Terry Dresbach

Outlander Costume Designer

Dragonfly in Amber: Book Discussion and Show Expectations

Home Outlander Costuming Discussion Forums General Outlander Discussion Dragonfly in Amber: Book Discussion and Show Expectations

Tagged: 

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #5571
    MrsParker
    Participant

    Dragonfly in Amber scripts are currently being written, costumes are being designed and discussions are happening on Twitter. What do you want to see in the show? What do hope is left out? What do you think of the book in general?

Viewing 68 reply threads
  • Author
    Replies
    • #5577
      MrsParker
      Participant

      My first topic, please be kind! Terry posed the question on Twitter: what do you think Dragonfly in Amber is about? I said it was a mystery — with that opening, I had to keep reading as I had to know what happened to Jamie, why did Claire leave him, how did Brianna get there and what does Frank know? I saw Roger as our “guide” as the book breaks out into his POV as well.

    • #5583
      rachely
      Participant

      I’m DRUNK people, I have caused a kerfuffle. Perhaps a stramach (sp?).

      I said that I found the Paris scenes of DIA rather uninteresting. there were many reasons but the basic of which was that it didn’t move the story forward at all.

      GO FORTH AND DISCUSS.

      • #5598
        emellar
        Participant

        Yes! The Paris scenes to me seem to be a little drawn out and redundant. I find the action in Scotland leading up to Culloden much more compelling and interesting.

    • #5584
      sonyakhanum
      Participant

      Oh! Roger as a guide – I like that. His POV is the first one we experience besides Claire’s.

      I was thinking about this book the other day and how it would be portrayed on the screen, especially with the limited time that each episode offers. There’s SO MUCH that happens in this book, that I don’t think you could fit it all in. I wouldn’t mind if the Paris part was shortened a bit – it wasn’t my favourite, but there are some crucial scenes and characters that set the stage for the rest of the series that should be included (eg. Master Raymond, Mary Hawkins and the Randall’s, the loss of Faith, and the trials Claire and Jamie go through following that loss, are a couple that I can think of).

      All the books in the series are different and unique, special in their own way, but DIA is one of my favourites.

    • #5585
      Terry Dresbach
      Keymaster

      [quote quote=5577]My first topic, please be kind! Terry posed the question on Twitter: what do you think Dragonfly in Amber is about? I said it was a mystery — with that opening, I had to keep reading as I had to know what happened to Jamie, why did Claire leave him, how did Brianna get there and what does Frank know? I saw Roger as our “guide” as the book breaks out into his POV as well.[/quote]

      Shank you for doing that!!!! And thank you everyone for deleting Spoiler tweets. My apologies!!!!

    • #5586
      Terry Dresbach
      Keymaster

      [quote quote=5583]I’m DRUNK people, I have caused a kerfuffle. Perhaps a stramach (sp?).

      I said that I found the Paris scenes of DIA rather uninteresting. there were many reasons but the basic of which was that it didn’t move the story forward at all.

      GO FORTH AND DISCUSS.

      [/quote]

      Oh, you did not, I started it! I was curious because I had a hard time answering Ron. Lots of amazing characters and scenes. But Kiri(?) nailed it for me. It is the story of a a woman and her journey, her marriage, not just a courtship, and most importantly the introduction of character we will see for decades.

      • #5590
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        @kricki’s summary on twitter nailed the book and its themes on the head.

      • #5712
        kricki
        Participant

        So glad I found you all here. I missed out on the earlier convo here but loved reading everything you all have written. It is nice to see others that get that its Claire’s story. I love Jamie but I LOVE Claire. You know how I can tell the difference? Because Claire makes me jump up and down, cry, yell and once throw my book across the room. There is so much to comment on and not enough time to do it since its 10:00pm on the west coast and I wake up early. Thank you to Terry and Sonya for the kind words.

        Regarding Claire not caring about BJR at end of OL and obsessed in DIA. I have always read it as in OL she didn’t have a chance to care. She was told he was dead, there was nothing she could do about it. In that moment she “thinks” history can be changed and just rolls with it. Once she realizes that maybe history has “fixed points” (to use a Doctor Who expression) she does her best to be sure Frank’s line continues. Just to be safe. Once that’s set, she’s out. I have always thought she felt like it was the least she could do for him. Make sure he exists. Just my take on it. Not to mention if you get into the whole space/time paradox issue it could’ve been a form of self preservation. No Frank, no trip to Scotland, no stone, no Jamie. Oh this train of thought could go on for hours and I gotta go to bed.

        Good night all. Thanks again for some great “read’.

      • #5593
        rachely
        Participant

        I like to take the blame on myself.

        To me: DIA = Claire’s heartbreak and attempt to accept in the ‘now’ time. How she survived heartbreak (she says something like “it was a small, clean sound”) and raised a daughter with the man she didn’t love but had to respect. how he (frank) loved Bree, whatever the cost.

        For me, and I only speak for me, the whole of DIA lead to that–leads to Bree finding Jamie, finding some sort of acceptance of her fathers. And I don’t know how you do that in TV when you haven’t read the other books. I started reading the books after, I think, MOBY was already written. I was never left in confusion about what would occur because I always had the next book.

        The reason we ended up here, the reason the spoilers happened, is that NOTHING in DIA happened in a vacuum if you have read the other books. I don’t know how you do that as a writer of OL season 2. Because for the readers, season 2 (DIA) is bound up with what WILL happen in the other books/seasons.

        (seriously, Terry, DRUNK, am I making any sense?)

      • #5600
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        Rachel, you write pretty well for being drunk 🙂

        Totally unrelated to your post, but I’ll add here anyway…one of storylines I love in DIA is the development and maturing of Claire’s “calling” as a healer – discovering the thing that she’s meant to do. Although it’s sort of introduced in the first book, it’s really solidified in DIA.

    • #5587
      maryjomalo
      Participant

      (1) I would definitely like to see what 1968 looks like again 🙂

      • #5591
        maryjomalo
        Participant

        (2) The old churchyard scene where the four of them find the marriage stone is pivotal

      • #5594
        Kendall Markel
        Participant

        Hi, Terry! I followed you over from your Twitter discussion about DIA and Master Raymond. You asked if we, the fans, could describe DIA in four tweets. That was pretty difficult, but I kept thinking, for me, DIA is about the little details of JC’s married life – cuddling in bed, thinking of baby names, and J&C’s arguments about Claire working at the hospital. All this normalcy of being a couple, but with a backdrop of all this crazy going on.

        When I think of DIA, I also think of failures. J&C take on this huge task, and with everything they’re juggling, it’s no surprise that they do fail. They’re only human!

        So, I’d def like to see Jamie and Claire have some special moments that showcase Claire and Jamie’s marriage before all hell breaks loose.
        Definitely, I want to see the Comte St. Germain looking fabulous! & scary as hell.
        I’m really interested to see how you tackle Master Raymond’s story in Season 2. He is sorta Claire’s apothecary bestie 🙂

      • #5766
        maryjomalo
        Participant

        (3) We need just enough of French court intrigue to emphasize how the aristocracy is always behind starting wars and how no matter what Jamie & Claire do, they will be forced to participate. We need to see Charles Stuart and Louis XV, because we can relate to how the powerful decide the fate of everyday people, even if they time travel. Extraordinary love helps us survive extraordinary times.

      • #5769
        maryjomalo
        Participant

        (4) Assuming there are no mistakes, this site offers a convenient time line, characters, costuming, etc. http://outlanderlists.weebly.com/

    • #5592
      wendyb
      Participant

      The ending just breaks my heart… I understand it.. and I know they are reunited but it breaks my heart. I do like Roger as well. It is an important book for setting up the narrative and I think is a story of the growth in their relationship. There is so much in it and with 13 episodes only I get why it’s important to pick out which threads are necessary for narrative and to delight. Tricky..

    • #5595
      rachely
      Participant

      sadly I sober up really fast. give me 30 minutes.

    • #5601
      emellar
      Participant

      For me, I really like the war in Scotland part- even though it’s like, supply change management. Watching the dominoes fall leading up to Claire going back, and the coda of Roger explaining what happened to all the men she knew was horrifying and powerful and I think that will be really visually compelling. If I had my druthers I would limit the Paris stuff because it seems redundant (and at some points melodramatic in the extreme).

    • #5608
      writersorcha
      Participant

      Oh, there you are! 🙂
      Dragonfly, to me, is the continuation of a tradition literally as old as the hills.
      “It was a time two hundred years ago…”
      Claire is telling us a “contemporary” fairytale – the fairytale being the story of what happened to her when she vanished beneath the faerie hill.

    • #5609
      Terry Dresbach
      Keymaster

      [quote quote=5593]I like to take the blame on myself.

      To me: DIA = Claire’s heartbreak and attempt to accept in the ‘now’ time. How she survived heartbreak (she says something like “it was a small, clean sound”) and raised a daughter with the man she didn’t love but had to respect. how he (frank) loved Bree, whatever the cost.

      For me, and I only speak for me, the whole of DIA lead to that–leads to Bree finding Jamie, finding some sort of acceptance of her fathers. And I don’t know how you do that in TV when you haven’t read the other books. I started reading the books after, I think, MOBY was already written. I was never left in confusion about what would occur because I always had the next book.

      The reason we ended up here, the reason the spoilers happened, is that NOTHING in DIA happened in a vacuum if you have read the other books. I don’t know how you do that as a writer of OL season 2. Because for the readers, season 2 (DIA) is bound up with what WILL happen in the other books/seasons.

      (seriously, Terry, DRUNK, am I making any sense?)
      [/quote]

      Perfect sense.I read the first three books back to back in 4 days, and then had to wait 6 weeks for the next. the a year or ten, whatever it was for the one after that. Not sure how it would have been, had it been normal time between.

    • #5611
      Terry Dresbach
      Keymaster

      [quote quote=5592]The ending just breaks my heart… I understand it.. and I know they are reunited but it breaks my heart. I do like Roger as well. It is an important book for setting up the narrative and I think is a story of the growth in their relationship. There is so much in it and with 13 episodes only I get why it’s important to pick out which threads are necessary for narrative and to delight. Tricky.. [/quote]

      Know that the writers will never know of these conversations. I am VERY careful about not crossing those lines. But Ron and often talk through the story since I have been reading them for so long, and It was my own response that triggered the question.
      I HAVE to be!

      • #5613
        wendyb
        Participant

        oh yes.. reading back it may seem I presumed these conversations will/may be part of the decision making or writing process.. didn’t mean it that way .. But yes of course . (not drunk sadly just vague) I am sure I am not alone is saying I have faith that good decisions will be made and it will be great.. not an easy task I am sure.

      • #5618
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        Oh, I think I may have done the same… :S It definitely seems to be tricky, but as with you, I’m sure it will be awesome!

      • #6004
        nolakate
        Participant

        i also read the first 3 books in a row (they were offered as a package by mystery book club), then the others as soon as they came out. but I’ve never re-read any. so DIA, for me, doesn’t set much up cause I had to wait for the next installment. the following books did a good enough job of referring back to not get the reader confused. especially when you are waiting YEARS for the next installment. I hope they make all the books, but since the break will be so long, I think i’ll buy the books again and read again as the tv series catches up. (shared my originals with people and they are long gone)

    • #5615
      conniebv
      Participant

      Okay, virgin post here. First time I have managed to both remember my password and how WordPress works. For most of DIA, I had two sort of problem areas. I didn’t feel any empathy for Bonnie Prince Charlie or care about that struggle at all, which I should if it were to be a true tragedy. I cared more for Claire and Jamie getting out unscathed, but I felt like there was relevant history there that I just didn’t connect to for worry about them.

      As far as characterization, I felt very divided from Brianna, and that in turn affected how I felt about Claire. I was told more so than shown how loveable she was, and maybe that was a facet of her cleaving so hard to Frank. Their goodbye was poignant, but it felt sprung on me. Brianna felt (and still feels, to some extent) like a child of her fathers, and not so much her mother.

      Also as WoC, the racism hit me hard, because I loved Frank. Not because I didn’t expect it, but because he was the only character that expressed it and seemed to come out of left field, and that was a gut punch that I am all-too familiar with in real life. I felt like some subtle clues like a dirty look or something would help build up to it. Mad Men did a really good job I think, with this topic, in that it was the little things.

      Anyway, those are my nitpicks. Obligatory “Thank you so much for making my favorite books into my favorite show.” Excited to contribute.

    • #5619
      CelticGlamazon
      Participant

      I missed the convo on twitter, but decided to poke my nose in here. DIA, to me, was summed up in two words: Master Raymond. His role was subtle at times and like a train wreck at others. It was one of the earliest times when I started to realise the “otherness” that exists within the world DG created. Outside of the realm of time travel, there is the possibility of deep magic/supernatural themes around Raymond. I’m glad that there is to be more about his character in future writings. The scene where he “heals” Claire changes her perception of her own healing abilities in a very profound way. Ultimately; DIA was possibly my favorite book and a close tie with Echo.

