Jump to content

New Reader Discussion: Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber

Oh Good - Avaleigh, I'm on chapter 20 - so it looks like i caught up with no issues, hurrah. 

what i'm noticing is that Diana loves pulling out her thesaurus. even English Major me is like "wha?" on some of the words. and now of course i want to use them. I was telling a friend recently this is why I like watching the show - then reading the book. I "know" what happened but it's like it was done in pencil. now the ink and colour is being added in. like you - Jamie + Claire's romp in the glen (before she was attacked) makes sense. it wasn't just a "hey let's go." I do think on the show - i think we were all perplexed  at this part why did Claire stay. Well the book is showing us (though only if it's mostly regarding sex) but she feels very connected with him - there are little veins of connection being shown which shows why she stayed).

BJR being aroused by physical violence. we all knew that one, but Claire calling him on it (that he was grunting he'd like it if she screamed, and realising he couldn't get up, because she wouldn't comply was sort of like a "hm. intriguing." moment.  The "I would kindly ask ye to take your hands off me wife." was amazing too. (heh)

The hyigene would bug me. that's something I'd surely miss if i was whisked back in time. 

2

Share Post


Link to post

I liked Hugh Monroe as a character on the show, but he's really more of a caricature here.  The continued terms used to describe him as 'goblin-like' 'haloweenish,' 'pumpkin-head' become borderline offensive, as opposed to the medical interest that Claire expresses in Colum's syndrome.  I'm glad they gave him hair and real clothes on the show and didn't dwell on freak-show characteristics.  It is so horrible what was done to him. 

Chapter 18 had me really bored--I don't care for or about battle scenes (thus why I quickly gave up on reading LOTR), especially since I already know that nothing significant happens in this particular one.  But my boredom turned into disgust when the end of the chapter becomes a graphic description of Jaimie ignoring Claire's repeated refusals to have sex with him at the campsite in close proximity to other people sleeping.  I just can't even with how both of them decided to rationalize it.

From Dougal's description and the rationalizations of why BJR wouldn't want to pursue the Mackenzies neice who was also related to head of the Fraiser clan...it sounds like BJR already knows (before the confrontation) that Claire married the fugitive with a price on his head who he tortured half to death.  Which seems odd. 

I did enjoy Claire's encounter with a creature like the mythical Waterhorse (or, Nessie herself) that we just heard about in the previous chapter.  I confess I had to google it to find what latin name for a real historical animal (a dinosaur that she recognized from a museum, supposedly) that Claire was implying this actually was, and then it made sense.  I wonder if this is the beginning of Claire's reputation as a white witch.

Claire's escape attempt seems irrational and doomed from the start, so it's no surprise that she doesn't make it anywhere near the stones and in fact nearly drowns before being captured.  Claire's non-reaction (except to say 'he really does mean it') when her husband threatens to beat her before leaving really says a lot, including the fact that it doesn't even seem to be a factor in her reason to leave. 

I feel like now I was completely right in avoiding reading these books for so long.  I'm seriously in awe of the fact that the Ronald Moore and co were able to craft something modern and sophisticated out of this.  Because I really can't stand book Jaimie/Claire now or the parts that they each play in their really unhealthy/abusive relationship dynamic.

I feel like I need to cleanse my mind after reading/skimming the passages of this ridiculous romance novel rape fantasy cliche where the woman is screaming at the man to stop (and he doesn't) but then in the end she finds it really erotic and has just a 'huge' orgasm.  Honestly, what the fuck? 

I'm definitely not reading the other novels now, and really I'm not sure how much more of this one I can take.  I've seen book-readers complain about the lack of sex in season 2 of Outlander, but is this the kind of scenes they were pining for?  

What has appealed to me so much about the show is how it's handled issues of sexual trauma/abuse and healing, but I see that that viewpoint doesn't really come from the books at all.  Reading ahead a bit and putting together other little tidbits I've picked up...

Spoiler

For instance, some bookreaders trying to say that Fergus, a ten year old,  wasn't raped by BJR but 'consented,'  and the fact that the characters joke about how the Duke of Sandringham repeatedly tried to rape Jamie as a child, as if it's funny. 

...I see this doesn't stop.   So I honestly can't go on reading this, sorry, I just can't.  I enjoyed discussing it here with all of you, but I really can't stand the book itself anymore.

3

Share Post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Glade said:

I'm definitely not reading the other novels now, and really I'm not sure how much more of this one I can take.  I've seen book-readers complain about the lack of sex in season 2 of Outlander, but is this the kind of scenes they were pining for?  

What has appealed to me so much about the show is how it's handled issues of sexual trauma/abuse and healing, but I see that that viewpoint doesn't really come from the books at all.  Reading ahead a bit and putting together other little tidbits I've picked up...

  Hide contents

For instance, some bookreaders trying to say that Fergus, a ten year old,  wasn't raped by BJR but 'consented,'  and the fact that the characters joke about how the Duke of Sandringham repeatedly tried to rape Jamie as a child, as if it's funny. 

...I see this doesn't stop.   So I honestly can't go on reading this, sorry, I just can't.  I enjoyed discussing it here with all of you, but I really can't stand the book itself anymore.

I totally understand this sentiment, I do. I had a similar reaction when first reading Outlander, but by the end of it I kinda saw it differently. There were many times I almost quit reading them, so I get it. I do think the first book is the roughest to read, though. It really shows that it was a writing exercise and was never meant to be published. Diana does grow as a writer, but she always has a knack for presenting things slightly off-color, so to speak. It can be off-putting.

I'm not trying to convince you to keep reading here--like I said, I do get it--but I think you're just now getting to the heart of this book, though. The first part of the book is more Claire living in a fantasy that's just now started to come crashing down around her. Moving forward, Claire starts to see things more for what they really are and starts dealing with that reality. To me, the books deal with the issues of trauma/abuse and healing, it just takes longer to pan out in the books and doesn't always do it quite as straightforwardly as the show. The books cover decades of these people's lives and they carry what is done to them in book one all the way through the series.

As to that spoiler, I'll only say: 

Spoiler

Fergus does consent, but that doesn't mean it's not rape, IMO.

2

Share Post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Glade said:

I liked Hugh Monroe as a character on the show, but he's really more of a caricature here.  The continued terms used to describe him as 'goblin-like' 'haloweenish,' 'pumpkin-head' become borderline offensive, as opposed to the medical interest that Claire expresses in Colum's syndrome.  I'm glad they gave him hair and real clothes on the show and didn't dwell on freak-show characteristics.  It is so horrible what was done to him. 

Chapter 18 had me really bored--I don't care for or about battle scenes (thus why I quickly gave up on reading LOTR), especially since I already know that nothing significant happens in this particular one.  But my boredom turned into disgust when the end of the chapter becomes a graphic description of Jaimie ignoring Claire's repeated refusals to have sex with him at the campsite in close proximity to other people sleeping.  I just can't even with how both of them decided to rationalize it.

From Dougal's description and the rationalizations of why BJR wouldn't want to pursue the Mackenzies neice who was also related to head of the Fraiser clan...it sounds like BJR already knows (before the confrontation) that Claire married the fugitive with a price on his head who he tortured half to death.  Which seems odd. 

I did enjoy Claire's encounter with a creature like the mythical Waterhorse (or, Nessie herself) that we just heard about in the previous chapter.  I confess I had to google it to find what latin name for a real historical animal (a dinosaur that she recognized from a museum, supposedly) that Claire was implying this actually was, and then it made sense.  I wonder if this is the beginning of Claire's reputation as a white witch.

Claire's escape attempt seems irrational and doomed from the start, so it's no surprise that she doesn't make it anywhere near the stones and in fact nearly drowns before being captured.  Claire's non-reaction (except to say 'he really does mean it') when her husband threatens to beat her before leaving really says a lot, including the fact that it doesn't even seem to be a factor in her reason to leave. 

I feel like now I was completely right in avoiding reading these books for so long.  I'm seriously in awe of the fact that the Ronald Moore and co were able to craft something modern and sophisticated out of this.  Because I really can't stand book Jaimie/Claire now or the parts that they each play in their really unhealthy/abusive relationship dynamic.

I feel like I need to cleanse my mind after reading/skimming the passages of this ridiculous romance novel rape fantasy cliche where the woman is screaming at the man to stop (and he doesn't) but then in the end she finds it really erotic and has just a 'huge' orgasm.  Honestly, what the fuck? 

I'm definitely not reading the other novels now, and really I'm not sure how much more of this one I can take.  I've seen book-readers complain about the lack of sex in season 2 of Outlander, but is this the kind of scenes they were pining for?  

What has appealed to me so much about the show is how it's handled issues of sexual trauma/abuse and healing, but I see that that viewpoint doesn't really come from the books at all.  Reading ahead a bit and putting together other little tidbits I've picked up...

  Reveal hidden contents

For instance, some bookreaders trying to say that Fergus, a ten year old,  wasn't raped by BJR but 'consented,'  and the fact that the characters joke about how the Duke of Sandringham repeatedly tried to rape Jamie as a child, as if it's funny. 

...I see this doesn't stop.   So I honestly can't go on reading this, sorry, I just can't.  I enjoyed discussing it here with all of you, but I really can't stand the book itself anymore.

I've seen it posted that Claire and Jamie are into light BDSM to some degree, but in a time before safe words. Maybe that's a massive spin of the consent issues at play and to make it seem less like the dreaded rape fantasy cliche. Anyway, life is too short to bother with books you don't enjoy. 

As for your spoiler:

Spoiler

Black Jack's attack on Fergus takes place in a somewhat different context on the page than it did on the show, but IMO it is definitely presented as rape, and both Jamie and Claire of the books immediately, unequivocally view it as such. Those arguing that Black Jack didn't rape Fergus (an argument that I have to say I've never encountered in my 10+ years as a book fan or in any of the discussions I personally viewed of that episode, thankfully) are probably the type who believe that people aren't "really raped" unless they were walking along in the middle of the day in the world's safest neighborhood, in the least revealing outfit, minding their own business, before being dragged kicking and screaming into the bushes, fighting back at every step. In some ways, I think the changes the show made to Fergus's story unintentionally (well, I have to hope it was unintentional) endorse the POV that there are limits to the sorts of people who can "rightfully" be perceived as victims of sexual assault, and this is a dynamic that is NOT from the text.

To say more about that storyline here would be OT, but if you want to know more there's the Ask the Readers thread or the DiA book thread.

Edited by Dejana.
1

Share Post


Link to post
Official Post

Hey book walkers, unless specifically asked by the new readers, please desist from sharing too many spoilers about the future books. I know it's difficult not to reply, but unless they really want to know something, please allow them to discuss largely between themselves. Thanks!

1

Share Post


Link to post

DittyDotDot, Dejana, and Grashka, you all make really interesting points, and I appreciate the examples.   I'm glad that Diana grew as a writer after the first novel. 

Spoiler

The bit about Fergus was just something I read on the Outlander Cast Blog.  Being a trafficked pre-pubescent child, any sexual encounter he had with adults was automatically rape, IMO.  I'm glad to know there isn't much of any argument about that here.   It does sound like the character is very different in the books. 

6 hours ago, Grashka said:

Well, when I said up this thread, that there is a certain thing coming, that the show improved upon, I meant the spanking fiasco and sex at Leoch that follows ;-)

Yeah, I agree, the show handled/resolved/explained it much more effectively, and in a way that allowed me to continue rooting for Jaimie/Claire's relationship.  It was a very brutal time of course, but portraying Jaimie as someone willing to grow and be kinder and less brutal then most of society in his day was very endearing on the show.  Here he promises not to do it again just to be able to sleep with Claire and later makes a semi-joke about how he regrets promising it.  The way Diana wrote it leaves everything in a much murkier place with dubious sexual consent and it all feels so much more triggering.   I think I will just stay a show-watcher for now and maybe refer to the books for any additional information but not dedicate myself to sitting down and reading them. 

Edited by Glade.
3

Share Post


Link to post

Well, I've read more and I certainly have thoughts. I'm going to break this down, so first I'll get into my thoughts about the controversial subject matter and then I'll get into my thoughts on each chapter individually. I will say that I haven't read anything in the story so far that makes me want to stop reading. 

I feel like this is a perfect example of a kind of cognitive dissonance when it comes to how I feel about the Jamie/Claire relationship based on what I've read so far. 

I'm positive that a large part of the way that I feel about all of this is connected to the emotion I felt in the season 2 finale of Claire and Jamie parting. I think I'm happy to read about them being happy/happyish together because I know what's ultimately coming. I know that's a huge part of this for me. I feel like because of what I know is going to happen, I just can't help but want to root for them. That being said, the Jamie/Claire relationship isn't the only reason I don't think/suppose why I'm not offended by the bulk of what's been written, or at least it's not to the point where I don't want to read the books anymore. 

I don't know how else to describe it but for me, when I was reading certain passages that would understandably be too much for some, I think I was mainly concerned about what others would think as opposed to feeling personally upset about what I was reading. 

I totally understand why Glade and others aren't interested in reading any further and agree that life is too short for a person to continue reading something that they don't like for whatever reason. Sorry to lose you Glade, but I definitely hope to see you around the boards. :)

I absolutely rolled my eyes at reading the no-means-yes cliche. There's no point in even getting into all of the reasons why it wasn't necessary for the story. That being said--it isn't a dealbreaker for me. Not at all. I don't exactly know why and I'm honestly sort of curious as to why I would feel this way. Maybe it's because my favorite book and movie when I was a kid was Gone With the Wind lol. I also grew up reading trashy silliness like Flowers in the Attic, so I'm sure that didn't help. Maybe things like that are bit of it and there's some part of me that feels used to this sort of thing, but that also doesn't equate to me thinking that this stuff is somehow right or okay, or is a cliche that I seek out when it comes to reading material. (ETA: The main reason I was resistant to reading the books was because I just thought they were romance novels. To me this book is better than a romance novel even with the cliche eyeroll worthy stuff with Jamie and Claire. [/ETA]) It isn't that I don't recognize what's right and wrong IMO when it comes to these issues, it's just that it doesn't trump the entertainment factor for me, I guess. 

I'm a black person of mixed race, I grew up in SoCal, and I still loved Gone With the Wind in spite of all of the racist bullshit that's in the novel. For me, racism, marital rape, and whatever other fucked up issues that we can point to that come up in the novel don't take away from how incredibly entertaining and (IMO) romantic the story is. Scarlett could be a selfish, shallow, and narcissistic bitch, and Rhett was an arrogant asshole who forced himself on his wife, but because of the story as a whole, I was still hardcore rooting for those flawed characters to be together. 

I basically feel the same way with Outlander. Sure, I don't necessarily agree with x,y, and z, but my issues with the beating or the no-means-yes cliche are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the positive feelings I have when I'm reading the story. I'm fully entertained and feel engaged in the story even when I was rolling my eyes and feeling annoyed over certain controversial issues. I'm also still very much pro Jamie and Claire even though I have issues with things that have occurred in their relationship. 

As for Jamie beating Claire--

I was annoyed when I saw it in the show and felt super furious when I read it. I totally felt angry and can absolutely see how it would be unforgivable for some people. At the same time, I can't help but think that it might be easier for me to get over reading something like that and still be supportive of Jamie and Claire being together is because I understand what it's like to be beaten yet still feel unconditional love for the person that beat me. I'm not talking about feeling unconditional love for some douchebag husband/boyfriend/significant other who beat me. I'm talking about growing up with a single mother who used a belt on a regular basis. I EMPHATICALLY don't think it's right for parents to hit/beat their children and would never beat my children or anyone else under any circumstance outside of some situation where I'm literally fighting for my life. I just know from experience that it's possible to get over something like this and just chalk it off to the way a person grew up. I know that my mother beat me because she thought it was the right thing to do and she too was often beaten as a child as were her parents and presumably their parents. It was completely normalized, so, for me, the idea that Jamie sees it as a kind of righteous discipline makes sense to me even though I don't personally agree with it. The fact that Claire is able to get over it, makes sense to me as well because of the other qualities that Jamie has. 

