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

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Nice job, 16:52!!  That definitely works!  [/quote]

16:52 here. I am now rereading the second book and will produce my outline of the second season shortly. ;-)[/quote]

Me again. Do you think the second season will keep [b]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.[/b] 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?[/quote]

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.)[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics