Book 1: Outlander / Cross Stitch

[WatchrTina]

 

Does she meet anyone who is listed on that family tree? I mean she might, but I don't think anyone was mentioned in the book.

She does not meet anyone from Roger's official family tree in book 1 as far as I can recall, but she does meet someone in a later book so you never know what might be presented in the TV version.

[WatchrTina]

Does anyone recall a character named "Brigadier General Lord Oliver Thomas" from book 1?  He's the first character listed for Outlander in the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) right now and he's shown as being in 7 episodes -- more than anyone else except Laoghaire (?).  Claire and Jamie are  only shown as being in 5 episodes each at this point (though I presumes someone will update that info eventually.)  I think somebody trolled that website and added a fake character.

[auntlada]

It's been a long time since I read the book, but I have read it a lot, and that's not a name I remember.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't remember the name at all either and haven't encountered it in reskimming to prepare for the show.

 

I'm thinking that list can't be right.  Jamie and Claire in only 5 episodes and mystery guy and Laoghaire in 7?   Yeah, no.

[Kaw912]

In Outlander, Claire states that she's 5' 6" and weighs nine stone.

Right, and for those of you Americans who have no idea what nine stone is, it's 126 lbs. One stone equals 14 standard measurement lbs. So at 5'6" and 126 lbs., Claire is certainly not what most today would consider "plump", and she would be nowhere near a U.S. size 12, at least not today. She would probably be a size 4 or 6.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Here's something I remember from this book, because it was different. In that most of this book was in first person from Claire's point of view. I recall, that when Jack was torturing Jamie, toward the end there, we got a peek into Jamie's point of view. I found that interesting and wanted more, but alas, we didn't get that until Voyager.

[WatchrTina]

Unless I'm mistaken the peek we got into Jamie's point of view was when Jamie was unburdening himself by telling the story to Claire back in the monastery.  Otherwise, all we know is what Claire sees or, in one case, overhears between Jamie and the guy who helped them after the escape (she hears them talking by the fire after she's done her original medical care of him.)

Edited August 9, 2014 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

Yeah our first "clue" that rape has occurred is Claire overhearing MacRannoch(name?) mentioning to Jamie that Randall "had the decency to grease him" *shudders*.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I get that, but I'm almost positive, while he was unburdening himself, we got into his mind, so to speak...what he was thinking, when it happened.

 

Like I said, I think enough time has passed that I will give this another read. Luckily for me, my kindle allows me to read books for free from my libary (yes, that typo was intentional!).

[peacefrog]

I get that, but I'm almost positive, while he was unburdening himself, we got into his mind, so to speak...what he was thinking, when it happened.

 

Like I said, I think enough time has passed that I will give this another read. Luckily for me, my kindle allows me to read books for free from my libary (yes, that typo was intentional!).

Good luck with that! When I borrowed earlier in the year I had no problem.  I went to try recently and there was a wait for it with about 90 people on the kindle list!  I'm hoping there will be good deals on the paperback sets soon.

[auntlada]

Frank assumed Claire "sought comfort" with someone else during the war.  I'm betting he's projecting.  I'm betting Frank sought comfort from someone during the war and would like to think that Claire did too so he doesn't have to feel guilty about it.

 

I think in one of Claire's thinking parts in the book, she came to this conclusion as well, but she didn't ask him about it. I was hoping they'd work it into the show, but I guess there really wasn't a good way to do it, and maybe it wasn't really important.

[absnow54]

 

I get that, but I'm almost positive, while he was unburdening himself, we got into his mind, so to speak...what he was thinking, when it happened.

I know in Outlander especially, Claire slips into Jamie's POV, where she'll begin discussing something with Jamie through dialogue and then in the narrative fill in details as to what she learned from their conversation. Another example is Jamie's first encounter with Randall. Jamie speaks for several pages and then at one point, Claire takes over recounting the tale to the reader. I know I got a little tripped up in those types of scenes because it was hard to remember who was speaking and for whom they were speaking for. I think the recounting of the rape scene is similar.

[Athena]

@peacefrog : I changed the title of Jamie's topic since his full name hasn't been revealed on the show yet. A non-book watcher asked me about it and then I thought it was a wee spoiler. Claire doesn't even know he's a Fraser until later. To be safe, I just made the title Jamie until his true heritage is revealed. I'll rename it later. Thanks for creating the topics though and for the reminder of no book talk. Everyone's been very good about it so far, and I hope we get even more viewers for the show once it airs on TV tomorrow. Cheers.

[peacefrog]

Thanks @Athena, I completely forgot even though I deliberately left the "Fraser" off of Claire's name for that reason. I was not sure about Dougal either so just left him out. 

 

It is very hard to write about the characters based on one episode knowing what we know but it is so interesting to hear what non-book readers think!

[GHScorpiosRule]

@Athena , how come your above post isn't in yellow? Or is it pink?

[nodorothyparker]

I know in Outlander especially, Claire slips into Jamie's POV, where she'll begin discussing something with Jamie through dialogue and then in the narrative fill in details as to what she learned from their conversation.

 

I have my copy of the book here as I'm going back and reskimming anyway and that is how it's told at the abbey afterward.  It starts out as direct quotes and then becomes interspersed with third person paragraphs of what he's supposed to be telling her.  It does feel very POV in its horribleness but it's still what he's telling her.

 

I've always assumed Frank had had someone else during the war.  Claire mentions they only saw each other maybe 10 days out of nearly six years.  His telling her it was okay feels like he almost hoped she had too to justify his straying.  Claire seems to get that after she and Jamie return to the castle married and she tries to give him the same out.

[Athena]

@Athena , how come your above post isn't in yellow? Or is it pink?

 

It's yellow for official mod posts, but I don't really want to use it unless it's necessary.

 

Frank was clearly insecure in that talk with Claire. As someone else mentioned, both of them seem to be physical people so he probably did 'step' out.

[morakot]

I read books 1 and 2 and stopped at the beginning of Voyager. I enjoy the story but there were details every so often that would completely take me out of the book and then make me mistrust any other description that Gabaldon made. These included, in no particular order: Jamie wearing a modern kilt with buckles (as opposed to roughly gathering his plaid into his belt and then throwing the rest of it over his shoulder, Claire not wearing a shift or an outer bodice and constantly having her dress torn and her breast hanging out, chickadees in Inverness, mockingbirds in Paris, and Claire being concerned about ragwort (none of these are found in Europe). Oh yes, and descriptions of Highland spring and summer being cold, misty and rainy every day.

 

From what I can see, the production company have fixed these issues. Good -- hopefully, I won't get so distracted!

[auntlada]

The small kilt was in use at the time of the novels. He didn't have to be wearing a great kilt.

[nodorothyparker]

Claire does seem to be hanging out of ruined clothes a lot in those first books. doesn't she?

[lianau]

Perhaps there will be more "flashbacks" (flashforwards?) in future episodes where we see Claire meeting little Roger even if the book didn't handle it that way. I honestly can't remember how it was dealt with in the books since I read them years ago.

Claire meets little Roger at Reverend Wakefield's home and is also introduced to his family tree . I guess we might get a flashforward when the Geillis Duncan storyline starts .

With Geilis Duncan being Rogers ancestor and in a later book he's trying to stop 20th century Geillis  from going back in time to a gruesome death , not knowing if preventing  her from going back  would erase him.

[morakot]

 

The small kilt was in use at the time of the novels. He didn't have to be wearing a great kilt.

 

Fair enough, auntlada, but from the context, he undoes a buckle on the kilt, not the belt itself which would be the case on a small kilt.. This would imply he was wearing a stitched kilt (as we have today) which didn't come in to general use until the end of the 18th century.

 

It's a minor detail but it pulled me out of the book.