Sorry for going OT but I didn't know how to explain why I feel the way that I feel about the story without going into a few personal details. I'm going to post my chapter thoughts in a bit.  

Edited by Avaleigh.
5

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Avaleigh said:

I basically feel the same way with Outlander. Sure, I don't necessarily agree with x,y, and z, but my issues with the beating or the no-means-yes cliche are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the positive feelings I have when I'm reading the story. I'm fully entertained and feel engaged in the story even when I was rolling my eyes and feeling annoyed over certain controversial issues. I'm also still very much pro Jamie and Claire even though I have issues with things that have occurred in their relationship. 

For me, I think, it's not so much that the good outweighs the bad, but that I realize people don't always behave the way we want and that doesn't necessarily make them a bad person, in my mind. The thing about the strapping is, I don't think we're supposed to like it or Jamie at that moment. But the fact that he does learn something from it bridges that gap for me. To a certain extent, I agree with Jamie in that Claire didn't seem to realize the gravity of her actions. Do I think Jamie beating Claire was the best way for him to impress this upon her? Oh, hell no! But, I think Jamie figured that out too. If Jamie's takeaway had been to beat Claire every time she displeased him or that Claire was wishing for Jamie to punish her, I wouldn't feel the same way, though. 

What I think is important about the strapping that tends to get overlooked is, this is really a turning point for Claire, IMO.  I'm not sure exactly where everyone's read to so I'll leave it at that for now. 

So, I may not agree with Jamie that it was right and just for him to beat Claire--even though I understand why he might think that--but I do think it was the right thing to do for the story.

Edited by DittyDotDot.
2

Share Post


Link to post

Chapter 21 thoughts:

I love a good villain and BJR is hitting all of the right notes for me. He's just so awful on every level, but I found the conversation between Claire and him to be fascinating. All of the key male figures in her life know that something is up with this woman but they can't put their fingers on it because they're all trying to reason it out logically and of course the truth of her situation is anything but logical. Colum, Dougal, Jamie, BJR---they all know that she's hiding something and they've all reached different conclusions. BJR seems genuinely intrigued by her and, like the other guys, has obviously never met anyone like her so I feel like interacting with her is almost...IDK fun for him for lack of a better way to put it. I feel like it's not just about playing detective and figuring out what she's up to, it's like she's livened things up and he's set on having his twisted version of what a good time it. She actually made this guy genuinely laugh out loud. I feel like it's partly because she intrigues him that he especially gets off on the idea of inflicting pain on people who fascinate him because it's in his rotten nature.  

BJR doesn't ever wear a wig on the show, right? I wonder why they decided to go without? 

I have to say that Claire's memory recall about history is awfully convenient considering how apparent it was that she couldn't care less about historical details that Frank would bore her with. I suppose though that most people would be surprised at what they can recall under the right circumstances with the right incentive. 

I totally laughed when she asked him what kind of gentleman keeps rope in his desk. What sort of moron tells his guard to not come in no matter what he ends up hearing? What if the guard hears him yelling for help or what if Claire somehow turns the tables on him? He's such a cocky bastard I can't wait to read about his comeuppance in the books assuming we get to read it. 

If there was a line in this chapter that me think 'WTF is wrong with this woman?' it was when she says that she briefly felt the impulse to open her legs to BJR. I know the impulse only lasted for a second but that was just perplexing, I don't care how much the guy resembles Frank. The fact that he wasn't hard would have made me *more* frightened, not less. 

I don't understand why Claire doesn't get why Jamie is upset with her for leaving and putting them all in danger. She almost seems angrier with him than he is with her and she's the one who made a mistake and isn't admitting it. He literally just saved her life and she's focusing on the idea that he failed to protect her from the deserters. I wasn't too impressed with her trying to kick him in the balls either. Jamie is at fault too in the argument of course and his proprietorial attitude over her on top of him doing things like shaking her is not cool or okay. I certainly understand his frustration with Claire here though. It really crystallized for me when he was talking about the courage it took for him to go back to the place where he felt the worse pain that he's ever felt in his life and knew that he'd be risking it again to save her and he did it all while knowing that she could have been a spy after all. 

I like that they both apologize to each other and ask for forgiveness. I feel like the relationship is pretty balanced between them and they're both willing to give. 

Chapter 22:

Sigh. I wish Jamie hadn't done it. I understand why he doesn't have a modern perspective about this but it's still upsetting. I thought about Jamie just making it seem like he'd beaten Claire just to please the other men but I can see how that probably wouldn't have been convincing. Jamie thinks that he tried using words and logical reasoning and it still didn't keep Claire from putting all of their lives in danger. He feels like he doesn't know any other way to impress upon her how dangerous her actions were to their group as a whole. Still, what sort of person smiles at the idea of beating their spouse and basically jokes about how loud he's going to make her scream? He threatens to beat her until his arm gets tired? It's appalling and Claire seems like she's getting over it pretty quickly. 

It's interesting that Jamie thinks that Claire comes from a world that's less dangerous while she seems to think the opposite is true. I'm not sure. I can see the arguments for both. 

So the guys are being nice to Claire by stopping more than they usually would to give her a break because they feel bad that she's in pain but they could have given her a one time pass and not wanted her beaten at all. They know she doesn't know their rules so I feel like it would have been nice if they'd cut her some slack as opposed to cutting her slack after the fact. 

Interesting that Jamie was a cocky little jerk who was insulting Mrs. Fitz when he was sixteen. That seems so unlike him, I'm surprised. 

I did like Jamie being amused by Claire choosing that moment to tell him that she loves him. 

Jamie is tougher and stronger than most because there's no way that I would have been able to bear a second flogging if I were in his position. How it must have galled BJR to know that Jamie would prefer being flogged a second time rather than suffer his touch. 

Jesus, so Jamie thinks he's a prince for not raping Claire after he beat her? I can't touch this one. 

All in all I guess I'm glad that they made up and believe Jamie when he says that he'll never beat her again even though this isn't the attitude that I would take in real life. IMO in real life, once is one time too many.

Chapter 23:

I feel like Claire is past the point where she needs to tell Jamie something. I can see not getting into the time travel aspect but at this point considering the fact that he factors her into all of his decisions and risked his life to save her in a huge way, I feel like she owes it to him to be a bit more honest than she's being. She should feel those pangs of guilt when she thinks about wanting to get back to the stones while he's planning their future together. 

I forgot all about Laoghaire. I don't like her because I know what's coming but damn, I kind of felt bad that Claire is basically assuming that Laoghaire will pick up the pieces regarding Jamie. It's almost like she wants to feel less guilty for abandoning him without saying why. 

I have mad love for Mrs. Fitz. There are several supporting characters in the show and book where I just want them to be happy and she's one of them. 

I thought it was nice that Jamie said that he'll honor being courteous to Laoghaire. He's not just going to pretend the girl doesn't exist just because Claire is feeling insecure. 

I like that Claire is fair minded enough to remember her own outraged reaction when Frank accused her of something of similar to what she's implying with Jamie. 

Would Jamie really not be familiar with the word fuck?

More cognitive dissonance on the no-means-yes scene. I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been pointed out before. I guess the bottom line for me is how it makes Claire feel and she seems to feel closer to Jamie than ever so even though it presses all of my buttons, it's something that I'm able to move on from. 

I don't really understand how the Parts in the book are divided. They seem totally random. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Looking at the etymology of the word - It has germanic/latin bases (as well as Swedish/Dutch) origins in the 1800s. It's also not clear if it was always popular (or used) in that time period. You would have imagined that Jamie could have heard it at least once in his time in France, but it's easy to see how he may not have known about it. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

I am really speeding along in this book. (like I am fully engrossed in this now) so it's so hard to stop and write down notes. I just finished the witch trial, and Claire has now told Jamie the entire truth. I liked both angles. I liked how the show did theirs and I like how the book took all the healing that Claire did (and her terminologies being what they were) as curses and ill-wishes. I wish that "it will be a fucking barbeque" was in the book, but that was clearly a "Show-line." (as was "I dinna mind to grind your corn."). 

I do have to say though, just like the show, book Jamie is awfully accepting of this. 


and then i find out a few pages later that Jamie was skeptical. LOL that makes a lot of sense.
I was hoping that the book would break down more of why Claire wanted to stay. I mean ultimately i get why but it's still a bit of a gripe. 

Jenny + Ian are great. (and i just realised that i have 10 more chapters to go. I work every day this week so i might actually get this done and really put my thoughts down).  

Edited by Daisy.
2

Share Post


Link to post

Confession. I'm almost done. I started reading again last night and sped through and now have 10% to go.

Chapter 24 thoughts:

I thought the conversation with Hamish was sweet. If the show included this I've forgotten. I'm really looking forward to watching season 1 again and will start that some time this week. 

I was wondering when Claire was going to realize that she's pretty happy right now in general. At least she's conscious of that before the happiness starts to crumble bit by bit. 

Letitia is kind of an enigma. I don't know what to make of her. I'm assuming she'll never have that much of a role to play but I'm curious. 

Ellen MacKenzie is like the Lyanna Stark of this story only we get most of the details early on. 

Sad that they have to welcome the Duke of Sandringham knowing his history. Also chilling that Jamie turns the time that he almost got raped by the Duke into a story they all seem to think is super funny save Claire. 

Loved Claire delivering the foal. She continues to earn the respect of the castle's inhabitants in different ways. Well, maybe not Laoghaire. 

Geillis didn't do the best job of explaining why it would be dangerous for them to help the baby so I understand why Claire went back. Sad though that she's just trying to help these people and they can't see it. 

I'm glad that Jamie doesn't believe in fairies and all that. 

I wonder what first tipped Geillis off that Claire is another time traveler? 

Geillis is about as reckless as they come. She should have hauled ass to France with all of her money rather than kill her husband. 

Chapter 25:

How disturbing for a husband to know that his wife is poisoning him. I'm glad to know that Dougal's wife wasn't murdered by Geillis as well. 

This basically just makes me want to go back in time and rescue any woman who had the bad luck to be accused of witchcraft. 

I love Ned coming to the rescue here and hope that nothing awful happens to his character in later books. 

This seems even worse than what happened in the show. I don't recall her being stripped and whipped like this. That's one more thing that bonds her to Jamie in a way since they both know what it feels like to be beaten and humiliated like that only for Jamie it was on a much more horrific scale. 

I wonder if they could have gotten out of the situation without Geillis making that confession. She might be a crazed murderer but I like that she helped Claire here. Too bad Claire and Geillis couldn't talk about their time traveling experiences when they were down in the cave. I wonder why Geillis didn't confront Claire with her suspicions? 

So happy that Jamie knows. He isn't asking nearly enough questions though. 

Okay, even though I knew she wouldn't go back, I totally felt a nervous pang and was like, 'Gah, don't go!' I love though that Jamie's instinct is to take her to where she's been trying to get all along. She's getting the chance to make a choice and do whatever it is that she really wants to do and he leaves her alone to do it. I'm really looking forward to seeing how the show did this again because I don't recall her meeting Jamie in a cottage. 

I also like that this encounter with the stones backs up what she's been telling him and he sees it for himself. 

I'm glad that she has at least some longing for modern conveniences. 

Chapter 26-30

Jenny sounds prettier than the actress they cast, nothing against the actress; I enjoy her in the role and have no complaints. 

I can't believe Jamie's nerve for laying into her for naming her child after him. He does it right away too. Just picks a fight from the jump off. Not cool. Still, I can't imagine having a sibling grab me by the genitals in order to force me to listen to their point. There's clearly a deep bond between Jenny and Jamie that makes them understand each other in a way that even Ian and Claire sometimes can't. 

I like seeing Claire and Jenny get to know each other. You wouldn't think that the dynamic would work well with a pair of siblings and their spouses running a house together and actually being happy. You'd think there'd be huge clashes but this is like a honeymoon period. They all have jobs, they're all needed to make Lallybroch well run, they get along and like each other, it's beautiful, and it feels like everything is growing and alive. It makes me think with a pang what Lallybroch is like in the future in the finale of season 2. :(

Oh wow, that story about Dougal warning Jamie off of his daughter Tabitha! You see all of these portrayals in movies about overprotective fathers making comical references to what they'll do to a prospective boyfriend of one of their daughters and I think this tops them all in terms of being the most WTF crazy OTT. I shudder to think what would have happened if Dougal had heard about Tabitha kissing some common boy. I'm guessing that Jamie got a pass from being physically hurt because he was a family member.

Love Grannie MacNab looking after her grandson. I enjoyed the story about how she kept her husband from every beating her again. 

I was interested to see Claire and Jamie discuss how they'll raise any future children and whether or not beatings would be apart of that childhood even though there wasn't really a definitive answer. 

0

Share Post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

I'm really looking forward to seeing how the show did this again because I don't recall her meeting Jamie in a cottage.

It was a bit different on the show and you are correct that they didn't meet in the little cottage. In general the show kinda skipped over some of the aftermath of Claire telling Jamie she was from the future. I also don't think Claire "faded out" when she touched the stones on the show either. I can't remember though.

38 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

This seems even worse than what happened in the show. I don't recall her being stripped and whipped like this. That's one more thing that bonds her to Jamie in a way since they both know what it feels like to be beaten and humiliated like that only for Jamie it was on a much more horrific scale.

Almost the entire witch trial plays out so differently on the show. Laoghair doesn't testify and Father Bain's testimony is different too. Oh and the show didn't do the water horse stuff earlier, so that was a change. Also, I believe Claire saw Geillis' scar by accident in the book, whereas on the show she revealed it to prove she was a witch, right?

Anyway, I think Claire was whipped on the show, but you're right that it didn't seem as severe as what I remember reading in the book. I think they tore her dress, but only to bare her back for the whipping...I think, that is.

1

Share Post


Link to post

Avaleigh - I am almost done too, I am on Chapter 32, and i think i am going to power-through this. 

Yeah. it's at this point now, you can sort of see the 'adaptation." (ie; the witch trial - i think it was more powerful to have L...(it's late, i can't even bother). I think the Gellis point was more poignant on the show (because you got the year, the actual "Look. understand. GO.") - but the aftermath was much better in the book, in my opinion. 

I like Book Jenny better than Show Jenny. And while Jamie was  ripe ole arse... I don't blame him for being upset. (it doesn't change the fact that he was a class A jackass - but the last thing he knew was Jenny was being raped, now there's a baby, and the baby is named after him, and his "father" was the one who scared his back, basically killed their father, and wants to sodimize him. I think he was entitled to a bit of what-the-fuckery - the fact that he went on for a while and started to be crass... was a bit whoa dude,really what's your glitch). 

I have to do some research but I am wondering the famine that hits Scotland - is this the same one that hit Ireland and caused that mass immigration, or am I way, way too early on that? Jamie telling Jenny to just listen and do what Claire says was so smart, and because in a sense this is beyond Jenny's nature, you can totally tell this is due to the love she has for Jamie

No midwife on the show... Liked the fact she was there. 
again it might be because i'm literally engrossed in this now - but the barren thing smacked me in the face in the book as it did in the show? Where is this coming from? Was this hinted at? I totally acknowledge me being dumb/slow on this. 

0

Share Post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Daisy said:

I have to do some research but I am wondering the famine that hits Scotland - is this the same one that hit Ireland and caused that mass immigration, or am I way, way too early on that?

It's about 100 years too early for that one. Also (and spoiler tagging because I'm not sure where the advice is in the book)

Spoiler

I think you're thinking of the Irish potato famine, so telling someone to plant potatoes when they're going to be covered with blight is probably not a good idea.