      • #5623
        writersorcha
        Participant

        See, now I _DO_ have concerns about the Bonnie Prince and the Risings stuff because folk who don’t know the history assume its all part of the Braveheart thing, and its _REALLY_ not.

      • #5631
        conniebv
        Participant

        Great point.

    • #5620
      rachely
      Participant

      Hello, darling Connie.

      You explained my disinterest in Bree better than I could. There is no Claire in her, and it is CLAIRE for whom I read these novels. Not for JAMMF’s sexual being, not for his red hair, not for his (or Sam’s) fome ass. but for her. And Bree seems to have no Claire, at least not in the first several books.

      • #5621
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        Agree…in the later books, we do hear about how Bree’s personality is so much like Claire’s at times, but I don’t think it’s often.

      • #5624
        conniebv
        Participant

        Addressing both you ladies. First of all: Rachel, you are my favorite. You know that. Somewhere on me there is a scar where they cut us apart. YES. We see this world through Claire, and there is not enough there for me to feel that this is someone I should care about, except that Roger and Claire, two thoughtful people, love her. Even the comparisons to Jamie don’t ring true for me, because I see them only in her temper. Jamie is SO charming, and Bree is abrasive.
        And Sonya, yes, I read about how Claire loves her, but I don’t love her, and it is like I am politely telling someone how cute their baby is. I want to love Bree, I do.

      • #6507
        Susan53
        Participant

        Hey there — Yeah, I don’t have a well-formed image of Bree in my mind, but in response to your comment, I will say that I also find Claire abrasive. Yes, I love Claire, but I’ve often wondered what it would be like to have her as a friend. (I mean that in a good way.) She is very outspoken and imo, often borders on abrasive, depending on who she is with. When looking for parts of Claire in Bree, that was something I tend to notice.

      • #5633
        rachely
        Participant

        fome = fine

        for some reason my phone does not like to spell check.

    • #5622
      conniebv
      Participant

      And just had another thought, this is where a lot of the grey areas surrounding Frank come into play. The belief by some and not others that he cheated, the belief that he lied to Claire about Jamie to get her to stay… Those I would love to see play out, because to me, the Randall marriage is the yin to the Fraser’s yang. One is always buffeted by love, even through separation, and the other is a study in two people who share the same space and yet cannot become close again.
      So the story of DIA for me, is unions and separations. Jamie, Claire, Frank, Bree, Scotland, Dougal, Collum. All torn apart and thrown together.

      • This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by conniebv.
      • #5634
        wendyb
        Participant

        exactly and well put Connie as usual.

      • #5635
        rachely
        Participant

        I know that we are (yet again) together on our beliefs in Frank. I agree totally, part of DIA and then Voyager, is how Frank did his best in a shit-fest of a situation.

    • #5625
      writersorcha
      Participant

      So, sorry. That response should have been attached to conniebv’s post at 12.42.
      Sorry, CelticGlamazon and Hi 🙂
      (I’ll have the hang of this by tomorrow.)

      • #5660
        GWanner
        Participant

        Connie and Rachely, you’re both so much more articulate than I, but as a first time post-er I’ll give it a go. Some of my favorite moments in DIA are actually the time Claire spends with Roger. I’ve always been drawn to the books because of Claire and how she sees and interacts with both the worlds she finds herself in. Bree’s immaturity and abrasiveness just doesn’t equate with Claire’s resilience and determination and it becomes annoying in short order. Her resemblance to Jamie always seemed superficial for the most part, as well. I appreciated her more in MOBY, but MOBY was so much about Claire and Jamie “being married” that her story really wasn’t the focus for me. Frank, ah Frank. I was always of two minds about Frank. He definitely got the shite end of the stick and deserved so much more credit than he got for standing by Claire, but he is after all, Frank and I could never reconcile his alleged unfaithfulness and Claire’s inability to love him
        . Back to Terry’s initial question though, DIA for me was always more of a roller coaster of emotions than Outlander. How does a couple endure the highs and lows and maintain both their individuality and their togetherness? Everyone is prepping to endure the Wentworth scenes in 1B, but for me, the lead up to Culloden was much more heartrending due to the futility of the cause. Whether he was more heroic in real life or not, the Bonnie Prince is not a sympathetic character in DIA and the sacrifices made by so many, in the end didn’t justify the cost. It’ll also be interesting to me to see how the time shift is handled. In the books it is incredibly jarring. The “say what?” factor takes some adjusting to.

    • #5632
      bahanson
      Participant

      For me, besides the development of Claire and Jamies’s love and marriage into a strong marriage, after many tests, the introduction and development of new characters was important to carry the storyline on. But also important to me is the aspect of stones and the mystery involved with those people who can travel and what additional ‘powers’ they might have. The strength of love that overcomes time. Perhaps I stray too far with this as it pertains to DIA, but they did find out about not being able to change history and that question weaves its way through the rest of the books as well.

      My first time posting so not sure how it will look. Thank you Terry for the original question on TW.

    • #5636
      rachely
      Participant

      So, again, Terry, to put you on the spot. How much of how the writers address Season 2 (DIA) also encompasses what will happen in later books?

      I was watching BSG today (woot! friend has the DVDs) and was watching the episode where Ellen Tigh comes back. And I was wondering at what point in the writing they decided that Ellen was one of the Final Four (or Five? whatever it was). In the case of BSG they could change things as they came along–someone decided that the actress who played Ellen Tigh was strong and they should make more of her story… but in OL the story is already written. So how does that work?

    • #5643
      michellibell
      Participant

      Ok, I’m here…. you all can stop worrying now. Ahem.

      Agree on many things – as Connie put it, I just don’t feel Claire in Bree. And Claire is the heart of these stories. Bree is just so…. meh. As the books traveled on, the only time I ever feel more interested in Bree is when she is talking about Frank – I love the tidbits dropped that indicate Frank KNOWS Bree will eventually go back to look for her real father. But I’m jumping forward…

      Agree with Celtic – DiA is Master Raymond. I LOVED all things about him. I love the mysticism and magic that surrounds him. His healing of Claire is one of my favorite parts of the book – it awakens her in more ways than one. And, of course, it gives us another little Easter egg to ponder when we find out there are other travelers.

      And agree, once again, about the Bonnie Prince Charlie hate. I wanted everyone, so badly, on the eve of Culloden to just say, “Fuck this!” and head home.

      There was one part in DiA that really gives me pause about my own reaction to what I was reading. It was after Claire had lost Faith and Jamie ran south to jump on that ship. She was still recovering and very depressed. After a few months Jamie shows back up and is all, “Hey, let’s get back together.”
      I don’t know why, but I wanted Claire to just flip around and give it to him, “I’m tired of this! I’m tired of this goose-chase, I’m tired of you disappearing. I’m going back to the stones, and going back home where they have hot water and indoor plumbing.”

      And I like Jamie – I love him. But I was so tired of his shenanigans by this time….

      I don’t love DiA – I know I’ve said it here before, but it wasn’t until the Frasers moved to America that I really started to identify with this series. Paris is drawn out – I think Fergus is important, Master Raymond is important, Mary Hawkins and her eventual hooking up with BJR’s brother is important, but other than that…?
      Although I’m very excited to see L’Hopital de Angels (I think that’s how you spell it).

      Oh, and it’s our first glimpse of Lord John Grey. And sweet mother of all things, I LOVE ME SOME LJG.

      • #5645
        rachely
        Participant

        THERE YOU ARE!

        and, BINGO. Paris = excuse to find Fergus & Master Raymond (and the blue light that won’t show up again until MOBY) otherwise a waste of time.

        Before I deleted them I think I said that Mary/La Dame Blanche (sp?) was a pointless sidetrack for me.

        And, I think my main problem with DIA is that 1) BJR was dead at the end of OL and it wasn’t a problem for Claire 2) DIA all the sudden BJR not-dying is SO IMPORTANT that half the book revolves around not killing BJR. there is a disconnect that I can’t resolve in my own head.

        I assume it’s because DG wrote the first one as a one-off practice book, but once it became a series there were a lot of continuity problems.

      • #5650
        conniebv
        Participant

        Wasn’t his death assumed at the end of Outlander? I seem to remember that it was more of a “NO ONE could survive that” hint hint sort of scenario. For me, the Randall thing made sense. I feel like people are quick to point out Frank’s shortcomings, but this to me was one of Jamie’s. In the end, his revenge mattered more than anything else, and it had a cost. I know the fandom tends to deify him, but I actually really love the parts where he learns lessons, where he admits mistakes and grows.

      • #5651
        rachely
        Participant

        MacRaddoch (sp? CAN’T SPELL TODAY) said he saw BJR dead…redcoat squished by cows. So BJR was dead ergo Frank was dead and Claire didn’t have a problem with it until the middle of DIA, where suddenly she had a problem with it.

        • This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by rachely.
      • #5653
        conniebv
        Participant

        Here’s what the book says about Randall’s death. I have learned with Diana that if it isn’t an absolute, it’s vague on purpose.

        “If it’s any comfort to ye,” Sir Marcus said suddenly, eyes fixed on the decanter, “he’s dead.”

        “You’re sure?” Jamie’s tone was unreadable.

        “I dinna see how anybody could live after bein’ trampled flat by thirty half-ton beasts. He peeked out into the corridor to see what was causin’ the noise, then tried to go back when he saw. A horn caught him by the sleeve and pulled him out, and I saw him go down next to the wall. Sir Fletcher an’ I were on the stair, keepin’ out o’ the way.O’ course Sir Fletcher was rare excited, and sent some men after ‘im, but they couldna get anywhere near, with all the horns pokin’ and beasts shovin’, and the torches shook down from the wall wi’ the ruckus. Christ, man, ye should ha’ seen it!” Sir Marcus hooted at the memory, clutching the decanter by the neck. “Your wife’s a rare lass, and no mistake, lad!” Snorting, he poured out another glass and gulped, choking a bit as the laugh interfered with the swallow.

        “Anyway,” he resumed, pounding himself on the chest, “by the time we’d cleared the cattle out, there was no much left but a rag doll rolled in blood. Sir Fletcher’s men carried him awa’, but if he was still livin’ then, he didna last long. A bit more, lad?”

        “Aye, thanks.”

        There was a short silence, broken by Jamie. “No, I canna say it’s much comfort to me, but thank ye for tellin’ me.”

      • #5659
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        I think DG covered the inconsistency of BJR’s death by clarifying in DIA that MacRannoch likely saw the body of the dead “assistant” who was with BJR in the prison and thought it was BJR – or something like that…I read the book way too fast, so I could be mistaken.

        My problem with DIA was the insistence in keeping BJR alive in order to save Frank, despite Jamie’s reasons to ensure BJR is no longer around. I just couldn’t help thinking “didn’t you choose not to return back to that time/life, and chose life with Jamie?”. But, I recognize that it’s a very difficult situation to know that your actions or someone else’s actions could totally extinguish the existence of someone you’ve known and loved…and we wouldn’t have much of a plot, I guess. Nevertheless, it was the one point in the series where I felt very frustrated with Claire.

      • #5654
        rachely
        Participant

        and I am pro-Frank all the way. He was in an inenviable position, yet he still told Bree to go to Jamie when she needed protection. AND he sent her to Jamie with the ability to shoot and ride a horse. It wasn’t Claire’s fault or Frank’s fault or Jamie’s fault what happened. It just did. I think we probably are all old enough to know couples where the same thing (minus the time travel) happened.

    • #5644
      rachely
      Participant

      So… what was the original question? (it must be the middle of the night in Scotland, hopefully Terry is asleep)

    • #5648
      michellibell
      Participant

      My throat is sore as hell from driving all over town in the freezing cold yelling for our dog.

    • #5657
      Katie (@bunnums)
      Participant

      I know I’m a bit unusual, but DIA is actually one of my favorites. Claire finds herself and her calling; has her heart broken, mended (not fixed, but mended so it’s useable again), and broken again; and Jamie and Claire discover the futility with trying to change the past. There’s a message there about how events and lives will play out as they are supposed to without getting into bonking you on the head with Obviousness.

      The heartbreak is so beautifully written. Claire’s loss of Faith and PPD/grief and how she is finally able to reconcile with Jamie. Rupert (oh god, Rupert!) and Dougal. And the frenetic, soul-giving good-bye at the stones. DIA makes my cry harder than any book I’ve ever read, no matter how many times I read it. (That’s a good thing!)

    • #5658
      Katie (@bunnums)
      Participant

      I’ll also fully admit that I really like the structure of DIA – that we start with the ending and then go back and build into it while still being fully enthralled and engaged. And you *still* end up with a cliffhanger. I think it’s genius.

      • #5673
        MrsParker
        Participant

        The structure of DIA is what kept me reading: I had to know what happened and how Claire, Brianna and Frank got to that point. Most of Paris felt “bodice-ripper” to me and didn’t hold my interest as much. I don’t like wealthy Claire and Jamie, I like farmer Claire and Jamie. Once we got back to Scotland it all picked up for me.

      • #5676
        conniebv
        Participant

        I agree that once I read the opening, I HAD to finish the book because I wanted to know what the hell happened to this happy couple I left.

    • #5661
      michellibell
      Participant

      Ok, here’s another idea:

      Maybe DiA is just Diana’s way of sorting out and discussing (with herself and readers) what the consequences of time-travel really are….
      We are told, from the very beginning of Outlander, that people disappear all the time. We learn that Gellis herself is a time-traveler and can suspect things about Master Raymond.
      But the whole point of DiA is trying to prevent Culloden. And yet, those of us who have any inkling of British/Scottish history, knows that doesn’t happen without having to finish the book.
      Thus brings forth the discussion – if we are thrown back in time, does our disappearance in the present and our appearance in the past really affect anything at all? Is life pre-destined? Is the plot of humans already written and there is nothing we can do to change it?
      There is a great short story by Ray Bradbury called, “A Sound of Thunder” which poses a very different time travel problem. It’s the “a butterfly flaps its wings in Africa and it rains in Manhattan” theory. The slightest deviation from what is supposed to happen, changes life drastically.

      Anyhow…maybe DiA is just a long discussion on why trying to change the inevitable is a practice in futility.

      • #5665
        conniebv
        Participant

        While I find the whole time travel thing interesting on its surface, I am here for the character study. Unless it turns into Fringe, which used alternate realities AS character studies, and wow that would be awesome.

      • #5672
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        Fringe was a brilliant show!

      • #5671
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        I love it. Totally makes sense to me.

    • #5664
      michellibell
      Participant

      [quote quote=5659]I think DG covered the inconsistency of BJR’s death by clarifying in DIA that MacRannoch likely saw the body of the dead “assistant” who was with BJR in the prison and thought it was BJR – or something like that…I read the book way too fast, so I could be mistaken.

      [/quote]

      This.

      • #5683
        rachely
        Participant

        No, I know that (obvs) it wasn’t BJR and it was the gross asst with the bad breathe who really died. my problem with it is that CLAIRE didn’t have a problem with the fact that BJR was dead ergo Frank couldn’t be born for the last part of OL. Only once he shows back up again in DIA that she’s all “you can’t kill him! that would kill frank!”. She’s inconsistent. Which, daughter of an English prof that I am, I would write off as ‘untrustworthy narrator’ essay material, except I don’t think DG is that good a writer.

      • #5687
        conniebv
        Participant

        I would say you’re right, if only because that was her first book and she doesn’t plot out her storylines. In DiA, practically speaking, Claire HAS to care because the story is being told in parallel with her living with Frank, and him parenting Bree.

      • #5759
        rachely
        Participant

        [quote quote=5687]she doesn’t plot out her storylines[/quote]

        that fact makes me love JK Rowling even more. God bless a good outline.

      • #5826
        CelticGlamazon
        Participant

        This is why we’re friends, it’s an issue for me as well. JKR:FTW!

    • #5770
      rachely
      Participant

      In paragraph rather than 140 characters:

      When we left the happy couple Claire was pregnant, life was orgasmic, we were going to go to Rome to stop James, Frank was forgotten and Claire shriven by the awesome Father Anselm (did he get written out Terry? warn me now so I can mourn).

      I’m trying to remember how I felt starting DiA. I guess I wasn’t worried by the abrupt shift since I already had another six ebooks in my library and knew J&C would be fine whatever happened so I just read on not worrying. I liked Roger and disliked Bree because of her attitude and her stupidity–seriously she thought Frank was her biological father? High school biology teaches about genes and where did she THINK her blue eyes, red hair, and height came from (tho’ biologically speaking she couldn’t have had blue eyes at all unless Claire also did, but whatever)?

      So, then we’re in Le Havre. So is BPC and a rich Fraser cousin… some sex, funny drunk scene, Claire diagnosing smallpox–seems all like life in the day of J&C. Then it all just seems ridiculous. Versailles seems to exist in the story just to add some elegance but I find it boring. There is no idea of why BPC does what he does or cares about what he cares about. We go through all this codes and letter stealing and really why doesn’t Claire just scrape some diseased cells from someone at the Hospital and then shake BPC’s hand? It all seems overblown and ridiculous. Claire is there to stop the massacre of the Highland Clans and this is the best they can do? J&C seem so much smarter than they act in Paris. She has the magnificent Master Raymond telling her about poison and how half the Court is poisoning the other half and all they do is steal letters?! I wanted to shout “stop fucking around and grow a pair!” at the two of them for most of Paris.

      So, then l’Hopital. I found the argument over Claire working interesting but then it resolved itself very quickly. I love Bouton & Mother Hildegarde Monsieur Forez & Fergus. I found the whole Mary Hawkins, Alex Randall, La Dame Blanche, Les Disciples subplot uninteresting. Then there’s the killing of BJR post hoc ergo propter hoc the death of Frank that I think I’ve already said my piece about. Then the ship/smallpox plot and I’m back to “just poison him”.

      Then the miscarriage and the rage and forgiveness. It was heartbreaking, I suppose, but I’ve felt those things myself and knew that they would resolve themselves because Claire is too strong to be broken by that. I found the King’s ‘trial’ ridiculous though found the whole ‘beat me with nettles’ scene lovely (seems an odd thing to say about beating, but you know what I mean).

      Then we go back to Scotland! YAYAYAY! I like Scotland! I love Jenny! and Ian! and potatoes! I liked the going off to war, and wee Lord John, and Jenny Cameron. Things were finally moving rather than just dithering around Versailles eating doves and eels. And we get back to the heart of the story with questions of family (Dougal & Colum and Claire & the Randalls and Jamie & his grandfather) and what a person owes another. And everything moves pretty quickly to what we all know is coming: Culloden and Drummossie.

      The separation scene was heartbreaking. I felt like Claire and felt like I could feel my heart snap like a twig when she agreed to go.

      Back to the 60s: I love Roger. I really love Roger. Don’t really care about Geilles. The ending didn’t surprise me, but then books rarely do.

      The end. And I only used Latin once, I think and managed to not utter a ‘vis a vis’ or an ‘a priori’.

      • #5810
        MrsParker
        Participant

        I agree with so much of this. I hope that for the TV adaptation, they enhance BPC much as they did with Frank. I like the “history lesson” aspect to the story, and BPC is fascinating. I didn’t know much about this period of time for Scotland, and from what I read after, BPC wanted to play at being King more than he actually wanted to BE the king. My SO likes the series but he doesn’t come to it for the love story — it’s the history and the politics that attract him.

        It raises some interesting questions for Jamie and Claire as well: they have foresight into the future, so is it their responsibility to stop what they know is coming? That knowledge is a huge burden for them. Approaching this as a scientist, Claire has to wonder what she can do to stop it. But as a healer, I don’t think Claire could bring herself to murder someone who isn’t directly threatening her life or Jamie’s. Jamie can’t bring himself to murder the man that he calls King. Even if they do kill him, there’s a younger brother who could pick up the cause. Claire and Jamie are both too righteous to simply save themselves and have too much hubris (in this instance) in thinking they can change the course of history.

        And much like you (Rachel), the story picked up for me again when they returned to Scotland, when they are a part of history rather than trying to steer it. I’d said this earlier, but Jamie and Claire interest me the most when things are not so easy for them. With Jarad’s wealth, they had access to so much in Paris, and I found Jamie to be less appealing as the learned gentleman of the court than when he’s more rough-and-tumble Highland laird and warrior. Claire slipped into the role of wealthy hostess a little too easily for me, and while I bought that it bored her, I did wonder how she knew all the mannerisms and court procedures and such with her unusual upbringing. The scenes in the hospital were the most real to me.

        So in summation, I hope that time in Paris is brief and we get back to Scotland fast. I’ll miss Dougal, Rupert and Angus when they’re across the sea. Speaking of sea, a perverse part of me is looking forward to Jamie’s sea-sickness. The SO thinks Jamie is just too perfect, and I keep saying, “wait until he gets on a boat!”

    • #5811
      JB
      Participant

      Another virgin poster here. Where Connie goes, I shall follow!

      I, too, had issues with several things in DiA. In fact, after reading Outlander (late last year! So, SO late to the party on this one, you guys), I thought long and hard about whether to even continue reading the series. I was/am just so passionately in love with that book and thought things were pretty neatly tied up (even though I strongly suspected BJR wasn’t really dead), and I worried that further reading would somehow ruin that experience. Of course I continued, though I’m right now in a big pause after finishing Voyager.

      Anyway, I realize this is a long shot, but has anyone read “Les Jeux Sont Faits” by Jean-Paul Sartre? It’s one of his more minor existentialist tomes, and the general plot (without spoiling anything — it’s definitely worth reading) is that the characters spend the majority of a very critical time in their relationship working independently on big issues outside of their relationship, rather than focusing inward on each other. That’s kind of how I feel about DiA. Jamie (and to a certain degree, Claire) spends a bunch of time racing around and plotting … and then they just get caught up in the Rising and everything careens to its devastating ending anyway. When, at the end, I realized they’d only had three years together, I was distraught to think that they’d spent that time machinating and not settling down, deepening their relationship and just enjoying each other. (And yes, I do realize that would make for a very poor adventure story — and also that these are fictional characters.)

      I was interested in the meditations on whether history is fixed and to what degree J&C’s attempts to change history actually led to their eventual fate. But I was not much interested in the gossip, politics and frank loucheness of the French court, which is how I think Diana wanted us to feel. I would have loved to see more of the year-plus they spent at Lallybroch before the war came. Those quiet pastoral scenes were some of my favorite in Outlander, and there wasn’t much room for them.

      All that said, there are a lot of beautiful, sad, heartbreaking scenes in there. Rachely highlighted so many of them — Raymond, Fergus, Faith and the aftermath, Rupert, the “quiet, clean sound” of Claire’s heart breaking. Sigh. So many tears, I tell you.

      And one last thing: I commend Diana on writing a historical adventure novel that made the horror of Culloden utterly real and personal. That, in itself, was quite a coup.

      • #5812
        conniebv
        Participant

        So much good stuff here, and I agree that it was very outward-facing and reactive as opposed to internal and proactive. That said, I never did mention my favorite thing to come out of DiA: Roger Mac. I feel like Roger is the emotion of the series, and he almost seems to feel on Bree’s behalf, since some of the things he said to her, the way he empathized, I wish would have come from her daughter. I love me some Roger Mac.

    • #5813
      sonyakhanum
      Participant

      [quote quote=5712]Regarding Claire not caring about BJR at end of OL and obsessed in DIA. I have always read it as in OL she didn’t have a chance to care. She was told he was dead, there was nothing she could do about it. In that moment she “thinks” history can be changed and just rolls with it. Once she realizes that maybe history has “fixed points” (to use a Doctor Who expression) she does her best to be sure Frank’s line continues. Just to be safe. Once that’s set, she’s out. I have always thought she felt like it was the least she could do for him. Make sure he exists. Just my take on it. Not to mention if you get into the whole space/time paradox issue it could’ve been a form of self preservation. No Frank, no trip to Scotland, no stone, no Jamie. Oh this train of thought could go on for hours and I gotta go to bed.[/quote]

      Good points (even though Claire’s insistence to keep BJR alives still bugs me, haha, but now I see it with a different perspective)! In DIA, Claire saw an opportunity to “control” the eventual fate/destiny of BJR and his descendents and ensuring that Frank exists, which as you mention was an opportunity that Claire didn’t seem to have in OL.

      Love everyone’s perspectives about DIA. You’ve all already touched/discussed this, so I’m sorry for belabouring the point, but DIA is an interesting book in introducing one of the overarching themes of the series – whether one can change/control history and whether life is predestined. It shows up again later in the books with Roger’s internal reflection and debate about predestination (which I loooooove). He seems to be tool or a conduit for discussions about controlling one’s fate, etc.

      And…as for Roger, I may get into trouble for this, but I had a REALLY hard time getting into him, especially in DIA. He was a neat new character and I understand the appeal, but I found him kinda annoying for some reason (maybe because I’m boring and wanted more of Claire’s POV). He didn’t grown on me until the later books.

    • #5814
      rachely
      Participant

      [quote quote=5813]And…as for Roger, I may get into trouble for this, but I had a REALLY hard time getting into him, especially in DIA. He was a neat new character and I understand the appeal, but I found him kinda annoying for some reason (maybe because I’m boring and wanted more of Claire’s POV). He didn’t grown on me until the later books.[/quote]

      See I like roger in this one and then he ungrows on me. Prob because Bree is usually around.

      • #5816
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        Ah yeah, I understand since I’m not a fan of Bree myself. I do find their interactions super annoying and frustrating at times. But, I enjoy Roger’s inner dialogue in other parts of the series.

      • #5817
        rachely
        Participant

        I liked Roger in this one because he believed Claire–even before the Geilles going thru the stones thing–he believed her just because he watched her face.

      • #5820
        conniebv
        Participant

        Yes to everything about Roger. I love him for his connection to Claire, but I spent the entire next book wondering why he had such crap taste in women.

      • #5821
        Katie (@bunnums)
        Participant

        These comments about Roger/Bree are intriguing to me. I connected with Roger immediately in DIA, but not in a romance-hero kind of way. More like a big brother. I would love to spend time with him, but not romantically. Bree just bothers me in DIA – immature and pigheaded (way beyond just stubborn) and unreasonable and missing some basic common sense and empathy. And I don’t think it’s just her age. I believe that Roger is taken with her, though, even if I don’t understand it at all.

        I just don’t relate to Roger/Bree as a couple the way I can relate to Jamie/Claire at my core.

    • #5815
      wendyb
      Participant

      Oh.. and as an aside… Lord William.. Diana Gabaldon has mentioned she pictures a young Jude Law. nice… It’s always nice to picture a young Jude Law.. maybe not 16 cos that would make me weird.

      • #5818
        JB
        Participant

        I’m gonna get into trouble here because I haven’t read past Voyager, but I was also confused about why we were spending so much time with this random new character in DiA. Now, knowing (what little) I know about Roger and his future, it makes more sense, but it was definitely disorienting to have his POV straight out of the gates in DiA.

        I did think that his relationship with Claire in DiA was so much more fully fleshed out — and REAL — than his relationship with Bree, but then again, maybe that part comes later. I, too, struggle with Bree as a character. She’s really more of a concept in the early books, I guess. And, having read Diana’s meditations on creating Bree in (I think) The Outlandish Companion, I can understand why.

      • #5841
        conniebv
        Participant

        You tell me that you need a young Brit actor to be a bit of an asshole, but charming, and Joseph Morgan is all I see.

    • #5819
      michellibell
      Participant

      Love everyone’s perspectives about DIA. You’ve all already touched/discussed this, so I’m sorry for belabouring the point, but DIA is an interesting book in introducing one of the overarching themes of the series – whether one can change/control history and whether life is predestined. It shows up again later in the books with Roger’s internal reflection and debate about predestination (which I loooooove). He seems to be tool or a conduit for discussions about controlling one’s fate, etc.

      This was the discussion I was wanting to have earlier. Although there are some interesting characters introduced to us in DiA – I feel a very important part of this book’s place in the series is the debate of predestination or the ability to change history.

    • #5825
      CelticGlamazon
      Participant

      Roger Mac turned into a bigger whipping boy for DG than Jamie did. That poor man! I cried over the things that happened to him more than anything else in the series…except Rollo…but we don’t talk about that (do we Rachel?). I can also understand everyone’s issues with Bree, but I grew to love both Bree and Roger…well I loved Roger all along. I also see a bit of myself in Bree when I was that age.

      I’m with everyone who brought up LJG…because I ADORE that character. I didn’t at first, hated him really, but later fell in love with him. MOBY was my favorite LJG, because…well…spoilers.

      My inner science geek has a hard time when I try to focus on the ‘rules’ for time travel, and the plausibility of it all…so I intentionally ignore dissecting that topic…because, science.

      DIA was the book that I stopped focusing on the Jamie/Claire storyline as the primary focus for the series, and then enjoyed the overall storyline more. I know I’m a bit of an oddball in the fandom for that, but…meh…if the shoe fits. 🙂

    • #5835
      rachely
      Participant

      [quote quote=5825]well I loved Roger all along. I also see a bit of myself in Bree when I was that age.[/quote]

      I think you may be a bit younger than the rest of us Pushy Bitches…wonder if that makes a difference?

    • #5836
      rachely
      Participant

      Speaking of Pushy Bitches–do we have initiation rituals yet? Because we’ve got Connie now.

      • #5840
        conniebv
        Participant

        Ooooh, I’ve never been hazed!

      • #5852
        CelticGlamazon
        Participant

        [quote quote=5840]Ooooh, I’ve never been hazed![/quote]

        Are we hazing like BJR or more like Tobias, because that makes a difference. I need to know what to wear. PSHH…who am I kidding, I’d wear leather to either.

        [quote quote=5835]

        <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CelticGlamazon wrote:</div>
        well I loved Roger all along. I also see a bit of myself in Bree when I was that age.

        I think you may be a bit younger than the rest of us Pushy Bitches…wonder if that makes a difference?
        [/quote]

        I’m 34, I’m not that young. Why, do I seem immature? Dammit, Rachel…tell me. The insecurity is eating me up inside, but then again…that might be the whisky.

      • #5858
        rachely
        Participant

        34 seems young to me! Obvs since I announced when they cast Sam that I could be his mother. Which would have made me a very mature 6 year old.

        I guess, though, the question is how old were you when you read DiA? a lot younger? or just a few years ago?

      • #5861
        conniebv
        Participant

        If I get a vote, I would prefer to not be hazed BJR style.

      • #5933
        CelticGlamazon
        Participant

        No deal. 😛 We keep these things canon. On the up side there’s Rhenish.

    • #5853
      CelticGlamazon
      Participant

      Speaking of Lord John Grey…well I was, anyway…my minds eye sees him as resembling Jason Isaacs. Anyone with me on this one…because it can’t just be my inappropriate crush on Lucius Malfoy.

      • #5928
        Lori
        Participant

        Yes to both!!

        Lori

    • #5857
      rachely
      Participant

      [quote quote=5853]Speaking of Lord John Grey…well I was, anyway…my minds eye sees him as resembling Jason Isaacs. Anyone with me on this one…because it can’t just be my inappropriate crush on Lucius Malfoy.[/quote]

      YES. Because every time long blond hair is mentioned my brain goes: BOOM LUCIUS MALFOY.

    • #5871
      Terry Dresbach
      Keymaster

      [quote quote=5636]So, again, Terry, to put you on the spot. How much of how the writers address Season 2 (DIA) also encompasses what will happen in later books?

      I was watching BSG today (woot! friend has the DVDs) and was watching the episode where Ellen Tigh comes back. And I was wondering at what point in the writing they decided that Ellen was one of the Final Four (or Five? whatever it was). In the case of BSG they could change things as they came along–someone decided that the actress who played Ellen Tigh was strong and they should make more of her story… but in OL the story is already written. So how does that work?
      [/quote]

      I have no idea about either question. The writers room is a strange and mysterious place where a lot of arguing and consumption of bad junk food goes on.I think the process is different on every show. But generally they “break” the season, with Ron at the helm, meaning they plan it all out in sort of an big outline. The big bullet points. Then different writers take different episodes, off and write them. They are in turn handed over to Ron, who approves them, changes, polishes and sometimes rewrites them. It is a fluid and organic process.

    • #5934
      CelticGlamazon
      Participant

      [quote quote=5928]Yes to both!!

      Lori
      [/quote]

      [quote quote=5857]
      YES. Because every time long blond hair is mentioned my brain goes: BOOM LUCIUS MALFOY.
      [/quote]

      I’m so glad I’m not alone in this. 🙂 ^^^ ditto…except, more like…BOOM – Lucius Malfoy – BOOM OVARIES

      • #6156
        Lori
        Participant

        Terri,

        So embarrassed to admit this, but, I misread your previous post – oops! I saw Jason Isaacs and my tired brain went to what I’ve always pictured in my head – not Lord John, but Frank/Black Jack! I enjoy Jason’s acting – and think he could have been quite good at both roles – probably out of the desired age range though. So you see, while I share your enjoyment of Jason and Lucius – I, respectfully, have a different take in relationship to the Outlander characters! I enjoy your thoughts and comments!

    • #5946
      barbc624
      Participant

      So I missed the twitter discussion and come late to this one and don’t have much to add other than DIA was kind of an odd duck to me. I liked things about it, disliked others, and others just left me “meh”.

      Liked:
      -Roger and Claire’s relationship.
      -Loved the portion of Jamie and Claire’s story in Scotland up through Culloden.
      -Roger’s immediate acceptance of Claire’s story without any real proof.
      -Roger discovering that Jamie survived Culloden and telling Claire.
      -A bit of Paris – loved seeing them decked out at Versailles, L’Hopital and Mother Hildegarde, Master Raymond, Fergus.

      Disliked:
      -Bree – Bree seemed to me to have nothing of Claire and way too much of what I disliked about Frank – his self centeredness, ego, emotional detachment. Add to that her immaturity and attitude to Claire. Although I now think that maybe some of her worst traits reflected what Jamie could have been without his father’s influence. So some “nature” that was adversely affected by her “nurture” by way of Frank who appears to have been the major influencer in her upbringing.

      Left me “meh”:
      -Most of the Paris story – could have been much shorter, dragged on too long. Needed some good editing.
      -Frank and Claire in the 20th century. Bored me. But then again Frank is pretty much guaranteed to bore me anytime there is much of him. He just doesn’t come to life for me in any way.

    • #6087
      JB
      Participant

      [quote quote=6004]i also read the first 3 books in a row (they were offered as a package by mystery book club), then the others as soon as they came out. but I’ve never re-read any. so DIA, for me, doesn’t set much up cause I had to wait for the next installment. the following books did a good enough job of referring back to not get the reader confused. especially when you are waiting YEARS for the next installment.[/quote]

      Having only recently found the books (though I read the first three before watching the series), I sometimes wonder what it would have been like to have read them as they were published. I think I mentioned before that my heart literally stopped when I read in DiA that Jamie died at Culloden, EVEN THOUGH my brain was telling me that there are six more books after this one, so duh, that’s not remotely possible. I still cried my way through DiA, but I can’t imagine how much more exquisite — and how different a reading experience — it would have been to have tackled it in the ’90s.

      Also, I heartily recommend rereading. I’ve now read Outlander three times (the first two back-to-back, which I have NEVER EVER done with a book before) and DiA and Voyager twice. I’ve mostly done that because I raced through them so fast the first time that I tended to miss or forget details and also because I’m trying to draw out the reading experience to cut the eventual wait time for book 9. 🙂

    • #6117
      NWeiss
      Participant

      Sorry, haven’t had a chance to read all of the above comments so some of this may have been stated already. I’ve always considered DIA “The great set-up” so much of what happens in the pages are absolutely critical for what is to come, pieces and plots set in motion. Unfortunately all of the pieces that become critical for the story further down the line. To me DIA is slow, not bad but slow because its a book- but putting that on the screen could be a challenge. How will the writers will create/captivate the audience through 13 episodes? The opening pushed me to read on because I just needed to know what happened.

      Ron said at the TCA’s “To an extent. We are playing around with the structure of it, the surprise of it. And we have some ideas for some twists that we think would surprise even the readers of the books.”

      “It is interesting, when you open the second book, and you’re like, ‘Wait a minute, did I miss something?’” Moore says. “Which is great on one level, because any time you can surprise an audience, that’s gold. They get used to knowing what’s going to happen next. So, I want to preserve that, but I think there’s way to tinker with it, and play around with it so it’s not quite as jarring, so you don’t feel like you’ve clicked into the wrong show.”

      I am trying not to get to ahead of myself, season 1 isn’t done yet. I’ll watch with the pause button handy so I can take a breather during the stressful parts. Season 2 hasn’t started and well over a year away and then what I want (what I really really want) is season 3 Voyager…

      • #6132
        khenlow
        Participant

        Hi all, I’m brand-new to this Forum, and this is my first post. Skimming everyone else’s comments, I have been impressed by the thoughtfulness and respect that abound here. It’s quite lovely to see.

        I am in the middle of reading DiA now, and completely agree with NWeiss that Voyager is what I am really holding out for… I see DiA as a “bridge” story: it moves us from Jamie & Claire’s “courtship” through to the reality of their marriage and their choices, while setting us up for the rest of the series (perhaps it’s Diana’s “course correction” book where she transforms Outlander from one book to an ongoing story). I see the introduction of Roger, Master Raymond, and Fergus as the critical elements, which are important later on. I find parts of Paris interesting, but am perplexed as to how the production team will adapt the book (it’s so dense!) into 13 episodes (that’s why I don’t work in TV, I guess!), as there is so much to shift through. The most important thing I will want to see is why Claire wants to go back… DiA needs to be convincing enough that you understand that it’s worth the risk (and sacrifice) to return.

    • #6118
      Katie (@bunnums)
      Participant

      [quote quote=6117]
      I am trying not to get to ahead of myself, season 1 isn’t done yet. I’ll watch with the pause button handy so I can take a breather during the stressful parts. Season 2 hasn’t started and well over a year away and then what I want (what I really really want) is season 3 Voyager…
      [/quote]

      And, see, I like DIA better than Voyager (aside from the Voyager reunion). I’m much more drawn into the characters and their plight and emotional turmoil in DIA. Voyager is too much Pirate Adventure and not enough Character Study for my taste. But that is a very personal thing.

      I’ll also fully admit that my assessment of DIA changed somewhat after I suffered my own bout of PPD.

      Katie

      • #6168
        JB
        Participant

        I’ll also fully admit that my assessment of DIA changed somewhat after I suffered my own bout of PPD.

        Katie, one of the reasons why I adore Outlander so much is because I feel like it brought back the last piece of myself that was missing after a long, dark struggle with PPD. I thought that the way Claire’s depression was handled in DiA was beautiful and felt real, even though I didn’t quite identify with her feelings of loss. I do wish we had gotten to see more of Jamie’s sentiments, but I understand the limitations of the first person there.

        On the other hand, Voyager, for me, was a much better story. Yes, a bit too much pirate adventure in the third act, but I thought all the parts about how Jamie spent those 20 years apart were so perfectly infused with melancholy and longing that it breaks my heart again to think of them now. I kept putting myself in his shoes and thinking: He really doesn’t know where she is or that she’s (SPOILER!!!!) totally coming back to him! Just to torture myself.

        I also thought all the choices Jamie made during that period felt very real — from hiding in a cave to giving himself up in order to get the reward for Lallybroch, even to the choice to, ahem, re-associate with a certain someone from his past (trying not to be too spoilery because I DID NOT see that one coming, and that’s how it should be) — all of it felt like the true actions of an honorable man struggling to survive and find his place (without his constant! Though, ok, technically, Jamie and Frank are Claire’s constants. And you’re not supposed to have two, but never mind all that.) in a war-torn country. I think DG did some of her best work (thus far, at least) in bringing his POV to life and showing us just how much Culloden and its aftermath changed him from the man he was when we first met him.

      • #6181
        AllisonL
        Participant

        I know this is veering into Voyager territory, but I wanted to respond to JB—I completely agree with you, I thought Voyager was a much better written story in general, and DG handled the flashback/memory 20 year separation thing deftly. There was only one thing that made me jump out of my chair and go “what the wha?” and that was (VAGUE SPOILER ALERT!) Jamie’s offer to Lord John. I thought that so completely unbelievable and out of the blue that I couldn’t read anymore for a while. Maybe we’ll start a Voyager thread next year when they’re prepping Season 3 and we can talk about it more. I would also have liked more of Claire’s life, rather than glimpses of it here and there.

      • #6188
        Lori
        Participant

        JB,
        I agree with what you say here about the characters. I have always loved Scottish history (it’s what finally led me – past the “Romance” pigeon hole – to the books in the first place) – so I naturally gravitate to the parts set in Scotland. Everything that came after Culloden in the books – made history come alive for me – just to imagine what life could have been like in Scotland after that – it continues on into later books as well for many other characters.

    • #6170
      michellibell
      Participant

      [quote quote=5853]Speaking of Lord John Grey…well I was, anyway…my minds eye sees him as resembling Jason Isaacs. Anyone with me on this one…because it can’t just be my inappropriate crush on Lucius Malfoy.

      [/quote]
      No no no no no no no no no no

      I’m in love with LJG. I hate Lucius Malfoy. My worlds can NOT collide in this particular instance.

      • #6171
        rachely
        Participant

        I wonder if feelings about certain characters could be used like Myers Briggs. We should make a list of LJ lovers, haters and indifferent.

        I myself am indifferent.

      • #6172
        Katie (@bunnums)
        Participant

        Intriguing concept! Personally, I adore everything about LJG. At least, once he grew up. Don’t know if I’m so fond of him in DIA but then he was being… well… teenager-y. 🙂

        Katie

      • #6190
        rachely
        Participant

        So, for the indifferents among us–why? Why do you find him so compelling?
        Don’t anwwer that–i’m going to start a new thread.

        • This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by rachely.
      • #6173
        barbc624
        Participant

        Rachel, I’m with you on LJG. Don’t love him, don’t hate him. Don’t really care if we see any more of him after MOBY. But I do think he’s a nicer person than Frank ever was.

        • This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by barbc624.
      • #6175
        conniebv
        Participant

        Yeah, I don’t hate him, but I skip over large portions of his narrative pretty consistently.

      • #6182
        khenlow
        Participant

        I agree conniebv – I find myself skimming LJG’s narrative – except when Claire and/or Jamie are present…

      • #6186
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        I agree…Lucius Malfoy and LJG don’t mix well for me (and I actually enjoy Lucius Malfoy). I see young LJG more as Jamie Campbell Bower, who played young Gellert Grindelwald to keep with the HP theme 🙂 I can’t really think of anyone for an older LJG.

        I’m in between indifferent and love …I “like” him and enjoy his narrative, but I wouldn’t terribly miss him if he wasn’t part of the series. William, however, I really don’t care for.

        • This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by sonyakhanum.
      • #6189
        rachely
        Participant

        I’ve yet to meet anyone who likes William.

        Anyone?

      • #6207
        conniebv
        Participant

        I actively cheer against him.

      • #6214
        khenlow
        Participant

        I’m not a fan, but I am holding out hope that there’s a reconciliation between Jamie and William in book 9 and that he becomes a more engaging character… would be interesting to see him interact with Brianna…. I also wonder if William will fulfill the prophecy Gellis talks about in Voyager… perhaps he returns to England and has a role in unifying Scotland with the rest of Britian?

    • #6227
      MrsParker
      Participant

      Should we open a new thread for the Outlander Series Though MOBY with spoilers? I love the convos here but fear we are veering wildly from the forum topic and some people may not want to be so spoiled.

      Connie, I nominate you to open it. You haven’t had the pleasure yet.

    • #6379
      pglynn
      Participant

      Late to the party here but…. I am looking forward to how Ron & Crew divide up what I see as 3 separate stories…. Claire & Jamie in France/Scotland, Claire, Brianna & Roger and their search for Jamie, Claire & Frank putting their marriage back together. Diana does this so artfully in the books, and I bet the show writers are having fun rearranging all the puzzle pieces.

    • #6403
      Ami
      Participant

      Some thoughts on DiA…it’s not my least favorite book, but it is down there. I’ve read all of the series multiple times, but until last month id only read it once, and now twice.

      Some positives:

      1. I love the was the book is formatted, jumping back and forth in time. An excellent choice by DG as I believe she may lost some readers if the story was chronological. Because you know Claire goes back early on, you are compelled to find out the how and why behind this.
      2. Roger Mac.
      3. The historical details and politics of the Jacobites.
      4. Lord John Grey!

      Negatives:

      1. Brianna’s personality. It’s difficult for me to suspend my disbelief and buy into Roger Mac falling head over heels for her! I agree that she is much more a product of her fathers than Claire, and not so much in a good way. I do wonder if they will tone her down and make her more relatable for the show, which would be a welcome change, IMHO.
      2. I am in absolute agreement with those who’ve expressed bewilderment over Claire’s nonchalant acceptance of BJR being killed at Wentworth, and her utter panic and angst towards Jamie when it’s discovered he’s alive. I guess I understand her concern over Frank never existing because, wibbly wobbly timey wimey, but I don’t get the sudden and dramatic change of view.
      3. Master Raymond
      4. The absolute gut wrenching goodbye at the stones. It left me a sobbing mess, in the fetal position, and was by far the worst (and by that I mean best!) parting scene between lovers that has yet to be topped.

      My sincere hope is that an actor is chosen who can embody her bratty, entitled, distant smugness yet still endear her character to us fans. I know the second half of the season will, at least in part, be told from Jamie’s perspective. Perhaps we will see this with Bree’s character as well. I don’t think I would dislike her as much if I knew where she was coming from, and could empathize a bit with her.

      Another thought just occurred to me. I wonder if some of the animosity towards Bree has anything to do with her early relationship with both Jamie and Roger? They are so beloved that it rankles some that Bree can be such a stubborn and distant gal where they are concerned.

      Anyway, that’s all I have. Any thoughts would be most welcome!

      • #6408
        MrsParker
        Participant

        Hi, Ami. Welcome! Excellent thoughts all around. I too was bothered by Claire’s acceptance of BJR’s death. Basically, don’t believe anyone is dead unless you’ve seen the body (and burned it and stuck around for three days to make sure nothing rises from the ashes).

        I’d love to discuss Bree further with you if you’d like to come over to the Voyager and Beyond thread. That one goes through MOBY, I believe. See you there!

    • #6511
      Susan53
      Participant

      So much has already been said here that I agree with, I would just like to add that while I found the Paris portions of DiA entertaining, I felt like I’d fallen into an Outlander short story/novelette — a little sideways jaunt that wasn’t mean to really move things along, but instead to flesh out J&C’s relationship (after all that happened in Outlander, we needed to stay put a bit) and develop their characters before the heavier action/separation take place.

      I was so glad to get back to Scotland, which is a “character” in the books to me as much as Jamie and Claire.

      [SPOILER TALK]

      Later, I suppose N.C. was a stand in, many similarities both in landscape and position/relation of “laird” in America, but it took me a while to get over losing Scotland as the setting. 🙂

      • #6512
        barbc624
        Participant

        What a great way to define the Paris section – you’ve nailed it!

        I was so disappointed when they left Scotland and to be honest I have never really completely warmed up to the latter books set in America. My favorites will always be the first 3.

    • #6524
      Melissa
      Participant

      I’m late to the discussion, but wanted to chime in with my two cents since I’m about 80% through a second read of DiA and it’s on my mind right now. I’m really looking forward to seeing what the show’s writers come up with for season 2. The challenge of fitting this huge, complicated book into only 13 episodes seems overwhelming to me, but I’m sure they’ll do a great job. In fact they may very well improve upon the story, which to me was the slowest and most difficult read of all 8 books in the series.

      The first time I read it I struggled a lot because of the shock of Part 1, finding out that Claire and Jamie spent 20 years apart, that Claire was back in the 20th century, and that Jamie had (supposedly) died at Culloden. It was hard to get back into the 18th century story of Jamie and Claire’s marriage and adventures with that hanging over my head. So I’m curious about how the show is going to handle the storytelling so they maintain the integrity of the book without freaking the audience out too much right at the beginning of the season. I’ve enjoyed the book more this second time around, knowing what I do now about how the story goes from here, but it’s still probably my least favorite book of the series. Which isn’t really an insult — all the books are great in their own ways, and there are parts of DiA that are wonderful. Still, to me it feels like a bit of a sophomore slump, though one that went away with Voyager and Drums of Autumn, both of which are my favorites in the series along with Outlander itself.

      Anyway, some things from the book I’m looking forward to seeing (or hoping we’ll see!) on the show…

      – Claire asking Jamie if he’s happy about the baby, and his reply about being scared for her, but also feeling so proud he could burst. And him saying “Oh, Claire, ye do break my heart wi’ loving you.” One of my favorite scenes in the whole book, so I hope it’s on the show in some form or fashion! There are some iconic Jamie lines that just have to be in the show, and for me that’s one of them.

      – Seeing Master Raymond’s shop and the back room with all the animal skulls. Seeing Master Raymond in general. He’s one of my favorite characters in DiA.

      – All the Parisian fashions and seeing Jamie and Claire at Versailles. To be honest, one of the things that threw me for a loop the first time I read the book was accepting that Jamie and Claire were somehow important and well-connected enough to wind up in such elevated circles in Paris, hobnobbing with King Louis and with Prince Charles. It seemed unlikely based on the first book and just seemed weird. But it did lead to some great moments like Jamie freaking out over Claire in her revealing red dress, all the flirtations and intrigue at court, Prince Charles climbing over the rooftops and appearing at J&C’s bedroom door, etc.

      – The moment when Claire and Jamie spot Alexander Randall and think he’s Black Jack. It’s such a dramatic moment, with Jamie on the verge of murdering Alexander and Claire fainting dead away. It’ll be interesting to see who they get to play Alexander. It’ll be someone who looks a lot like Tobias Menzies, I assume, but not Tobias himself, right? That would be a little too Patty-Duke-Show, Cousins-Identical-Cousins, on top of him also playing Frank. 😉

      – Claire running into Black Jack, who’s unfortunately still alive, and all the Jamie duel drama that ensues as a result.

      – Meeting wee Fergus. I adore Fergus, both as a child and as a man, so it’s going to be exciting to see him on the show.

      – Claire’s miscarriage and depression, Claire doing what she has to in order to get Jamie out of the Bastille, Jamie and Claire’s separation and reconciliation. One good thing to say about the Paris storyline is that it puts Jamie and Claire’s marriage through the wringer and tests their commitment to each other. They go through fire as a couple and come out of it stronger, if not unscathed. It only makes it more painful and sad when they part.

      – The return to Scotland and Lallybroch. I hope the potato harvest scene from the book makes it into the show, although I know it might be the kind of thing to get cut due to time issues. I love the humor and sweetness of it though – Ian and Jamie so puzzled by this new crop, Jamie gathering the Lallybroch community together to eat potatoes and cock-a-leekie soup around the fire, Jamie gazing at Claire in the firelight, wanting to remember that moment. All while we as an audience know that soon memories are all they’ll have of each other.

      – Claire and Jamie visiting Jamie’s grandfather, Lord Lovat. What a horrid old man he is! Fascinating, though. That’ll be a meaty part for whoever gets it.

      – Rupert’s end. Jamie and Dougal’s final confrontation. OMG, all of that’s going to be so intense.

      – Most intense of all will be Jamie making Claire go back through the stones on the eve of Culloden. I’ve never cried so hard at anything in a book as I did at that part of DiA, so seeing it acted by Sam and Cait is going to rip my guts out, I know. Oh, it’s going to be so good!

      – And of course I’m curious to see Brianna and Roger, though maybe less so than I am about the other things I mentioned. I’ve grown to love both Bree and Roger through the course of reading the books, though Bree was a tougher nut to crack in that regard. I don’t hate her the way some of you seem to, but she mostly didn’t interest me a lot until the last few books of the series.

      Wow, that was long. Sorry about that! It’s fun to speculate about how it’s all going to play out on the show, though. We have a long time to wonder about it, that’s for sure.

      • This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by Melissa.
      • #6526
        Susan53
        Participant

        Wow, Melissa! What a great summary. You’ve shared all the highlights for sure, and reminded me of what a huge task the (very talented!) writers have before them. So many great scenes await us!

      • #6583
        Katie (@bunnums)
        Participant

        You’ve done a great summary of why DIA is one of my favorites in the series. One of the most emotional books I’ve ever read. And I agree about the scene at the stones – no matter how many times I’ve read DIA, that scene when he sends Claire away makes me cry harder than any other book I’ve ever read.

      • #6598
        Melissa
        Participant

        I’m on chapter 42 of my reread, Katie, and I find myself purposely reading really slowly because I know chapter 46 is looming up ahead. There’s no way it’s not going to wreck me and leave me unable to breathe through my nose for an hour or two after the inevitable crying jag. 😉

      • #6641
        Maggie
        Participant

        Hi, Melissa. I’ve seen you on Alistair’s boards, I hope you enjoy these as much as those.

      • #6709
        Melissa
        Participant

        Thanks, Maggie. 🙂

      • #6637
        barbc624
        Participant

        Your summary has made me want to go back and re-read DIA again. Nice.

        • This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by barbc624.
    • #6584
      cynthia
      Participant

      Great summary, Melissa!

      All the Parisian fashions and seeing Jamie and Claire at Versailles. To be honest, one of the things that threw me for a loop the first time I read the book was accepting that Jamie and Claire were somehow important and well-connected enough to wind up in such elevated circles in Paris, hobnobbing with King Louis and with Prince Charles. It seemed unlikely based on the first book and just seemed weird.

      This bugged me too. I know Jamie was a minor laird’s son, I know he studied in Paris for a year, but he never struck me as an aristocrat. Claire is hosting dinner parties and she certainly wouldn’t have known the mannerisms of the time. I hope the TV version shows them not really fitting in to that world and feeling uncomfortable with it.

      • #6599
        Melissa
        Participant

        This bugged me too. I know Jamie was a minor laird’s son, I know he studied in Paris for a year, but he never struck me as an aristocrat. Claire is hosting dinner parties and she certainly wouldn’t have known the mannerisms of the time. I hope the TV version shows them not really fitting in to that world and feeling uncomfortable with it.

        Jamie I could kind of see being accepted into the world of King Louis and the aristocrats, if only because of his novelty value – a tall, redheaded Scot in a kilt had to have been a sight to see amongst the bewigged fops of the palace. (Sort of like Benjamin Franklin visiting Versailles in his coonskin cap.) How on earth did Claire manage it, though? The French court and aristocracy of that time was one of the most ritualized and etiquette-bound societies imaginable, but she just slid right into the world of balls, dinner parties, and salons without blinking an eye. I hope as you do that the show has her struggle a bit and put a foot wrong now and then.

      • #6605
        cynthia
        Participant

        Claire and Jamie visiting Jamie’s grandfather, Lord Lovat. What a horrid old man he is! Fascinating, though. That’ll be a meaty part for whoever gets it.

        I want someone like Brian Blessed – someone with a huge presence and a booming voice.

        Rupert’s end.

        I can’t.

      • #6712
        AllisonL
        Participant

        I wasn’t as jarred by the Jamie-and-Claire-in-Paris thing. Jamie is an educated, intelligent man and Paris was, for me, a glimpse into the kind of life he could have easily lived. I bought his ease with hob-nobbing with nobility because of the fact that he was part of a ruling clan in Scotland and groomed to be laird of Lallybroch. I do agree that Claire slipped into that life almost too easily–but she has slipped into the whole 18th century life without a bat of an eye, too.

        The flashback format of DiA was my least favorite part. I spent the entire book knowing how it was going to end, essentially, and I didn’t like it. We already knew from the foreshadowing in Outlander that Jamie was probably going to die at Culloden, and the whole book had such a sense of foreboding. And the fact they thought they could change the future was unbelievable for me, given Jamie and Claire’s intelligence and Claire’s knowledge of what was to come. I’m hoping they don’t format Season 2 as a flashback for the whole series.

        If Wallace Shawn is cast as Mr. Raymond, I would always hear “inconcieveable!” no matter what came out of his mouth. I imagine Raymond as someone who is trustworthy but unsettling, maybe Derick Jacoby.

    • #6718
      Lalou
      Participant

      Do you think it possible Starz would be inclined to end season 2 so that season 3 may never exist ? I mean, change the story in that sense.
      I can’t really imagine that they would be ready to continue the show beyond season 2. Because thereafter the plot gets more complicated to adapt. Concluding after Culloden could give an ending to the love story and maybe avoid the audience to crumble gradually over time.
      Of course I wouldn’t like that, but hello, let’s be realistic. They’re not in love with the books, they just see them as a good selling product.

      • This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by Lalou.
      • #6720
        Melissa
        Participant

        From this article about last month’s Outlander panel at the TCAs:

        Starz CEO Chris Albrecht told reporters earlier in the day that he’s “hopeful that we’ll get through every book. We have plans to continue with the franchise.”

        If the ratings are good and the creators/actors are all still on board, I’m sure they’ll want to continue beyond season 2.

      • #6721
        khenlow
        Participant

        If the ratings are there, they will the keep the show going–at least through season 5 (I read somewhere that 5 years is the length of the contracts for SH and CB, and with their new movie roles, they may be ready to move on after 5 years).

        In season 2, I think they will definitely go to Paris – imagine how amazing Terry’s costumes will be! – but I can see streamlining of storylines (perhaps no Louise de la Tour?) to keep viewers hooked. I also wonder if season 2 really will start in the 1960s… for non-book readers, it would likely be more powerful NOT to have the ending in hand already. But we’ll have to see, right?!

    • #6722
      Lalou
      Participant

      They WILL go to Paris : Terry didn’t buy the buttons for Scottish costumes. Remember what they looked like ?

    • #6750
      Caroline
      Participant

      Hi, all. I’ve been lurking awhile now, but this forum seems pretty fun and you all seem like you’re smart and not crazy, so I’m in. (There’s some weird stuff on the other OL fan sites I just can’t partake in)

      I’m sure I’m in the minority, but I would be totally OK with Claire not having the miscarriage in the series. I know the end of Season 1 has already been filmed, so it is probably in there, but if it were me writing the adaptation, I would try to find a way to either end Season 1 without the pregnancy, or speed up the timeline of season 2 to be only the year 1744-1745 and send Claire back to her own time being farther along in her pregnancy (with Bree) than in the book.

      I found the entire first pregnancy distracting in the book, and the Master Raymond “healing” after the miscarriage was just strange. I think it would not translate well to the screen. It also makes Jamie less of a sympathetic character due to his disappearance, and if you’re watching a TV show you would maybe think why wouldn’t Claire want to go back to Frank after this? There’s not as much time in the show as there is in the books for Jamie to redeem himself to her.

      Just my two cents. Hey, eliminating kids from adaptations worked before. (See Gone With the Wind)

      • #6771
        JB
        Participant

        Hi Caroline!

        That’s a pretty radical concept you’ve proposed here, and it’s making my wheels turn. It was clear to me from the first pages of DiA that the baby Claire is pregnant with at the end of Outlander is NOT Bree (I definitely did the math on that one), so I was waiting for the miscarriage the whole time.

        But if I consider what role the miscarriage plays in the overall story, well… I see a bit of rebirth symbolism going on with Claire’s pregnancy mirroring Jamie’s recovery from Wentworth. And then there’s something there, too, in the fact that Claire loses the baby partially as a result of Jamie’s inability to put aside his need for vengeance. There’s also some mirroring going on between Claire losing Frank (or so she thinks) as a result of BJR’s injury in the duel and losing Jamie’s baby.

        I’m not really able to connect all those dots right now, but it also occurs to me that the most important outcome of the miscarriage is that it must play a role in forcing Claire to agree to return through the stones at the end.

        But besides all that, given how closely the episodes we’ve seen so far hew to the original text, it’s hard to imagine that the production would cut out such a majorly dramatic plot point in season two!

      • #6777
        Caroline
        Participant

        Hi, JB.
        I realize I’m proposing a radical idea (that will never come to fruition I expect :)). I am also not a purist when it comes to book-to-screen adaptations, which I realize makes me in the minority of OL fans. I am a big believer in stick to the source as closely as possible, but cut the extra “weight” of the story. When you said “I’m not really able to connect all those dots right now”, that is exactly what my problem is with the miscarriage storyline on the show: a lot of symbolism that would probably not translate as well as would be needed.

        I think that the miscarriage forcing Claire to agree to return through the stones is a valid point in the books, but on screen couldn’t this be played out by having Jenny miscarry? Doesn’t she have a miscarriage or stillbirth at some point? Sorry, I can’t remember. If Claire sees that/assists with the birth, she would very well know the danger of childbirth in that time and that would be enough to make her agree to go back to her own time, especially if she would herself be pregnant at the same time.

        I just like to come up with different ways of making the books “fit” into this TV mold.

      • #6778
        rachely
        Participant

        the danger of childbirth in that time

        I think Claire knows that. I mean in 2015 being pregnant is still one of the most dangerous things for a woman (and the child) to be. My son almost died and only lived because there was an OB there with a knife and nic-u nurses in the OR. It actually bugs me that pregnancy is shown as being dangerous in the books. Claire is always talking about how dangerous it is, but very few children and women ever seem to die of childbed fever or from sepsis after miscarriage or children of pertussis or german measles or whatever. It happens, but not very often to people Claire is close to, it’s often just mentioned in passing (so-and-so has had three wives because two died in childbed).

        I look at my family’s genealogy records from Sweden and New France in the 1700s and there are so many deaths of children and wives.

        (Sorry, that was off topic, but something that has annoyed me.)

      • #6788
        conniebv
        Participant

        This has bugged me, too. My grandmother’s first 4 kids died (she would go on to have 4 more) and that was the 1920s-30s! I also want to pipe up and say I am another that doesn’t really mind when shows stray off the source material. Just never bothered me that much. I assume it WILL change.

      • #6798
        Caroline
        Participant

        Rachel-you’re right, it is still dangerous. I had my first baby 14 months ago with no issues, but there’s a reason all those people are around in the delivery room as you know all too well. I had never thought about how removed Claire is from seeing this happen in a time where it was all too common. Good point.

        I live in the midwest, where farming was the main occupation until the 1950’s-60’s. Everyone had tons of kids because they needed workers on the farm. Everyone had a job to do, and that was at least some of the reason for having kids (besides the fact that everyone was an alcoholic and didn’t believe in birth control). Given that Lallybroch and other places similar to it are farms, that explains in part the numerous children. They had to have a lot of “spare heirs” to keep the farm going.

        Connie-I’m fangirling over you posting in reply to me. I love your recaps! 🙂

      • #6800
        nolakate
        Participant

        birth control -other than abstinence- was not invented and/or popularized until the 60s. mostly families had lots of kids because the mother was fertile or there were multiple sequential wives, and also infant mortality was 70+%. until recently, after the 60-s catholics (my family) or Mormons had tons of kids. not so much anymore.

        my daughter had her first/only so far baby at 35 and had to have all kinds of tests. the things they can test for now that are so dangerous for older mothers would have killed her or the baby earlier. and better general health care in my opinion is the reason for so many twins, who are not IVF.