[auntlada]

The minor detail that got me was that it was still 1945 (switched to 1946 in later printings, I think), and from the way Claire talked, rationing was over, which it definitely was not. But I was reading a book with time travel. Quibbling about when rationing was over in a book with time travel was just too much like when my husband went with me to see "Kate and Leopold" (under pressure) and muttered the whole time about how that wasn't how time travel worked.

 

I do think Diana Gabaldon knows how to do research, considering that she's earned a bachelor's degree in zoology, a master's degree in marine biology and a doctorate in quantitative behavioral ecology, was a professor for 12 years and wrote scientific articles and textbooks. But it was her first novel, written entirely from research at a distance without going to England or Scotland and, at the time, not written for publication but for practice. I'm inclined to forgive a few factual errors in service of the bigger picture.

[JennyMominFL]

Rationing was removed in waves, lasting well into the 50's, but some stuff was available pretty quickly. I don't remember what Claire said about rationing though

[auntlada]

I don't remember, but I remember reading an interview (or a blog post possibly) with Diana Gabaldon in which she said that was a mistake on her part. That's why the dates are different in subsequent print runs and also don't line up quite right with the next book.

[absnow54]

So now that we've seen the scene where Jamie volunteers to take Laoghaire's punishment, I'm reminded of what I didn't like about the infamous spanking scene. At this point Jamie has demonstrated that he's willing to be roughed up, because he knows that he can take it, but he's protective of others receiving the physical end of punishment. We see it again (it looks like it'll be in the next episode) when the young boy gets his ear nailed to a post, and Jamie yields to Claire's wishes and helps free him. So when the spanking scene came about, I was never upset that Claire got the punishment. It was that Jamie never volunteered to take it himself. I think it would have been a far more interesting power play if the scene had played out similar to the council, where Dougal sentenced Claire to lashes, Jamie took responsibility, and Claire, now more familiar with the customs, took her punishment. What I hated most about the scene was that Claire was clearly opposed to the beating, and Jamie, who had previously shown so much respect towards her (he clearly admired her strong will) didn't seem to care. 

[nodorothyparker]

He's not emotionally invested in any of those other punishments.  At this point, he's very angry and hurt and embarrassed.  We know from things he says later in the books that by now he's already in love with her and thinks she at least likes him and likes having sex with him, yet she tried to run off for reasons he doesn't know the very first time he leaves her alone.  All he knows is what he's supposed to do according to their customs.

 

I don't have to like the spanking, but I can sort of see where he's coming from.

Edited August 17, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[WatchrTina]

I agree with everything @nodorothyparker says above about Jamie's hurt feelings at Claire's having tried to run off and then you have to add to that the fact that the men resent her for putting them all in danger.  Jamie needs their help if he is going to continue to protect her so their feelings have to be appeased.  Jamie can't take her punishment for her because, as husband he is the "Laird and master" in this conflict and has to deliver the punishment.  The men won't respect him or forgive Claire if she isn't seen to be punished for her wrong-doing.

[absnow54]

I agree that Jamie is hurt, embarrassed and betrayed, and that he wants to punish Claire for her actions, but when the scene plays out Claire is very much horrified while Jamie is amused. It's the tone that bothers me, I guess. Claire feels guilty for betraying Jamie and trying to abandon him, which is why I would have liked to see her volunteer to take her own punishment.

 

I understand the direction DG took it in, and I think your above commentary is a great analysis. I just hated that Claire's agency was completely ignored (and even laughed at) when before that, the book had shown an unexpected respect towards female characters. 

Edited August 17, 2014 by absnow54

[nodorothyparker]

Accepting it beforehand probably would have been better, yes.  But I also totally get her horror and utter disbelief as a more modern woman that they would expect her to just take that, so it makes sense that that probably wasn't going to happen.  Add in what WatchrTina said with her still not fully understanding their rules at this point and just how badly she had endangered them all because she hadn't really come to see that for better or for worse that she now is one of them and has to live within their framework.   I think it all contributes to her accepting it afterward to be able to forgive Jamie and move on, even though she's very very clear with him that it won't be happening a second time.