2

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Grashka said:

Ellen MacKenzie = Lyanna Stark = Lily Potter. It's the same character, I tell ye ;-)

At first I was a bit disappointed with the way show handled Lallybroch. I was put off by the abbreviated version of Jamie fight with Jenny. I agree, he was a total and utter ass but I loved Fraser siblings basically clawing at each other like two mad cats, juxtaposed with Claire cheerfully chatting with Ian in garden. It showed how distinct their personalities were. Then I didn't like Jenny's bitchiness, I felt book!Jenny would never call Claire a trollop. But after second viewing I came around and now I appreciate both versions, for different reasons.

What I found missing from the book to show adaptation, was all the talking about Brian being a selkie.

And now I'm really curious what you ladies will say about book version of Wentworth Prison story and its aftermath. Because it's something that, in my personal opinion, the book did much better than the show.

I laughed hard

 

Okay so I am done. I think the book version of Wentworth prison + the aftermath had a lot more gravitas in the book than in the show. (and the show really squiged me out to be blunt). I know when we were show watching, people were debating if Randal was gay, or what not, and I just had a feeling that Randal wasn't per se - he was just a sadistic bastard who got off on violence and pain and control. Now - I still feel this way.. But... there was just something in how Jamie was telling the story that made me raise an eyebrow. 

The aftermath was equally haunting. (I am wondering like in the show you get that "oh it could be all better..." and then firmly put in place in book two, no, there are 100 percent issues to continue to deal with). I don't want to go too far because i don't know where Avaleigh is. 

i can see why people could/do/will have issues with the book (and i gather with the series), but i really enjoyed it. i'm glad i finally picked it up. 

Edited by Daisy.
2

Share Post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Daisy said:

Okay so I am done. I think the book version of Wentworth prison + the aftermath had a lot more gravitas in the book than in the show. (and the show really squiged me out to be blunt).

There's many things I felt the show either improved upon or did equally as well, but I agree, the show's version of Wentworth paled in comparison to the books. I kinda found Randall obnoxiously goofy on the show and felt the book gave him a more menacing presence. 

17 hours ago, Daisy said:

I can see why people could/do/will have issues with the book (and i gather with the series), but i really enjoyed it. i'm glad i finally picked it up. 

So, I gotta ask, did reading the book change your assessment of the show? For me, I found had a greater appreciation of the show after I read the book.  It's weird, I think I prefer the show for the first half and prefer the book for the second half.  

1

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

There's many things I felt the show either improved upon or did equally as well, but I agree, the show's version of Wentworth paled in comparison to the books. I kinda found Randall obnoxiously goofy on the show and felt the book gave him a more menacing presence. 

So, I gotta ask, did reading the book change your assessment of the show? For me, I found had a greater appreciation of the show after I read the book.  It's weird, I think I prefer the show for the first half and prefer the book for the second half.  

 

Yeah. I don't know why they changed BJR. maybe they thought it wouldn't translate well to Television? Like we all hate BJR - but yah, I think randall was over the top. we still didn't get a lot of insight to why in the book  - but I felt in the book... there were reasons to it. It just seemed on the show, Randall was bad, because he wanted to be bad. Like things like the Wig, the line before he beat Claire up - it scared me, because here is this dignified guy, who could flip on you, and you don't know why, and it's more than "he's a sadist bastard" but it's just a hint. 

Where as Show!Randal was very much like the general in the Patriot. He's a evil bastard coz he can. 

Did the Book change my feelings on the Show. I think i'm like you. it's a greater appreciation of it. There are a lot of aspects of it that the show improved upon (the first half like you said) - which i think makes sense, because if they had a bad first half - there's no season 3-4 to look forward to, so they had to be firing on all cylinders there. The back half (while I enjoyed on the show), I think they focused a lot on Jamie/Claire here, where in the book it was several other focal pints. You got to know Jenny more. you heard about Brian more. more Ellen (nee Lylana nee Lilly ;) ) and then again  - the most significant part of the book in the back half, was crammed into the finale. where this took basically several chapters to wrap up. 

I remember watching the first episode and thinking how boring it was. i'm like this is the show everyone went gaga over? Now I watch the opening 20 minutes and there's such an appreciation to how slow it is because once she touches the stones, Claire's life is completely gonzo and crazy.  it also solidified why i can't read book 3. I just started book 2, so I'm ready for a new thread/discussion when everyone else is), but i know i have to stop. because I will enjoy the book and I don't think i'll appreciate the show too much.

1

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Daisy said:

 I remember watching the first episode and thinking how boring it was. i'm like this is the show everyone went gaga over? Now I watch the opening 20 minutes and there's such an appreciation to how slow it is because once she touches the stones, Claire's life is completely gonzo and crazy.  it also solidified why i can't read book 3. I just started book 2, so I'm ready for a new thread/discussion when everyone else is), but i know i have to stop. because I will enjoy the book and I don't think i'll appreciate the show too much.

That was kinda me. I mean, I liked the costumes, the scenery and some of the actors/characters, but the overall story wasn't doing much for me. I watched the first half of the season and then decided to pick up the books while waiting for the second half. But then after reading the book I went back and watched the first half again and appreciated the show more. I could see all the care they took in trying to be faithful to the books, but also make the story their own. I think the big difference between the book and show for me is the tone. The show has this nostalgic and almost romantic tone to it, whereas the book doesn't seem to take itself quite so seriously. There's nothing wrong with either approach, just my own personal preference.

I think why the second half of the book works better for me than the show is because there's just more time in the book and I love all the little quiet moments we got after they returned from the rent trip and later at Lallybrook the show just really didn't have time to include. It really helps with getting inside Claire's frame of mind.

2

Share Post


Link to post

Finished. I'm really looking forward to watching season one now and will give some thoughts on it after I finish. I'll admit that I didn't pay attention to details all that much when I watched the show, so it's harder for me to make the comparison since it isn't fresh in my mind. I think I was a little unfair on the show and dismissive of it in the beginning, and now my opinion has totally changed and I appreciate what a faithful and thoughtful adaptation this has been. I feel like this show has received the LotR style treatment in terms of having a showrunner/filmmaker who seems genuinely fond of the source material.

Chapter 30-final chapter 

I was amused by Jenny doing battle with both Jamie and Claire in terms of brushing their hair and making them look presentable. 

Loved Jenny and Claire going through the hope chest although I thought it was rather convenient that Jenny has no interest in wearing her mother's ivory bracelets. Aww, Murtagh...

I'm glad Mrs. Fitz gave Colum shit for leaving Claire to the wolves.

Jamie says that Claire never said that she loved him but she did. Maybe it wasn't in the way he wanted but she did say something like 'I do love you, James Fraser' almost like she was surprised to realize it. 

Considering how much Claire assisted with the delivery I would have like the kid to be named Margaret Ellen Clarissa Murray. Now I'm curious to know if Maggie and Brianna ever meet and whether or not they'll get along. 

Claire thinks about what will happen if she becomes pregnant prior to Jenny having Maggie, but I didn't really get the impression that she longed for a child until after she assisted with the delivery. Now she seems a lot more conscious about how much time it's taking for she and Jamie to get there. 

It's nice that Jamie thought ahead and told Jenny to trust Claire's advice if she ever needed to give it. 

I was definitely not expecting Murtagh and Claire to form up and basically create an act.

Dougal doesn't think much of Claire nor does he know her very well if he thinks she's just going to go off with him and marry him before Jamie is even officially dead. Colum really didn't care much for Dougal's feelings for Geillis because it seems like he could have stepped in before the situation boiled over. What a curious sibling relationship though. Colum and Dougal really are a team in every sense. 

Jeez, how many times does Claire have to have some person in this story think that she's barren because she isn't pregnant after six months or however much time has passed?

I love that Rupert swayed the others to come and help Claire and Murtagh. I think about how upset he was on the show over the death of Angus and feel like he's one of the most loyal characters we've seen. 

Why does Geillis tell Dougal to tell Claire 1967 and not 1968?

How is the British army not on notice about Claire at this point or at least on notice about a suspicious English woman who seems to always been in the company of some Scottish Highlanders?

