitpicking or whining complaining about a show/episode that I love. And so many get it wrong. It's like they have no clue what this show or the characters are aboot.

Nell Hudson was interviewed by Lynette Rice of EW on her Outlander Live recap show on Monday. Nell said that she did wear Mrs. Fitz wig and was willing to wear a fat suit but that the (custom people nixed the idea) She also mentioned that she is only 2 years older than Lauren Lyle (Marsali) if you want to read and listen to the interview is here. The soundcloud link is in the story. 

http://ew.com/tv/2017/11nder-laoghaire-ne/outlall-hudson//06

[whoknowswho]

On 11/6/2017 at 2:39 PM, iMonrey said:

Two thoughts here: it really seems like a dumb blunder on Jamie's part not to tell Claire about Laoghaire before they got to Lallybroch. Surely he must have realized they could bump into her. Also, it's a wonder he wasn't shitting his pants every time someone who knew Claire saw her again because if it were me I would have blurted out "but what about Laoghaire? You know, your other wife?" 

Secondly, I don't see why Claire and Jamie couldn't tell Jenny and Ian the truth about where she's from and where she's been. The excuse before was "Jenny wouldn't believe it" but now they've got proof. Claire has those photographs, some even in color, and the likes of which are unknown in 1765. She also has that zipper on her dress - that's not possible in 1765 either. Finally, it appears she also had the foresight to bring a little modern medicine back with her. Granted there's no way to explain what penicillin is but even young Ian recognized that her surgical tools seemed especially fancy. I think with Jamie backing her up and confirming he saw her go back through the stones with his own eyes they could have simply explained this all if they really wanted Jenny to understand.

I have a HUGE problem with her outfit--from a straight out of the 21st century blouse with regular buttons and stand up collar, to the corset with it's zipper, and of course I mentioned last episode her surgical tools which look very much like what we use now. Every time I see her in her batsuit, It takes me right out of the story. Some things don't translate well to visual arts. While she made her batsuit to be useful--if anyone touched raincoat polyester way back then, first they'd go YUCK, (I hate polyester) and then they'd wonder what the hell it is, because there's nothing at all like it in the 1700s.  At least put a 1700's cloak over it or something to make it stand out less. You can't blame the Colonies on everything...

What's up with the ship--landing and immediately grabbing Ian? Did they know--I don't remember this at all?

I read the first 3 books many years ago and never re-read them, and never went further than Voyager, so  I am not completely invested in the show or the books.

I totally wish she had told Jenny the truth--the photographs and clothing would prove what she said, but I suppose it would also get her burnt as a witch, for real this time.

Edited November 9, 2017 by whoknowswho
didn't finish my thoughts

[FnkyChkn34]

12 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

I have a HUGE problem with her outfit--from a straight out of the 21st century blouse with regular buttons and stand up collar, to the corset with it's zipper, and of course I mentioned last episode her surgical tools which look very much like what we use now. Every time I see her in her batsuit, It takes me right out of the story. Some things don't translate well to visual arts. While she made her batsuit to be useful--if anyone touched raincoat polyester way back then, first they'd go YUCK, (I hate polyester) and then they'd wonder what the hell it is, because there's nothing at all like it in the 1700s.  At least put a 1700's cloak over it or something to make it stand out less. You can't blame the Colonies on everything...

What's up with the ship--landing and immediately grabbing Ian? Did they know--I don't remember this at all?

I read the first 3 books many years ago and never re-read them, and never went further than Voyager, so  I am not completely invested in the show or the books.

I totally wish she had told Jenny the truth--the photographs and clothing would prove what she said, but I suppose it would also get her burnt as a witch, for real this time.

Did they know what?  Sorry, not sure what you're asking here.

As for her outfit, I kind of like it.  It's better than the dress they describe in the book - where the dress itself had a zipper.  At least here, the zipper is hidden from anyone's view.  The cloak is 1700s enough for me.  It's more of the men's style than women's, but it works well enough, and appears to be wool.  Also, I have a raincoat made out of cotton, so her dress could be cotton.  

What bothers me is that she hasn't changed her clothes in at least 3 episodes.  Wasn't there something else at Lallybroch for her to wear??  She changed her top for a scene or two, but still the same skirt, and then back to the same outfit for the ending cliff scene.  It has to stink by now.

[GHScorpiosRule]

17 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

I read the first 3 books many years ago and never re-read them, and never went further than Voyager, so  I am not completely invested in the show or the books.

I totally wish she had told Jenny the truth--the photographs and clothing would prove what she said, but I suppose it would also get her burnt as a witch, for real this time.

As has been mentioned up thread by @WatchrTina, when Claire and Jamie do eventually tell Jenny the truth, it doesn't go over very well. She seems to think that Claire has magic powers and can heal Ian, who has consumption at that point. 

[DittyDotDot]

19 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

What's up with the ship--landing and immediately grabbing Ian? Did they know--I don't remember this at all?

You mean, did they know wee Ian was on the island? As I recall, they came for the treasure and grabbed wee Ian as an extra. I don't believe they know who he is or anything, but their benefactor is collecting young boys.

[whoknowswho]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

You mean, did they know wee Ian was on the island? As I recall, they came for the treasure and grabbed wee Ian as an extra. I don't believe they know who he is or anything, but their benefactor is collecting young boys.

Yes, that's what I meant--did someone else know about the treasure at the same exact time that Ian was off and getting it?  I don't remember back that far into book land.

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

Yes, that's what I meant--did someone else know about the treasure at the same exact time that Ian was off and getting it?  I don't remember back that far into book land.

Yes, the person who left the treasure on that island sent them to retrieve it. It was just conveniently convenient that wee Ian was on the island when they arrived even though it was very inconvenient for Ian, Claire and Jamie.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Yes, that's what I meant--did someone else know about the treasure at the same exact time that Ian was off and getting it?  I don't remember back that far into book land.

If you look again at that island, the rocks that jut out from the top are pretty massive and capable of hiding a ship. Not saying the ship necessarily hid there, but the rocks blocked its presence from view. The ship could've been sitting there for a while as the sailors were looking for the treasure. I'm guessing Ian got to it before they did -- which would be mighty suspicious to them -- so they took him too. 

[whoknowswho]

3 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yes, the person who left the treasure on that island sent them to retrieve it. It was just conveniently convenient that wee Ian was on the island when they arrived even though it was very inconvenient for Ian, Claire and Jamie.

Ok, good. I remember Mom and I both decided after Book 3/Voyager we were done, I don't remember why exactly. I lost my eye sight in an eye around that time, and had to give up reading paperbacks.  I don't know if she ever went further, but I didn't.

[FnkyChkn34]

7 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

Ok, good. I remember Mom and I both decided after Book 3/Voyager we were done, I don't remember why exactly. I lost my eye sight in an eye around that time, and had to give up reading paperbacks.  I don't know if she ever went further, but I didn't.

Sorry to hear about your eyesight.  You aren't missing anything with these books, in my opinion.  The first three were pretty good.  I read the fourth one, but I couldn't finish the fifth.  I put it down over a year ago and can't bring myself to try again to finish it.

[whoknowswho]

2 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Sorry to hear about your eyesight.  You aren't missing anything with these books, in my opinion.  The first three were pretty good.  I read the fourth one, but I couldn't finish the fifth.  I put it down over a year ago and can't bring myself to try again to finish it.

I LOVE Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber--loved. But It became too rapey, and with the constant, constant ridiculous danger--I understand how some still go nuts over the books, I loved the first 2 and part of 3, but when they got on the ship, I was done.  I miught have read another, but unlike ASOIAF, I didn't want to commit to a series that went on for most of my life. lol. 

[FnkyChkn34]

2 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

I LOVE Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber--loved. But It became too rapey, and with the constant, constant ridiculous danger--I understand how some still go nuts over the books, I loved the first 2 and part of 3, but when they got on the ship, I was done.  I miught have read another, but unlike ASOIAF, I didn't want to commit to a series that went on for most of my life. lol. 

Ha, welcome to the theme of the fourth book... ;-)  That would be where they lost me as well.  

[Quickbeam]

Not to veer too far off but I bought the books as a kindle bundle and it took me a year to hack my way through. The weird rapes were off putting. I didn't like any of the Jamaica stuff at all. Loved Fraser's Ridge, though and tough as nails Brianna. 