        I love the way Diana has incorporated those historical facts into the books, and Claire’s ability to bring modern (for her time) methods to use back then

    • #6820
      JB
      Participant

      [quote quote=6777]I am also not a purist when it comes to book-to-screen adaptations, which I realize makes me in the minority of OL fans. I am a big believer in stick to the source as closely as possible, but cut the extra “weight” of the story. When you said “I’m not really able to connect all those dots right now”, that is exactly what my problem is with the miscarriage storyline on the show: a lot of symbolism that would probably not translate as well as would be needed.[/quote]

      I’m not a purist when it comes to adaptations, either. Though as I’ve said before, I make a point of reading the original source material first before watching the adaptation. I think one of the major successes of Outlander the Series are the additions they’ve made to fill out the story.

      So I’m not remotely “offended” by the idea of removing Claire’s miscarriage from the adaptation of DiA. And, when I think about condensing that sprawling story into 13 episodes, I agree that things will have to change. I’m thinking you think like a screenwriter!

      Oh, and one of Jenny’s babies dies soon after birth as a result of the redcoats raiding the farm or something. It’s mentioned in Voyager, I believe, but isn’t something that happens within the scope of the story. It’s only remembered by Jamie as he’s looking at the family Bible, I think.

      I just read the part in Drums of Autumn with the

      (are we still alerting people to spoilers?? If so: SPOILER AHEAD)

      measles outbreak, and a new baby that Claire delivered (to Petronella Mueller) dies. There are larger repercussions (some of which I think I haven’t gotten to yet), but you’re right, Rachel — while Claire is portrayed as being upset, it’s not like it’s her family that’s directly impacted by the death of a child.

    • #6977
      MrsParker
      Participant

      So no news on the casting of Roger and Brianna. According to some speculation, the producers can wait a while to cast these roles, as they’ll most likely be shot at different times than the main action with Jamie and Claire in the 1740s.

      As the series moves forward and Jamie and Claire are significantly older, I wonder if Bree and Roger will be carrying the bulk of the “romance” story. The main story will always be Jamie and Claire, and while I for one would like to see the romance between an older couple, general TV audiences may not be as accepting. Bree and Roger don’t have much to do in Voyager, and I question if the actors will be willing to wait around for two years until their part of the story pick up.

      • #7007
        patriciatrish
        Participant

        oh it’s nice here

        I’m surprised they haven’t cast Bree and Roger yet, but you may be right that they can hold off casting them for a while. I’m waiting on Raymond casting, and I hope they get a great character actor for Louis and maybe the Comte too.

        I hope they continue to put Jamie and Claire front and center. With so little to do for Bree and Roger, they may end up re-casting those roles for Season 4, once they get past Voyager and the story shifts broadens beyond Jamie and Claire. I’d like to see the American Revolution happen a little sooner, too. I think that will keep the male audience around with the history and the battles and such.

    • #7024
      conniebv
      Participant

      I love Roger Mac, but I could never really stomach Bree. After Claire and Jamie, Young Ian was my MAN.

      • #7102
        Katie (@bunnums)
        Participant

        The conversation about which of the Outlander women we relate to is fascinating! I really admire Claire but I have to agree that I don’t think I could be friends with her, at least not BFFs. (I also have to admit that I would go INSANE if I were married to Jamie, but I think he and Claire are absolutely perfect together and I love reading about them.)

        I really like Rachel. She’s super intelligent and quick-witted, logical with common sense, gentle and nurturing, but will rise like a mama bear when she or her loved ones are threatened. I think I relate to her the most and I really can’t wait to see what she’s like as a mother and to watch her relationship with Ian deepen and grow.

        I’ve also always liked Lizzie, but even more now that she’s matured and gained a lot of self-confidence.

        Bree I always want to knock upside the head, particularly when she was younger. I just don’t understand a lot of her decision-making. (Though I love that I can feel that way about a fictional character! LOL!)

        Katie

    • #7025
      Shieldmaiden
      Participant

      There is one little scene I’d particularly like to see – it’s in the first part of the book, when Claire and Jamie are at The Rohan’s house and Herr Johannes Gerstmann, the king’s singing master, invites them to take part in an impromptu chorus. Claire has a moment of bonding with the shy Mary Hawkins who she persuades to sing with the choir despite her stammer (Mary ends up singing hidden behind a curtain, but singing nonetheless). I think that Bear McCreary, the show’s composer, could have a lot of fun making the music for this – either by digging up some interesting baroque music, or composing some himself.
      There’s also a scene at the end of part one where Claire and Jamie have a huge fight after he returns from a brothel covered in bites and scratches. Since the scene involves a bathtub, a mostly naked Jamie, and quite a lot of meaty dialogue for the actors, ranging from comedic to poignant, I think that the producers would be crazy if they passed on the opportunity to film this.
      Sorry if my English is unclear – it’s not my mother tongue and I’m high on flu medication. I guess it’s the fever that finally gave me the courage to post here.

    • #7028
      MrsParker
      Participant

      First off, ShieldMaiden, welcome and I love your name, and hope to see you in the Vikings thread. You came through loud and clear!

      [quote quote=7025]
      There is one little scene I’d particularly like to see – it’s in the first part of the book, when Claire and Jamie are at The Rohan’s house and Herr Johannes Gerstmann, the king’s singing master, invites them to take part in an impromptu chorus. Claire has a moment of bonding with the shy Mary Hawkins who she persuades to sing with the choir despite her stammer (Mary ends up singing hidden behind a curtain, but singing nonetheless). I think that Bear McCreary, the show’s composer, could have a lot of fun making the music for this – either by digging up some interesting baroque music, or composing some himself.
      There’s also a scene at the end of part one where Claire and Jamie have a huge fight after he returns from a brothel covered in bites and scratches. Since the scene involves a bathtub, a mostly naked Jamie, and quite a lot of meaty dialogue for the actors, ranging from comedic to poignant, I think that the producers would be crazy if they passed on the opportunity to film this.[/quote]
      A resounding yes to both of these. The Mary Hawkins scene, because it shows Claire’s kindness. Claire can sometimes come off as cold and a little judgy, and her warmth and loyalty toward Mary was one of the highlights of DIA for me. It could be Mary’s connection to Frank that makes Claire act this way, but regardless, I like seeing Nuturing!Claire.

      As for the post-brothel scene, there is so much meaty dialogue there that I hope the writers don’t pass up. Jamie is so naive about sex and lust that it’s almost comical, but I really like his vulnerability when he talks to Claire about these things.

    • #7044
      patriciatrish
      Participant

      I love Roger Mac, but I could never really stomach Bree. After Claire and Jamie, Young Ian was my MAN.

      Bree is one tough nut to crack. When I think of all the characters in the series, I don’t really like any other female character then Claire (except Jenny but she can be some work). Was this intentional on Diana’s part?

      The women at the French Court are so vapid, especially Louise. I hope they smarten her up. Mary Hawkins is too weak. Bree can be such a brat, even into MOBY where she should be more of a grown-up. Rachel needs to drop the thees and thous, it’s distracting. Geillis is interesting but evil. Laoghaire I have some sympathy for but that’s because of what I bring to the reading, not because of Diana’s portrait of her. I like the events surrounding Jocasta but I don’t like Jocasta. Come to think of it, the women who are interesting become evil. It’s as though only Claire can be interesting, not annoying, and not totally evil.

      The men, on the other hand, are more nuanced. Roger Mac is a dream, Lord John Grey has so many interesting characteristics, even Ulysses is intriguing. I would continue to read the series if Young Ian becomes the main character.

      • #7085
        rachely
        Participant

        I don’t really like any other female character then Claire

        oooo, interesting! I have to admit most of the time I’m not sure I even like Claire! I admire her. And I might with I WERE her but I’m not sure I’d want to be her friend. She doesn’t give a lot of herself (yes, Rachely, the pot is calling the kettle black).

        I like Rachel (name aside). the theeing and thouing doesn’t bother me (if I can wade through the doonas and the dinnas and the rest I can deal with thees and thous). Though it’s possible I like her because she makes Young Ian happy and I’m in the ‘love Young Ian’ camp.

        I liked Mrs. Bug but that might be more “I wish she’d come to my house and cook and clean”.

        I liked Phaedre (sp?).

        I’m with you on the rest re: Jenny, Geilles, Bree, Leoghaire (my inner 16 year old is very pro-Leoghaire), and Jocasta.

        Who else is there? Lizzie? Dorethea? Works With Her Hands/Emily?

      • #7089
        Lori
        Participant

        Good point Rachel – I admire Claire too, however I’m not sure I’d be friends with her either.
        I like Rachel (aside from wading through the thees and thous), and I also like Phaedre.

        “Who else is there?”

        Mother Hildegarde, I’d like to know more about her.

      • #7093
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        I LOVE Rachel (I like forum Rachel too :)). She’s steadfast in her values and beliefs and open-hearted – things that I admire. If you can have a book boy friend, then Rachel is my book best friend. I kinda accept the thees and thous as an expression of her faith, so it doesn’t bother me as much.

        Marsali is another female character that I find interesting and sometimes find that she is underrated (in the books at least – there’s not much about her there).

    • #7078
      sonyakhanum
      Participant

      [quote quote=7024]After Claire and Jamie, Young Ian was my MAN.[/quote]

      He needs his own series.

      • #7090
        Lori
        Participant

        I’d read more about Young Ian!

    • #7091
      Susan53
      Participant

      [quote quote=7085]
      I have to admit most of the time I’m not sure I even like Claire! I admire her. And I might with I WERE her but I’m not sure I’d want to be her friend. She doesn’t give a lot of herself (yes, Rachely, the pot is calling the kettle black).
      [/quote]

      Ah Rachely, I love how you always speak your own truth and how often that sparks a great conversation. Just want to share that I have felt this way about Claire many, many times over. I’m not sure she’d make a great friend in the way that I define it at least. An interesting person to know, no doubt! I admire her, yes. But honestly, I’ve never felt like I could hang with that duo. Exhausted just thinking about it. And why some fictional characters are often best left as fiction for me.

      • #7092
        rachely
        Participant

        I have an aunt who is brilliant and talented and wonderful…but deep down I’m always pretty sure I’m not living up to some standard that she has set for me and therefore feel guilty when I’m with her. I feel like it would be like that with Claire.

        And, pfft, hanging out with Jamie would clearly get you shot or abducted or in the middle of a war, warding of snakes and white sows. Seriously that guy has shit luck and a lot of not-very-good ideas that he manages to infect everyone else with it.

      • #7095
        sonyakhanum
        Participant

        I’d totally hang out with Young Ian…and Rollo. 🙂

      • #7096
        Susan53
        Participant

        Not trying to overgeneralize based on our comments here, but other than Claire, is it that DG writes the male characters in a more compelling way than the female, or are their stories more appealing? Or is it just that I’m more attracted (not trying to speak for anyone else) to the men and their POVs? Hmm . . . giving it some thought.

      • #7098
        JB
        Participant

        These are great questions. I think Jamie is an incredibly well-realized character, and that impacts my appreciation for him. As I’ve pondered elsewhere, Claire’s lack of emotional openness tends to hinder my connection with her. But I also think her characterization is strangely hindered by the fact that all her POV is in first person.

        I don’t know if I’d want to hang out with any of the characters, but I sure do want to read about every insane detail of their lives.

    • #7094
      AllisonL
      Participant

      I never connected with Bree at all. I read somewhere that DG didn’t really know what to do with her either, for quite a while. I wonder if DG’s inability to “see” where Bree fit in imbued the character with that sense of meh. The only time I thought Bree was working was when they went back to the 20th century in MOBY. I really liked the parallel storylines and DG seemed to hit her stride in writing the character. Then wham! I verra much want to vent about the ending of MOBY, but I’ll save that for another thread. . .as well as why everyone seems to want to rape Bree no matter what century she’s in.

      As far as scenes in DiA, I’m looking forward to the introduction of Lord John in the scene where he thinks he’s saving Claire. I can’t imagine they won’t film some version of that, since LJ plays such a big role later.

    • #7099
      conniebv
      Participant

      I have to say, I love Lizzie. When she married both brothers I was all GET IT GIRL. She’s a tough cookie and brave and kinky. Love her.

      • #7100
        rachely
        Participant

        And she put one over on Jamie! Probably the first one to do it : )

    • #7101
      conniebv
      Participant

      [quote quote=7100]And she put one over on Jamie! Probably the first one to do it : )[/quote]
      For that alone.
      Jamie too often gets to be right about everything, and I frankly doubt his decision-making skills because his life is kind of a mess.

    • #7135
      Adensmom
      Participant

      I’m new here, but I’ve enjoyed reading the many well-considered posts. I’ve read all 8 books at least 4 times, and have also read the LJG books at least 3 times.

      That being said, I in no way consider myself to be any sort of expert on the series, and DIA is my least favorite of the books (not counting “A Leaf on the Wind of All Hallows,” but let’s not go there). However, after reading the posts in this thread, I’m troubled by the apparently overwhelming animosity toward Brianna. Yes, she’s bratty and self-absorbed. Yes, she’s quite hateful and disrespectful toward her mother. And, yes, she should’ve exercised her intelligence to realize that she couldn’t be Frank Randall’s daughter.

      Consider, however, that Brianna worshipped Frank and he worshipped her. I think it’s quite common that daughters tend toward hero-worship of their fathers and a mild disregard of their mothers – at least until they have daughters of their own. I did it, and my own daughter appears to suffer from the same affliction. From what I’ve read about DG, she worshipped her own father also. Why shouldn’t Brianna? Her unwillingness to acknowledge that Frank couldn’t have been her father is a subconscious denial stemming from her love of him.

      People who find out as teens or adults that their parentage isn’t as they have thought throughout their lives have a tendency to negatively overreact upon learning the truth. Brianna has likely always “known,” at least at some level, but the realization is harsh. I just think she deserves a little more compassion and latitude for her reactions and, for lack of a better term at present, character flaws.

    • #7136
      MrsParker
      Participant

      Hello, Adensmom! I like you already for using “toward” and not “towards.”

      Bree is a tough character, and I want to like her more. I tend to fill in the blanks around her because I think there’s enough there in the text to justify her actions and understand her intentions, but at times I’m at a loss with her.

      Bree and Roger represent the difficulties of time travel. Claire had it easier — she came back in time to be with Jamie, and she sorted her life around that. Her professional skill was acceptable to perform as a woman, and was necessary for the time.

      Bree and Roger, on the other hand, thought it would be a short time-travel trip and got stuck there. Bree is the liberated modern woman, an engineer (a field few women enter today, let alone in the late 1960s) and did not expect to be a homesteader. Roger is an academic and musician in a time and place where muscle, brawn, and hunting skills are qualities that are needed. Even though he has the physic he has no experience with farming or physical labor, and his wife is a better shot than him. All this is emasculating for him and Bree’s attitude toward Roger isn’t very helpful here.

      One of my biggest problems with Bree is that she doesn’t seem to respect Roger very much. I think she sees him as weak compared to two formidable fathers — one a well-known academic, one the physical epitome of manliness. There could be some lingering resentment that Roger didn’t return to her immediately after Jamie and crew sprang him from the Indian’s captivity, or she doesn’t want to accept the burden of responsibility that he came back in time for her in the first place. There’s doubts for them both about how the other person feels toward each.

      Claire and Jamie have such an all-consuming love and respect for each other, and that has to be hard to see and try to live up to, for both Roger and Bree. We see Roger trying so hard for Bree and losing so much — his voice, first and foremost. Bree’s been through a lot too but we don’t see her trying as hard to please Roger and fit in. So I think that’s where the animosity toward her is coming from. Again, I WANT to like Bree, but it can be hard to connect with her.

      • #8192
        toriamae
        Participant

        I’m about a million months late for this (and to the forums….the whole forum thing makes me happy though as I am incapable of expressing myself intelligently in 140 characters.)

        I find Brianna a fascinating character and after reading how many of y’all aren’t so keen on her, I realized how much of it was inference based on my mother’s tales of growing up tall and at the same age. So, here’s what I infer:

        1. Brianna was teased a lot as a kid. I don’t know any woman who’s 6′ or taller who isn’t. My mother is that height and the same age as Bree and tells stories of having her clothes ruined (one kid in her class wrote “jolly green giant” on the back of an outfit her mother had just made!)

        2. Which parent was “there for her” when that happened? Frank. Not Claire. When she came home from school crying because she was teased, he was the one she talked to. And he didn’t tell Claire. He would have LOVED that her career choice was taking her out of the loop on Bree’s life. I just think he’s a bit petty like that.

        3. Bree talks about all the stuff she did with Frank growing up. So, even on weekends, which parent was she hanging out with? Not the one who taught Sex Ed at her school, that’s for sure.

        And while I didn’t grow up in that day and age, I can very easily imagine in that time that Bree would have resented her mother for working, for not “being there” and because her career choices contributed to her being picked on in school.

        Now, Bree grows up. And kids who are picked on in school generally are either broken by it or cop an attitude because of it.

        All of that to say, I never considered Bree any more than a response to her environment.

        And that’s in part why I am so eager to see who plays her.

        Casting her shorter/smaller than she was written in the books changes the character to my view.

        Also, accentuating this stuff would show a side of Frank and Claire that is not in the book (I don’t know if DG realized when she wrote this how much tall girls are picked on! She seemed to exoticize the height thing.) But my analysis of the books at least is that her height, and the likely realistic ramifications explains who she is pretty well. Even though most of this stuff would come out in Voyager, the casting either sets the stage for it or doesn’t.

      • #8194
        AllisonL
        Participant

        If you add Bree’s flaming long red hair to the mix (and in my mind it’s thick and curly, not the board-straight hippie hair that was so in style then) she would stand out her entire life. My biggest problem with the character of Bree, though, is that not only does she never accept her life in the 18th century, she doesn’t fully respect the time or the people in it. She insists on barreling through her 18th century life very much wrapped in the 20th century. Yes, I know she is there against her will, but one would think that at some point she would begin to at least respect where she is. Claire had that respect and acceptance from the first moment we see her in the 18th century and never loses it. Clare could have been so openly disdainful of everything around her–the medical knowledge especially–but she’s not. Instead she does her job, she teaches, and she respects and learns from the knowledge that is there, such as uses of plants, leeches, etc. She even resorts to theatrics so that another healer wont’ lose face (the scene where she makes up an incantation so she can boil dirty instruments and make it look like a charm, I forget which book that one is in). Bree would just roll her eyes, push everyone out of the way, and completely disrespect her surroundings. The only time I liked Bree was in MOBY when ::::SPOILER:::: she and Roger were living at Lallybroch with the kids and she was fighting to be an engineer. She was real to me for the first time, as if she was finally where she belonged. I thought putting them at Lallybroch in the present was a wonderful juxtaposition and hoped they would stay there. Now that they’re back in the 18th century I’ll just go on skimming over their parts.

      • #8203
        toriamae
        Participant

        For sure! Between the height, the hair, and the doctor mama “stealing jobs from men”, the child was doomed. She comes by her difficulty personality naturally for sure.

        I agree with you: especially when she first gets there she barrels through with no regard or courtesy and it’s less than enjoyable to read about. But I think that is one of the themes of character development for the series: adapting to major changes in “the rules.”

        When Claire and Jamie meet at the beginning, that is the biggest thing they have in common: both of them have had the rug pulled out from under the life they were expecting. Claire because she traveled through time, Jamie because of BJR. She embraces it, accepts it and moves on. He doesn’t. He spends the better part of the next two books trying to get his life back. Not to say that is his entire focus, but all he really wants is the life he was expecting: being the Laird, hanging with the family, all of the things he thought his life would be. When he marries Claire, she fills in one of the blanks in what he was expecting. He is happier, does better, when he lets go literally just before Culloden of all of those expectations and embraces his life as it is.

        Throughout the series, the characters that do best are the ones who let go and live in the present (think Jenny, Claire, Ian, eventually Jamie) the ones who struggle are the ones who cling to things that are past and gone (Geillis, Frank, Brianna, Arch Bug). Jamie grew out of it, fairly quickly. Hopefully, in the next book, Bree will have grown out of it. After all, you’ve got William who needs to adapt and embrace the new rules of reality…perhaps the fact that she has chosen this now will have allowed her character to mature and make her more relatable. Maybe.

        I do also see her somewhat as a product of her generation. Claire had ALWAYS had do adapt to fluid and changing rules. She had never had many possessions and never expected or hoped for that type of life. (At least not in the books!) Bree on the other hand had a completely stable childhood, raised by two parents in the same house for a long time. She has a facility with things, if memory serves…well arranged room, etc. It makes sense to me that she would have a harder time letting go.

        So, back to the topic of the thread, that is what I would like to see developed in this series of the show: that theme of letting go which will play out so nicely in the introduction of other characters and story lines. The reality that adaption to change, playing the hand you’ve been dealt, is an essential part of growing up. I hope to see Jamie not all the way there in the beginning, his longing not only to save the highland clan culture, but to get back to the life he still hopes for. And then of course to see him sign it all away, not merely as a desperate act, but because it’s the only choice to make.

        Also, I am very interested to see where the break happens between the next two seasons and which side Geillie falls on.

      • #8206
        AllisonL
        Participant

        I never considered the characters from the perspective of whether they are living in their past or present–that’s very interesting. Whose past, and which present? Claire, Bree, and Roger always have access to two presents and can decide which one to live in. I never interpreted Jamie as being someone living in the past or trying to recapture something he’ll never have, although now I’ll think about that when I reread. I saw him as a “roll with the punches” kind of man, with no real ambition to direct him forward, and only dealing with whatever was in his path at any given moment. The first time he makes any real decision about his own life’s direction is when he decides to face Culloden, knowing what will happen. Before that, every decision he makes is as a result of someone else’s ambition–Dougal, BJR, Claire–or as a reaction to something outside his control, such as his fleeing to France after escaping Fort William. And after that, the next life decision he makes for himself is when he chooses to stay at Helwater. It’s really not until he decides to leave Laoghaire that he begins to take control of his own destiny. I’m not sure at which point I’d say he gives up his dream of the life he’d hoped for–maybe living in the cave? Watching the life he can never have play out before his eyes being lived by his family? I always felt that, even though he legally gave up Lallybroch, in his heart he still wanted to be laird.

        I’m not sure what I’d like to see most in this season since DIA was the hardest book for me to get through emotionally. From the beginning there is a sense of doom that hangs over it–I never bought the idea that they’d be able to change the future in the first place, so every page drew me closer to the horror. I guess I want to see the process of Jamie’s healing from Wentworth and how that brings he and Claire closer together. DG never explicitly addresses that in any of the books, she just talks about his nightmares. (as an aside, he spends time in the Bastille in France and the readers never know how that affected him). And I hope they do the whole poison scene in the secret room. I’m also interested in how they approach the entire miscarriage episode and Master Raymond bringing her back, if they do that. It was a very powerful moment in the book, but maybe too mystical to come across effectively on film without making it feel “sci fi.”

      • #8207
        toriamae
        Participant

        I think I worded that wrong. I don’t think it’s as much about past and present as whether your expectations for the future are based on the past or the moment. Two moments from the show demonstrate this really well: Claire looking at the vase in the window and that moment where Jamie is working in the field, just before he hears Jenny scream. Each character has at that moment an expectation of what the future will look like. Each is about to be radically knocked off that course. How does each respond to that change? How quickly do they grasp the scope of that change and move forward on the path before them? How much time and energy to they expend trying to get back to the previous path?

        You can see this at a micro level within single lives or at a macro level with the clans trying to bring back the Scottish king.

        In both the books and the movies, the possession or collection of material things is strongly correlated with this. Claire has exactly two possessions she holds to: her wedding rings. Jamie’s big possession he holds to is Lallybroch. (Having Claire’s ring made from the key in the show really brings this to the forefront!) Both Bree and Roger have boxes and boxes of stuff. Frank is a great collector of stuff. Geillis and Dougal are collecting money/stuff. It’s very zen in my mind. When Jamie lets go of Lallybroch, he doesn’t let go of being laird but recognizes that being a leader is about who he is, not the property he possesses. That is the point of maturity for the characters: when their identity is independent of possessions.

        As you can see, I think a bit much about this stuff and have a particular world view, but that’s what I love about stories: the universal nature of high quality human narrative. The way well told stories reflect on who we are as people.

    • #8204
      rachely
      Participant

      trying again, desperately, to unsubscribe.

      • #8205
        AllisonL
        Participant

        Wow, Rachel, that was rude. We get that you don’t want to be here. Some of us do. Go tweet your snark and leave us be.

    • #9039
      megan
      Participant

      Im currently reading Drangon Fly in Amber and I’m a little confused. Jamie has just returned home after spending the night in a questionable tavern. One minute he’s confessing to Claire about lusting after the women in the tavern and the next minute they are in bed ravishing each other. What is the basis of the confession ? Why does claire so easily let him off the hook ?

      • This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by megan.
    • #9042
      Lalou
      Participant

      I’m currently reading Dragonfly in Amber again, and it is definitely not my favorite book of the series, but it has its place in the plot, some of it being that we see Claire and Jamie settling in their mariage.
      I think this episode is just a step that had to be taken. First Jamie discovers sex in a relationship, as an expression of his love for Claire, and here he’s got an opportunity to see that it is a physical sensation too, that may not work with love and feelings. This is when he learns that reason has a part to play in that. Well, to sum it up, in my opinion, this is when he learns how fidelity works. And he’s not that bad at it, he’s puzzled, but his reaction is quite decent.
      Why does Claire let him off the hook ? Well, I think that’s what women do : they understand (until some point) and help men get over the problem. After all, everything’s fine, he resisted and he’s back.

      • #9043
        megan
        Participant

        Ah makes sense. Thank you.

Viewing 68 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.