Wentworth--

I thought the book did a better job than the show did here. I was actually fearing how graphic the book would be but I thought the show was a lot harder to watch than the book was to read here, and a lot of the horror that Jamie goes through is left to the imagination. Ugh, of course Claire is threatened with rape again. I want to say the show left that bit out where BJR threatens her with Marley. 

BJR has to be one of the most evil and fucked up characters I've ever read. He's right up there with Ramsay Bolton. At least Ramsay doesn't think of himself as some darkly romantic character. To me that's one of the most chilling aspects of BJR's character. The show makes it clear too but I really got this point in the book even more. 

Why does BJR call Jamie Alex? I thought it was to do with that prisoner who hanged himself and that seemed odd to me and then I realized that BJR's younger brother is also called Alex. Maybe it's a coincidence, but that gave me a jolt and I can't help but think that BJR is even more fucked up than I previously realized. (How is that even possible?) Why would he choose to call Jamie 'Alex' of all names? Who chooses to call someone they see as a lover (obviously Jamie isn't his lover but I don't think BJR sees it that way) by their sibling's name? That was incredibly disturbing to me and cranked the creepy factor up to twelve on a scale of 1-10. Jamie is probably right that Randall would have killed him if he'd given in and told him that he loved him. 

How is it that no one has reported BJR? For their own safety if for no other reason?

I love that Claire understand enough Gaelic for Jamie to be able to speak to her in a situation like this. 

It's not enough for what he's done, but I thought it was a nicely played bit of revenge for Claire to tell BJR the date of his death. If a person is superstitious and believes in that sort of thing, that's a pretty awesome way to mess with somebody's head. I like to think that her words went through his mind every single day until the day of the battle. 

The wolf attack was unexpected. I feel like Claire might not have made it if she'd been attacked on day one of falling through the stones. She's definitely toughened up. 

I laughed at the description of Sir Fletcher seeming as though he'd shit his breeches upon seeing the cattle. 

I wish they'd made Jamie take at least a little laudanum because that just sounded awful. I understood his reasons but I can't imagine operating on someone who's feeling every single jab. 

We seem like we get more of Jamie's thoughts on what he went through and suffered and that keeps it from feeling as though it's all about shock value. I remember that being a common complaint back when the first season finale aired and I when I was reading the Wentworth scenes and the recap of them, I felt like the scenes were primarily about getting psychological insight into these three characters. It didn't feel like cheap shock value for me. 

If Claire killed an English soldier on the show to protect them all, I can't recall. There really isn't anything that she and Jamie haven't been willing to do for each other. It was like she just checked another item off of Jaime Lannister's 'The Things I Do For Love' list. 

Oh, and speaking of GoT, Grashka, you are too right that Ellen MacKenzie, Lyanna Stark, and Lily Potter are basically the same character. 

I'm glad that she got some nice advice from Anselm, but this part of the book was a little boring for me. Maybe it's just because I'm anxious to get to Dragonfly in Amber. 

If I thought that this was a stand alone book, I totally would have thought that Jamie would die.

I can't imagine how good it must feel to have a truly long and hot bath after months of going without. When I think about how Claire jokingly told Jamie that the 'hot baths nearly won' when it came to her decision to not leave through the stones, I thought it was a pretty nice treat for him to think of for her to enjoy. 

All in all I enjoyed it very much and will start on the second book later today or tomorrow. I don't think I'm going to be able to hold off on reading the others. I'm into it.  

Edited by Avaleigh. Reason: Jamie and Jamie aren't the same and I'm anal like that. ;p
2

Share Post


Link to post

I have renamed this thread to include book 2. You can keep using it as a discussion thread and I do know that at least one of you does not want to read Voyager yet.

3

Share Post


Link to post

@Avaleigh (I hope this is ok (book reader here))... just to let you know. Diana admitted sometime long ago that the 1967 was a mistake, and she'd changed it to 1968 in European editions and later books. I forget where I originally read that, maybe her blog? Or the first Companion book.

Anyway. It's meant to be 1968.

2

Share Post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

If Claire killed an English soldier on the show to protect them all, I can't recall. There really isn't anything that she and Jamie haven't been willing to do for each other. It was like she just checked another item off of Jamie Lannister's 'The Things I Do For Love' list. 

HA! That's great. I might have to steal that and use it someday.

But, yeah, Claire didn't kill the officer on the show. On the show, they sought asylum in Scotland and sailed to France after Jamie recovered. There really wasn't time to include this little plot point.

49 minutes ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

@Avaleigh (I hope this is ok (book reader here))... just to let you know. Diana admitted sometime long ago that the 1967 was a mistake, and she'd changed it to 1968 in European editions and later books. I forget where I originally read that, maybe her blog? Or the first Companion book.

Anyway. It's meant to be 1968.

I was just going to say the same thing, but I think I read it in a thread here. Maybe the "Show vs Books" thread? I'll see if I can find it again and post a link. No promises, though, I tend to get sidetracked easily when I dig back into threads.

2

Share Post


Link to post

Thanks Athena - and away.. we... go! (first 6 chapters). 

So - the season finale of season 2 - is the opening of Dragonfly in Amber. I will say it right now, I think I like this a heck of a lot better. I do get where they were going with in the show it makes sense - season 1 ends with "We're going to stop Charlie!" and then season 2 is like NOOOOOOoooooooooo, and you find out why (and talking to my friend who is a reader/watcher, she liked what the show did). 

I will say, I think this would have been a better way to start the season (for me). I like Book Bree a lot better. (I know a LOT of people had issues with Bree, I didn't mind her, but in the 4 chapters we see her so far, she's sweet, and nice. Show Bree seemed very aloof). I do think it was a copout to kill Frank. (but I guess you can't have the "Bree, your daddy is a Highlander 200 years in the past" conversation w/Claire's promise that Frank would raise Bree as her own. (I was told/warned that the book gets wonky in some places and I am prepared for it, but still). I like how the book started out. Claire's lapses in judgement "Oh yah, the paper wasn't that bad, and sometimes we used a damp cloth." LOL so nonchalant and people are like whuuu? her reaction to BJR's tombstone, and being devastated at seeing Jamie's so far away from Culloden and she's just like. "Bree, this is your dad." obliterating all of her plans of how she was going to approach it. 

Roger having an uber crush on Bree, Bree seemingly reciprocating it i like it ... then we delve into storytime. (also. hehe just Claire's "Oh. did we make an enemy out of St Germaine?" Jamie. "yes." Claire. "Oh Dear." LOL)

0

Share Post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

@Avaleigh (I hope this is ok (book reader here))... just to let you know. Diana admitted sometime long ago that the 1967 was a mistake, and she'd changed it to 1968 in European editions and later books. I forget where I originally read that, maybe her blog? Or the first Companion book.

Anyway. It's meant to be 1968.

I want to say it was in the first Outlandish Companion. It was 1967 because it was however many years past 1945, when the book started. She wrote that she discovered later that the start of the book should have been set in 1946 because even though World War II was over in 1945, rationing in Great Britain was not, and Claire talks about that. I think the lack of research was because Diana didn't realize at the time she wrote it that it would actually be published and gain such a following. When it was published in England, an editor or someone mentioned the bad dates, so they changed them.

3

Share Post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Grashka said:

LOL

All three of them are mother/sister figures/archetypes? Check.

Everyone who used to know them gush about them to the high heaven? Check.

All died very young or young? Check. (And two of them in childbirth, no less).

Loves of their lives died as well? Check.

The three of them had plethora of suitors, who have been mourning them to the end of their lives? Check.

Stood up to bullies defending weaker? Well, Lilly and Lyanna certainly did, in scenes that seemed eerily similiar, so I'm sure Ellen did as well.

Resentful/jealous siblings? Lilly and Ellen - check.

Their male offsprings bear an uncanny resemblance to them, inspiring love and gushing all over the place, because they are just like their moms? Ahem

Oh, and G.R.R. Martin, J. K.Rowling and D.Gabaldon basically started writing their series at the same time :-)

And all of them have one of mom's former suitors following them around and "protecting" them, though some (Murtagh) are less creepy than others. :)

I've just been sort of lurking on this thread, but I absolutely died when the whole Lily/Lyanna/Ellen connection was mentioned because I read the Harry Potter series, the first Outlander book, and the Game of Thrones series books all this year for the first time, and my conclusion after reading them all was that I am obviously not a major character in a fantasy series because I don't have one of my mother's rejected suitors following me around.

But I hadn't realized all of the other similarities that you just mentioned. :)

Edited by Zella.
1

Share Post


Link to post

Which former suitor is following around Jon? 

8 hours ago, Daisy said:

I will say, I think this would have been a better way to start the season (for me). 

I think the show made the right choice. In a visual medium it would be a bit too startling to start 20 years later, not to mention people would probably scratching their heads as to who Roger was (and a lot of people probably did anyway). Starting the season in 1948 gave the show time to re-introduce a bit again. But I like both openings.

2

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ulkis said:

Which former suitor is following around Jon? 

My bad! I was thinking of Sansa. I should probably get more sleep before I type things. :)

2

Share Post


Link to post

I'm enjoying book two so far. I prefer the show's opening but like both. 

On 8/5/2016 at 9:43 PM, ulkis said:

I think the show made the right choice. In a visual medium it would be a bit too startling to start 20 years later, not to mention people would probably scratching their heads as to who Roger was (and a lot of people probably did anyway). Starting the season in 1948 gave the show time to re-introduce a bit again. But I like both openings.

I admit that I was confused as to who Roger was and agree that for me it would have been too startling. The early scenes in the finale of last season were one long 'Gaaaaah, are you kidding me?' feeling, so for a season opener I think the show made the right choice. Until the 1968 reveal, I still had hope that Claire would return earlier (I thought that's why we got the flashback to when Bree was a kid--I thought it would happen around that time period and that there would be further scenes) and I don't know that I would have responded as strongly to the choice to have the characters part if I'd had the twenty year gap in the back of my head for the entire season.

I also like that the show gave us more of what happened with Claire and Frank than we've had in the book so far. I'm curious to know if BJR ruined Frank for Claire. It doesn't sound like Claire told Frank about BJR. Why would Frank continue to be interested in him and why does Bree seem to think her father had a positive impression of him? Or did Claire just tell him about BJR and he didn't believe her? Curious. 

So Roger comes from Hamish and this makes him a distant cousin of Bree's, right?

On 8/5/2016 at 1:00 PM, Daisy said:

I will say, I think this would have been a better way to start the season (for me). I like Book Bree a lot better. (I know a LOT of people had issues with Bree, I didn't mind her, but in the 4 chapters we see her so far, she's sweet, and nice. Show Bree seemed very aloof). I do think it was a copout to kill Frank. (but I guess you can't have the "Bree, your daddy is a Highlander 200 years in the past" conversation w/Claire's promise that Frank would raise Bree as her own. (I was told/warned that the book gets wonky in some places and I am prepared for it, but still). I like how the book started out. Claire's lapses in judgement "Oh yah, the paper wasn't that bad, and sometimes we used a damp cloth." LOL so nonchalant and people are like whuuu? her reaction to BJR's tombstone, and being devastated at seeing Jamie's so far away from Culloden and she's just like. "Bree, this is your dad." obliterating all of her plans of how she was going to approach it. 

Roger having an uber crush on Bree, Bree seemingly reciprocating it i like it ... then we delve into storytime. (also. hehe just Claire's "Oh. did we make an enemy out of St Germaine?" Jamie. "yes." Claire. "Oh Dear." LOL)

I definitely like book Bree more and am hoping that show Bree will grow on me. I was concerned about how I would respond to this character because I've heard the actress will appear in the next season so I feel like I better get used to the idea of her having a larger role to play. Book Bree doesn't so strongly give off that obnoxious teenage vibe of everything-my-mother-does-is-embarrassing as show Bree did. They seem like they enjoy each other's company in the book more. Plus we get little touches of Bree seeming like she's a kind and thoughtful person who cares about others. She helps Roger because she thinks it's the least she can do since he's helping out her mother, she's bringing back gifts for friends, she's concerned about her mother's health, she's naturally friendly, etc. I have a feeling that now that I'm reading Bree that I'll end up liking show Bree more.

I like that there are these similarities between Jamie and Bree. The way they sleep, the stubbornness, the appearance, etc. I was waiting for Claire to point out to Bree that she doesn't look like Frank at all. Very cool that Ellen Mackenzie's portrait is in the National Gallery. 

Roger has been fun to read. His crush on Bree is amusing. It's like he was clapped by the "thunderbolt" that the Sicilians describe in the book The Godfather. I just imagine him with his mouth open half of the time. Not only that but he's MILFing a bit on Claire. How many times has this book already reminded us that she's still hot? 

I sort of feel sorry for Fiona. Sad that she can't take a hint and continues to try so hard. It's like she's wearing a neon sign that says 'I'm a catch.' only it's an annoying flashing sign and two of the letters are burnt out. 

For the sake of the story I like that Roger is listening to Claire with an open mind but I feel like most people would react like Bree. 

It doesn't take long for it to get exciting. Claire puts them in danger right off of the bat but on the plus side, Jamie has a new job and they have nice house complete with staff that they'll be able to kick back in. It's nice to have connections. 

St. Germaine is a good villain. He isn't as creepy as BJR but he's just as much of an asshole. 

Every time smallpox pops up in literature I'm thankful that we don't have to deal with that today. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

LOL i am taking a bit of a break from Outlander (well Dragonfly) because the Olympics are on, and I am totally engrossed. LOL

1

Share Post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

I'm enjoying book two so far. I prefer the show's opening but like both. 

I admit that I was confused as to who Roger was and agree that for me it would have been too startling. The early scenes in the finale of last season were one long 'Gaaaaah, are you kidding me?' feeling, so for a season opener I think the show made the right choice. Until the 1968 reveal, I still had hope that Claire would return earlier (I thought that's why we got the flashback to when Bree was a kid--I thought it would happen around that time period and that there would be further scenes) and I don't know that I would have responded as strongly to the choice to have the characters part if I'd had the twenty year gap in the back of my head for the entire season.

I also like that the show gave us more of what happened with Claire and Frank than we've had in the book so far. I'm curious to know if BJR ruined Frank for Claire. It doesn't sound like Claire told Frank about BJR. Why would Frank continue to be interested in him and why does Bree seem to think her father had a positive impression of him? Or did Claire just tell him about BJR and he didn't believe her? Curious. 

So Roger comes from Hamish and this makes him a distant cousin of Bree's, right?

I think Claire must tell him something Randall, because in the letter Bree reads in the attic, Frank writes to the Reverend to stop all research because Randall isn't the man he thought he was.

I don't remember if Bree sounded like she had a positive impression of him, all I remember is her saying "that's one of daddy's ancestors." Did she say anything else? I forget.

Roger is a distant cousin of Bree's, but his ancestor is Hamish's half-brother. Dougal had Hamish with Collum's wife and Roger's ancestor is Dougal's child with Geillis.

1

Share Post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ulkis said:

I think Claire must tell him something Randall, because in the letter Bree reads in the attic, Frank writes to the Reverend to stop all research because Randall isn't the man he thought he was.

I don't remember if Bree sounded like she had a positive impression of him, all I remember is her saying "that's one of daddy's ancestors." Did she say anything else? I forget.

Roger is a distant cousin of Bree's, but his ancestor is Hamish's half-brother. Dougal had Hamish with Collum's wife and Roger's ancestor is Dougal's child with Geillis.

Bree said something like how BJR is the only one of the ancestors that Frank thought was interesting or something along those lines. I guess maybe it's wrong to say positive impression. More like she didn't hear anything negative. 

I'd forgotten about Frank saying that BJR isn't the man he thought he was. 

Interesting that Dougal's out of wedlock child would carry on the name MacKenzie...oh, I'm so slow! Geillis wouldn't have any way of knowing who he is, right? I totally need to rewatch the season two finale to check out that interaction again. So he's her however many times great grandson. 

I totally want Maggie and Bree to meet one day and become besties.

Bree's going to know Jamie is her dad the moment they meet. They'd better freaking meet, I swear I'll be pissed if that doesn't happen. 

I liked getting that info on why BPC is called Charlie.  

Thinking about Culloden is sad and I can see why people might get emotional thinking about it let alone actually going to the field. I totally understand why Claire couldn't bring herself to go there. 

One thing that's surprises me is that I'm actually looking forward to returning to the 1968 part. I really want to know info we get on book Geillis. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

The Olympics totally cut into my reading time so my thoughts aren't very organized because I didn't take as many notes. 

I've always heard that it was bad luck to toast with water so I liked that detail.

I wasn't really expecting us to get more details about Jamie's time at Wentworth. Not fun to read, but I thought that Jamie focusing on the blanket felt like a very realistic detail. 

Claire has a knack for attracting trouble and drama but I like that she makes every place she goes better in the day to day sense. It isn't just with nursing although that's the bulk of it. She's just kind and helpful by nature. Just that she's patient with someone like Mary who's seems like she's never dealt with a patient person in there life. No wonder Mary already seems attached to Claire in a way. 

On the show, Mary was a character that I felt hopelessly sorry for. I love that Mary was the only one of the ladies to stay at the hospital to help. I'm curious about the stuttering. It made me think of the movie The King's Speech when Claire mentioned that Mary should try singing. It also made me wonder what the root cause likely is for Mary's stutter. I couldn't help but think that she had a cruel parent or nanny or something along those lines. 

So Claire is finally wearing a corset. I thought it was unrealistic for her to go without them in the first book. I can see refusing to make them so tight but as far as support it seems like it would be kind of necessary. 

Jamie's story about his duel was amusing. It was funny to imagine Jamie thinking that she was going to run to him only to totally pass him over. Lmao that he actually verbalized the idea that he might go off and be a monk. I can't imagine deciding during Catholic high school that the best way to deal with a break up would be to fast track becoming a nun. 

The King's mistress was out of her mind to do that to her body. She couldn't be more different than a mistress like Madame Pompadour. 

I definitely enjoyed Jamie telling Claire to just tell him to go to hell when he gets stupid. 

Poor Alex. People probably assume he's an asshole on a regular basis because of BJR. 

I like that Claire still thinks about Frank and I liked seeing that flashback of him lecturing, although I probably could have done without him asking the women in the class where they dab their scent on their bodies. 

Claire seriously turns down the chance to wax everything? Really? That would have been the first thing I'd have wanted done considering how unsanitary everything is. We literally have a point in the last book where she's worried about the smell, she brings up the smell and cleanliness factor when it comes to under her arms (says it's the first time she's felt truly clean in months) but it doesn't apply here? I found that to be too ridiculous. Then we have Jamie basically telling Claire what she should do with her body. 

I didn't like that Jamie wanted to keep Claire from working at the hospital but I like that they have conflicts and are able to resolve them and understand each other better afterward. 

I liked Claire's suggestion of William for a name for a boy. I get not wanting to call the kid Lambert but Quentin wouldn't have been a bad middle name. 

When Claire first meets BPC for one quick second I was confused and was like 'There's no way this is Fergus, right?' It was because she described him as a boy that I thought it must be somebody else other than BPC. 

I love that Claire is helping people in the hospital, Mother Hildegarde is wonderful, and Bouton is precious. That being said, the hospital scenes aren't my favorite and I felt like this chapter went on for a long time. I love that Mother Hildegarde considers Rameau to be a personal friend. 

Jamie telling Claire to let Fergus do his thing while he was eating and shoving food in his pockets was sweet, I thought. 

I did laugh out loud of Jamie and his sausage adventure with his sausage. 

Louise really needs Claire to tell her to try to pass the baby off as her husband's? Whatever. 

Sad that Fergus's experience has taught him that it's preferable to take a beating than to risk a master's displeasure. 

Wow, diarrhea in front of thirty plus people is absolutely the opposite of a fun time. 

That maid talking out of turn during Jamie having his bath after the brothel episode seemed very unrealistic. 

I thought the moment of the baby kicking was very sweet. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

the Olympics are over. :'(

I'll get back to reading and thinking (I have to say i am enjoying book 2 as well). i think i'm behind you again @Avaleigh. I Olympic'ed hard. (and have to get some knitting done) :)

0

Share Post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

Claire seriously turns down the chance to wax everything? Really? That would have been the first thing I'd have wanted done considering how unsanitary everything is. We literally have a point in the last book where she's worried about the smell, she brings up the smell and cleanliness factor when it comes to under her arms (says it's the first time she's felt truly clean in months) but it doesn't apply here? I found that to be too ridiculous. Then we have Jamie basically telling Claire what she should do with her body. 

IDK, I had the impression that hair removal down there wasn't really part of the beauty routine of average 1940s British/Western women and the general thoughts toward going "bare" wouldn't have differed very much from Jamie's. Even well after the bikini was embraced, if you look at movies featuring nudity in the 1970s and even into the 1980s (mainstream and adult), body hair is still in abundance. So, a woman from an era of swimsuits with skirts and tap pants for underwear wouldn't have necessarily seen the need to shave, even (not that fashion choices should dictate hair removal habits[/disclaimer]). Plus, waxing is painful!

Edited by Dejana.
6

Share Post


Link to post

The Olympics seriously killed this thread (laugh). I am still in Paris (Claire just lost the baby)
I am really enjoying this one though this one isn't so much "escape into adventure" as the first one was, which was sort of the issues I had with the first block of season two. but I am still very much enjoying this. I just know it will take me a lot longer to get to, now that TV Season/Knitting Season/Hockey is among us. 

2

Share Post


Link to post

I'm in Scotland now. I am really sad they didn't really show more of the Ian/Jamie relationship. in a way - I am feeling truly, that in the show they are isolating Claire/Jamie (if this makes sense) so it's just them and the world they are in, with a sprinkling of Murtaugh. where as in the books there's more.. "I need Him to knows, he's like my brother" and Jenny/Claire as close for sure

 

(this is also ensuring that I can't read voyager. LOL I am really loving Dragonfly (more than the show), so i know i'll read Voyager the show will take a dip. i'll have to be patient). 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Moving over here from Imdb message boards...

The outlander one obviously 

0

Share Post


Link to post
On 2016-07-14 at 11:47 AM, Daisy said:

hehe now I am on pause waiting for everyone to catch up. (Sorry Avaleigh for making you wait! :) man when I reached chapter eight i went, oh pooop). 

We didn't know about the daughters in the show. and I do have to say - Book Dougal is nice and sweet (so far) where Show Dougal was this grizzly ole bear who was cranky and sarcastic. She didn't mention what Colum's disease is (or if they did I must have glazed over it, so i forget what it is. I don't know why my mind wants to settle on Tourette's. which is 1000% wrong. But I know it starts with a T)? maybe?

I also don't remember Jamie's story of why his hair was shaved, being conked out and ending up in France. (if the show touched on this - i am in 100 percent in need of a re-watch, clearly. I do think this show is like GoT in that sense. Watch once, and "fall in love" watch again and pick up everything - and now it's being enhanced by the book). 

Claire trying to find tangible proof was heartbreaking - yet still 100 percent logical. like I'd imagine once I saw the castle and no lights, I'd be like "okay." but Claire was determined to find the date written down or something. 

I am finding it intriguing that Claire keeps finding ways to talk to Jaimie (i know part of it is legitimate because of the wounds she's treating) but she is talking with Jamie, she's actually paying attention and interacting. She's not bored. But then at the same time, Jamie's not talking about history, so...

 

(also while I sometimes believe I was born out of time and I'd love to live in "Olden Times" knowing you could die not from being sick, but by having a moron healer, kinda scares me). 

Your comment “ watch once, and fall in love, watch again and pick up everything - and now it’s being enhanced by the book”, is completely accurate. That is exactly what I did. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now