[FnkyChkn34]

18 minutes ago, Quickbeam said:

Not to veer too far off but I bought the books as a kindle bundle and it took me a year to hack my way through. The weird rapes were off putting. I didn't like any of the Jamaica stuff at all. Loved Fraser's Ridge, though and tough as nails Brianna. 

A year for all 8?  Congrats.  It took me a year for just the first 3, I think.  

[toolazy]

I was able to read them all three times in a year.  I confess to promiscuous chapter-skipping in the latter books, however. 

 

This made me curious so I looked at my Kindle purchases.  I bought all 8 of them in two months, a week or two apart from each other.  

Edited November 9, 2017 by toolazy

[DittyDotDot]

I read them all in about six months--including the novellas--as I recall. The first two took me almost a month each. But, once I became accustomed to Diana's writing style, it became easier and faster with each book.

[FnkyChkn34]

8 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I read them all in about six months--including the novellas--as I recall. The first two took me almost a month each. But, once I became accustomed to Diana's writing style, it became easier and faster with each book.

I think I had the opposite problem, LOL!  The first two were the fastest to read for me because I liked them the best (I'd also already seen season 1), and then books 3 and 4 took much longer because I was losing interest.  ;-)

[whoknowswho]

4 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

A year for all 8?  Congrats.  It took me a year for just the first 3, I think.  

We just read them as they came out in paperback, so we'd wait for years till the next book was written and out in paperback.  When you are voracious readers before the advent of personal computers everywhere, we couldn't afford to buy hard covers, as we all ate books like they were food for the starving. 

I'm not disappointed with the series, but I am disappointed in some of the episodes this year. I did enjoy this episode far better than last week's. Wee Ian is probably my favorite character, with his "Auntie Claire". 

Edited November 10, 2017 by whoknowswho

[Petunia846]

Random thought...

I totally *get* Jenny's comment to Claire that family and loved ones write to each other. Such a great line, really heartfelt. But I was just thinking, what about Murtagh? Has he written since he was transported to the colonies? It kind of feels like the writers made the big change with Murtagh being alive, but then they sort of forgot about him after that one episode. That moment with Claire and Jenny would have been a great moment for a throw away line like, "Even Murtagh writes once a year and he's practically a slave in [suchandsuch] colony."

Claire and Jamie discuss how they told Murtagh the truth, but she doesn't think to ask later or before that about what happened to him? Why he isn't around? Wouldn't he have been on that same prisoner roster from Aurdsmuir that she found Jamie's name on back in the 60s? Did she see it? We don't know.

I love that they kept him alive, but I'm starting to wish they'd remember that the did that and remember to integrate it into the story a bit more.

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 minutes ago, Petunia846 said:

But I was just thinking, what about Murtagh? Has he written since he was transported to the colonies?

No. And I think the only reason we saw Murtagh was to show the viewers he survived Culloden and wasn't killed, like he was in the buik. I very much doubt we'll see him again, unless they've got plans for him to reunite with Jamie and Claire in the colonies.

[Petunia846]

10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No. And I think the only reason we saw Murtagh was to show the viewers he survived Culloden and wasn't killed, like he was in the buik. I very much doubt we'll see him again, unless they've got plans for him to reunite with Jamie and Claire in the colonies.

I agree that that's how it's going to go. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't just do that. That's poor storytelling/adaptation.

[Nidratime]

Quote

No. And I think the only reason we saw Murtagh was to show the viewers he survived Culloden and wasn't killed, like he was in the buik. I very much doubt we'll see him again, unless they've got plans for him to reunite with Jamie and Claire in the colonies.

I don't agree. There's no way they kept Murtagh alive just because. There's really no point to diverting from the book's plot then.

[MsProudSooner]

23 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Ha, welcome to the theme of the fourth book... ;-)  That would be where they lost me as well.  

While reading Outlander in 2013, I went back and forth about finishing the series.  I very nearly put it down for good when Jamie spanked Claire.  But something kept me going.  I found DIA somewhat of a slow read but the beginning was very tantalizing.  I raced through Voyager and by then I was committed.  lol . Diana does a good job of building in cliff hangers at the end of each book that made it impossible for me to resist the next one.

Was anyone else worried that the later books were going to focus on other characters instead of J & C?