Outlander Spoiler Thread - ONLY for those who have read the book(s) or WANT to know what's coming!:)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice job, 16:52!! That definitely works!

16:52 here. I am now rereading the second book and will produce my outline of the second season shortly.

Me again. Do you think the second season will keep the first section of the book, in which Claire is now in the 1960s trying to figure out what happened to the Fraser clan at Culloden? It seems to me that it really adds nothing to the story told in the second book. Assuming there is a third season, I think that part would make more sense at the start of the third season, helping to frame the story of what happened after Claire went back through the stones and her yearning to know what happened to the people she left behind in Scotland. Plus, why bother going to the trouble of casting a Briana and an adult Roger if there's a chance there won't be a third season? (They likely won't know until mid-way through the second season if there will be a third.)

Thoughts?

This is the first part of the third book, not second, isn't it? I'm almost finished with the third book right now and honestly, they're so darn long, it's hard to remember what happened 800 pages ago in my current book and what happened a book or two ago! It all runs together and goes on and on and on. (Although I loved the search section and the way it was interspersed with what happened to Jamie during those 20 years. It was surprisingly compelling given that the draw of the first book is really the interaction of Jamie and Claire.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice job, 16:52!! That definitely works!

16:52 here. I am now rereading the second book and will produce my outline of the second season shortly.

Me again. Do you think the second season will keep the first section of the book, in which Claire is now in the 1960s trying to figure out what happened to the Fraser clan at Culloden? It seems to me that it really adds nothing to the story told in the second book. Assuming there is a third season, I think that part would make more sense at the start of the third season, helping to frame the story of what happened after Claire went back through the stones and her yearning to know what happened to the people she left behind in Scotland. Plus, why bother going to the trouble of casting a Briana and an adult Roger if there's a chance there won't be a third season? (They likely won't know until mid-way through the second season if there will be a third.)

Thoughts?

This is the first part of the third book, not second, isn't it? I'm almost finished with the third book right now and honestly, they're so darn long, it's hard to remember what happened 800 pages ago in my current book and what happened a book or two ago! It all runs together and goes on and on and on. (Although I loved the search section and the way it was interspersed with what happened to Jamie during those 20 years. It was surprisingly compelling given that the draw of the first book is really the interaction of Jamie and Claire.)

No, the first part of the second book begins with Roger clearing out Reverend Wakefield's house after his death, and Claire and Brianna suddenly showing up at his door asking for help with research on what happened to the Fraser men after Culloden. This is when she discovers Jamie's grave at St. Kilda, which makes no sense to her because she assumed that Jamie died at Culloden. Shocked, she tells Brianna and Roger that she had traveled back in time, that Jamie was Brianna's father, and that she and Jamie tried to stop Charles Stewart. Then the rest of book 2 describes the activity in France and Scotland up until Claire goes back through the stones before the battle at Culloden. Book 2 ends with Roger telling Claire that he thinks Jamie might have survived Culloden.

For TV, I think the flash forward doesn't make much sense at the beginning of this part of the story. It doesn't add anything to know about this while viewing Claire and jamie's time up to Culloden. However, it would be compelling for the uninitiated viewer, IMO, to see this flash forward at the start of a season 3, when the viewer knows what Claire knows--that she left Jamie and that he was certainly killed at Culloden.

[Anonymous]

I'm done with book 2. It left me said and not very hopeful. Is it worth reading book 3 and beyond? I'm assuming at some point she goes back and there's more Jamie and Claire somewhere, but I imagine it will be a lot less than in the first 2 books. And she's 20 years older - is there really enough Jamie and Claire for 6 or 7 more books? Is there enough for me to go through book 3, or is it going to be mostly about other characters?

I don't want real spoilers about what's coming, I just want help deciding whether to buy book 3.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

^"sad", not said.

[Anonymous]

I'm enjoying book 3 and think you will based on what you've said. Still, I'm getting a little tired of the dangers and adventures at every turn. This may be my last book for the series.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't keep reading. Too much contrived peril only to be averted at the last minute. And they're hopping all over the globe? Yeah, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with book 2. It left me said and not very hopeful. Is it worth reading book 3 and beyond? I'm assuming at some point she goes back and there's more Jamie and Claire somewhere, but I imagine it will be a lot less than in the first 2 books. And she's 20 years older - is there really enough Jamie and Claire for 6 or 7 more books? Is there enough for me to go through book 3, or is it going to be mostly about other characters?

I don't want real spoilers about what's coming, I just want help deciding whether to buy book 3.

Thanks!

Oh, there's lots more Jamie and Claire. You HAVE to read Voyager!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with book 2. It left me said and not very hopeful. Is it worth reading book 3 and beyond? I'm assuming at some point she goes back and there's more Jamie and Claire somewhere, but I imagine it will be a lot less than in the first 2 books. And she's 20 years older - is there really enough Jamie and Claire for 6 or 7 more books? Is there enough for me to go through book 3, or is it going to be mostly about other characters?

I don't want real spoilers about what's coming, I just want help deciding whether to buy book 3.

Thanks!

Oh, there's lots more Jamie and Claire. You HAVE to read Voyager!

Ok. Phew. I'm also reading book 2 and was questioning whether I'd continue.

[Anonymous]

I liked book 3, but never got into the 4th. I didn't read any further.

[Anonymous]

16:25 here. Thanks all. I just put it on my Kindle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:25 here. Thanks all. I just put it on my Kindle.

Ok, finished book 3. I agree that the story's getting a little crazy with all the perils and the traveling. A bit over the top, but I'm still enjoying the story so I'm going to give book 4 a chance.

[Anonymous]

I'm reading Book 3, and I like it better than Book 2 (well, better than the whole part of Book 2 set in France).

[Anonymous]

I think a second season of outlander is not giong to be so good. I am reading the second book now and I am bored out of mind. I can't keep up with all the palace intrigue in France. I think what makes the show so great is 1)setting in Scotland 2) hot men in kilts 3) hot times between Jamie and Claire and 4) the dynamics/friendships between the men in the Clan. I feel like all of that is lost (so far) in book 2. Daina Gabaldon really really needs an editor. Its cearly all about her ego in the writing. On and on and on...

[Anonymous]

The meeting and joining of Jamie and Claire is exciting, the introduction of Claire to past Scotland is interesting. Once you get over that and get into the drawn out storylines it loses a lot.

I predict the show will be successful longer than the books are past #1 because of the eye candy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a second season of outlander is not giong to be so good. I am reading the second book now and I am bored out of mind. I can't keep up with all the palace intrigue in France. I think what makes the show so great is 1)setting in Scotland 2) hot men in kilts 3) hot times between Jamie and Claire and 4) the dynamics/friendships between the men in the Clan. I feel like all of that is lost (so far) in book 2. Daina Gabaldon really really needs an editor. Its cearly all about her ego in the writing. On and on and on...

I think the second book will play much better on screen. Somehow the parts set in France aren't as vivid on the page as the scenes in the first book, but there's a lot there that will be really interesting visually. The port scenes, the palace, the hospital, their life among the French aristocrats. Jamie imprisoned in the Bastille. The costumes will be wonderful. The I think it could be great actually.