[WatchrTina]

I celebrated my birthday today by buying and reading Diana's graphic novel "The Exile", which re-tells the first 3rd of the "Outlander" novel in graphic from, this time with an omniscient narrator so you see things from points of view you never get in the book -- particularly Murtaugh's point of view and the mental musings of the brothers MacKenzie.  It also introduces a behind-the-scenes plot involving a character never seen in the main novels.  I won't talk about it except to say that I'm glad the first season appears to be limited to Claire's point of view.  I don't want that side-plot entering the TV canon.  I'm going to try hard to forget what I read of Colum and Dougal's thoughts and I'm really going to try to forget what Murtaugh saw before we met him on camera.  It was fun read and I'm sure Diana had fun doing it but I think it mucks up the story in a way that is not good.

 

Oh, one more thought about the graphic novel in light of all the talk about the spanking scene.  In the graphic novel we see a conversation between Dougal and Jamie after the just-rescued Claire goes up to her room.  In that scene, Dougal tells Jamie to call her back  down so that HE can beat her.  Jamie refuses, saying it's his place, as husband, to punish her, not Dougal's.  Murtaugh (bless him) backs Jamie up.  I do wonder if Diana added that to the graphic novel in response to the hue and cry over the spanking scene, making it clear that Jamie really did have no choice but to give her a beating.  For the record -- Graphic!Jamie has a scratched face and bite on his arm when he comes out of the room.  Atta-girl Graphic!Claire!

 

And one more point -- the graphic novel begins with Jamie's return to Scotland and he goes for a wee bit of a skinny-dip soon after landing.  Yep -- we get to see his (graphic) bare arse in all its glory.

Edited August 23, 2014 by WatchrTina

[Petunia846]

Claire scratches Jamie in the books too.

 

My library supposedly has the graphic novel and the website says it's not checked out, but it's not on the shelves where it should be. I'm on the waiting list for if they ever find it, but maybe I'm glad that it's lost.

[Athena]

I quite enjoyed the graphic novel. I felt I learned a bit more about Jamie and the Mackenzies as a result. It's a nice companion to the Outlander the novel. Like all graphic novels though, the women are depicted as way more buxom than they really are though. 

[WatchrTina]

 

the women are depicted as way more buxom than they really are

I know, right?  There was one image in particular, when Jamie pulls her into his lap as she begins crying after bandaging him at Leoch.  I just gawked at that image and thought "really?"  You think real women have torpedo shaped breasts like that?  Generally speaking I thought Claire was diminished in the graphic novel.  The story had to be simplified and a lot of Claire's strength and moxie got lost in the down-sizing.

[GHScorpiosRule]

 Like all graphic novels though, the women are depicted as way more buxom than they really are though. 

 

Well, look at WHO is drawing them! Men! All Men! It's one of my peeves when I'm reading my Superhero Graphic Novels. All the female heroines have busts the sizes of hormone-induced melons!

[WatchrTina]

One thing I've always admired about the book is the presentation of Dougal's and Colum's mixed feelings about Jamie.  He's a threat to the succession if Colum dies while Hamish is still young.  He's a born leader, well-liked, a bonny fighter, battle-tested, well-educated and young enough to lead the clan for a good long while.  If he takes an oath at the Gathering and becomes a MacKenzie, that threat increases.  And yet they deliberately bring him to Leoch at the time of the oath-taking.  Why?  To see how people react to him? To watch him to see if he begins campaigning for the job?  Keep-your-friends-close-and-your-enemies-closer?  Because it was expected by the rest of the clan that he'd show up for the gathering? To throw off any suspicions that it was actually Dougal who brained him (or had him assaulted) and caused the injury that got him sent off to Uncle Alex?  I've never been completely clear on that point and that's fine with me.  

 

The other complicating factor (one that is ignored in the graphic novel, to its detriment) is that Colum and Dougal want Lallybroch to be incorporated into the MacKenzie lands due to its strategic location.  So for that reason they want Jamie to swear allegiance and they need him alive because his Fraser grandfather (the auld fox) put a clause in Ellen and Brian's marriage contract that the land would return to him should all of Brian's sons die unmarried.  That's why the forced marriage to Claire is such a master-stroke by Dougal.  Marriage to a sassenach would effectively preclude Jamie from ever being selected to lead the MacKenzie clan and marriage to anyone at all nullifies the Fraser of Lovat's claim on Lallybroch.

 

Those are some pretty complicated and conflicting motivations going on in the heads of Colum and Dougal (and I doubt the two of them are in full agreement on this topic at any one time.)  That all gets watered down in the graphic novel because it must -- you can't have thought bubbles with tons and tons of exposition in them.  So I'm going to ignore Graphic!Dougal and Grapic!Colum and focus on their TV counterparts, knowing what I know exclusively from the original book.  It will be interesting to see if they try to clarify Dougal & Colum's motivations in the TV show or leave them murky as in the novel.

 

One more thought.  In the run-up to the show I'm almost certain I read that Diana sent a copy of "The Exile" to Sam as background reading for the role.  If Sam is relying on it then he's playing Jamie as an unwilling attendee at The Gathering.  It was clear from the novel that Jamie wasn't sure what he was going to do during the oath-taking but I don't recall it being clear from the novel that he had been brought to the gathering against his will, just like Claire.  I had thought he ended up at Leoch because, as an outlaw, it was the only safe place in Scotland for him.  And when you consider how "unsafe" it was -- that's really saying something about the constant peril he lives in.

 

The graphic novel adds one other interesting similarity between Jamie and Claire's situation.  In episode 101 Claire's voice-over in the cabin says words to the effect that the smart thing for her to do would be to keep her head down and look for a chance to escape.  Then she immediately does the opposite by going to Jamie's aid and revealing her valuable healing skills.  The smart thing for Jamie to do, if he had been brought to Leoch against his will, would have been to keep his head down and not call attention to himself.  So of course he volunteers to take a beating for girl he doesn't even know -- an action that is really only appropriate if he's already a member of the clan.  These two were made for each other.

 

BTW, in the graphic novel Murtaugh has occasion to tell Colum to basically go f**k himself.  Twice.  I love Murtaugh.

Edited August 23, 2014 by WatchrTina

[Pestilentia]

Jeepers, I wish I had a better memory- I had forgotten all about Colum and Dougal wanting Lallybroch and Grandpa Fraser's clause!

Edited August 23, 2014 by Pestilentia

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't mind being spoiled since I've read the first two and a third books, but am I understanding it right that Colum and Dougal are his uncles from his..father's side? And that the Fraser is from his mother's side? Or is it vice versa?

 

Mind you, I'll be going to the library later today to get Outlander to brush up on the history...and I'm not so invested that I'll be ripping my hair out over the changes the show makes.

[Athena]

I don't mind being spoiled since I've read the first two and a third books, but am I understanding it right that Colum and Dougal are his uncles from his..father's side? And that the Fraser is from his mother's side? Or is it vice versa?

 

Maternal side. Ellen Mackenzie ran away with Brian Fraser who was a bastard of the Fraser clan. 

[WatchrTina]

Not a spoiler -- Jamie says it in episode 102 during the picnic in the stable.  He tells Claire that Colum and Dougal are uncles on his mother's side (his mother, Ellen, was sister to Colum and Dougal).  That should have surprised the non-book-reading viewers, as in why would the nephew of the laird be someone best kept "outside the castle walls", which is what Dougal says of him during dinner.

Edited August 23, 2014 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Not a spoiler -- Jamie says it in episode 102 during the picnic in the stable.  He tells Claire that Colum and Dougal are uncles on his mother's side (his mother, Ellen, was sister to Colum and Dougal).  That should have surprised the non-book-reading viewers, as in why would the nephew of the laird be someone best kept "outside the castle walls", which is what Dougal says of him during dinner.

 

D'OH! Right. It slipped my mind when I was reading your post above talking about the graphic novel and about Hamish etc.

[nodorothyparker]

In the book, Jamie tells Claire he didn't know where they were going on that initial ride.  Whether that was true or not is of course open to interpretation, but he later says that he tried to make a break for it when they were closer to the shared border with Fraser lands because he didn't trust Dougal and ended up being shot in the back from either Dougal or one of the other clan boys.  Which is where we enter the story.  Yet he seems to be moving about Leoch and the village pretty freely and doesn't ever give any real indication of being there against his will or being afraid.

 

That said, he was trying to avoid the oathtaking altogether because he was smart enough to realize how precarious a situation he was in.  He's hiding out in the stables when it's going on, which is where Claire stumbles over him in trying to escape the castle.  Then of course, Rupert and the boys come looking for him and drag him back to the hall, leading him to pull the non-oath, pledge of loyalty out of his ass that seems to at least temporarily placate both sides.  For all of Jamie's talk about the wily Mackenzies of Leoch throughout the series, he proves he's also quite capable of playing the game.

 

The handling of the whole succession issue in the books is fascinating to me, considering what we know about Colum's illness, Dougal, and Hamish as the rightful successor.  In separate stories from Ned and later from Old Alec, we learn that Dougal is widely considered unsuitable as a candidate largely because of how badly he behaved during the elopement of Jamie's parents.  It's heavily implied that Dougal acted more like a jealous or jilted suitor than as a brother properly outraged that his sister had willingly eloped without family consent.  The implication is that while some of his issue with Jamie is legitimately about him as a possible rival to the succession, some of it is also about Ellen and the fact that she died without ever truly reconciling with him.  Even Claire picks up on this.  Which then raises the question of what Brian and Ellen were thinking, agreeing to let Jamie foster with Dougal in the first place.

Edited August 23, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[WatchrTina]

 

he later says that he tried to make a break for it when they were closer to the shared border with Fraser lands because he didn't trust Dougal and ended up being shot in the back from either Dougal or one of the other clan boys.

Hmmmm.  I don't remember that.  I recall there being some uncertainty as to who it was that shot Jamie in the skirmish prior to Claire's arrival and Jamie's suspicion that it might have been Dougal or one of his men acting on Dougal's orders.  Was Jamie making a break for it?  I may have to go back and re-read.  Or if it is described that way in the show, I'll assume they did their homework.

 

Jamie wasn't shot prior to meeting Claire in the show -- that happened at Cocknammon Rock.  I wonder if it is going to be revealed that he was shot by one of Dougal's men?  Is THAT why Angus is watching Claire and Jamie so pointedly near the end of episode 101?  Right after Claire says "On your horse soldier" the camera lingers on Angus and Rupert in what I took to be an ominous manner.  For that matter, is Jamie's apparent good health one of the reason Dougal is staring at Jamie & Claire in that inscrutable manner during that scene after Jamie recaptures Claire.  Dun dun DUN!  The plot thickens.

 

 

It's heavily implied that Dougal acted more like a jealous or jilted suitor than as a brother properly outraged that his sister had willingly eloped without family consent.  The implication is that while some of his issue with Jamie is legitimately about him as a possible rival to the succession, some of it is also about Ellen and the fact that she died without ever truly reconciling with him.  Even Claire picks up on this.  Which then raises the question of what Brian and Ellen were thinking, agreeing to let Jamie foster with Dougal in the first place.

I hadn't really thought about that before.  I'm going to hope that Dougal's inappropriate reaction was the result of his inflated and hot-headed sense of pride coupled with 18th century notions of his sister being family "property" and not due to some creepy incestuous lust on his part.  Because you are right, if there was even a whiff of that going on between Dougal and Ellen, she would never have let him foster Jamie.  If we set that aside, it makes perfect sense that she would want Jamie to have a strong family connection to the MacKenzies since the clan he was born into, the Frasers, have remained aloof and his paternal grandfather is a self-serving auld devil. 

Edited August 23, 2014 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

They moved the shooting in the show.  In the book, he's already got the bullet wound when Claire first meets him and then he's injured a second time in the skirmish near the rock.  It's in one of several discussions in the stables I think where Jamie tells Claire that he was shot in the back and the English soldiers were out in front of them at that point.  He actually thinks Rupert probably did it on Dougal's orders because while they were all behind him, Rupert was the best shot.  I do wonder if they're going to drop the Dougal angle or how they'll play it since they moved this.

 

Remember, Murtaugh isn't a Mackenzie.  He's a Frasier kinsman.  He was along for the ride because Jamie was coming back from the French abbey after recovering from an earlier head injury and didn't know at that point if Dougal had had anything to do with that, so he wanted his own witness or backup in case Dougal did try something.

Edited August 23, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Pestilentia]

Jeez, I need to reread.

I truly envy those of you with such good memories.

Maybe reading/falling asleep, reading/falling asleep on repeat every night isn't such a good idea if I want to be able to recall details.

Ya think? :)

[Ophelia]

Hmmmm.  I don't remember that.  I recall there being some uncertainty as to who it was that shot Jamie in the skirmish prior to Claire's arrival and Jamie's suspicion that it might have been Dougal or one of his men acting on Dougal's orders.  Was Jamie making a break for it?  I may have to go back and re-read.  Or if it is described that way in the show, I'll assume they did their homework.

I got the impression that he believed that Rupert shot him, but likely by mistake - since he (getting close to Fraser lands) moved away from the group to try to get away - he ended up ahead of the Scots, but in front of the English.  Even though Dougal and Colum might have considered taking him out, it seems like that was something that they would have kept from everyone, even someone as close as Rupert.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It's too bad the @ mention no longer works, because I'm calling out WatchrTina and her very amazing comments, that had me buying not renting out, Outlander so that I can re-read it again after a dozen years. My reading tastes have slightly changed in that there are two authors I love who have written books in First Person, which I really can't stand, but they've done it in such a way I know what the other characters are thinking, or rather, they're fleshed out and I get a sense of their character. So I'm going to give this a try and see wot 'appens, ye ken?

[WatchrTina]

Why thank you GHScorpiousRule.  I've been having such fun this weekend, what with reading the graphic novel, watching Ep 103 and commenting here.  I'm hoping the community will get a strong influx of Canadians now that Ep 101 has aired there.

 

So . . . I was re-watching the 2nd half of ep 101 in bed last night (as you do) and I was watching Angus carefully (now that I ken who he is) and when Jamie falls off the horse and Claire declares "He's been shot!" Angus shoots a quick look at Dougal.  Look for yourselves, it's there.  I believe we may all now collectively hate Angus and thoroughly enjoy Claire running the legs off him.  Jamie and Murtaugh better keep a weather eye on him when they go rent collecting.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Another question:

 

I know that when I originally picked up Voyager, I was ecstatic that it was from Jaime's POV; are books 4-8 is it? Do they revert back to Claire's POV, or does Gabaldon, continue with the Third Person POV?

 

I figure it's okay to ask this here, instead of repeating myself in each successive book thread, since it's not a spoiler question.

[WatchrTina]

All of the chapters written from Claire's point of view are in 1st person throughout the series.  Everyone else is in 3rd person.   It's a clever trick Diana played because you can always tell when you are back in Claire's head and it keeps the story anchored on her but it allows Diana to roam freely across time and geography as needed throughout books 3 and onward.  It's also good news for Cait -- she won't be quite so exhausted making seasons 3 and onward.