Outlander Season 2

[Drywhitethanks]

When is it on? Have googled and says tomorrow (10th) but what time? not that I'm desperate or anything
Thanks

Cerseirys explains it better.

It's a flashback to what we've missed.

Ah, thanks

So she's lived through the French bit & Culloden & is now back - but we haven't seen that bit yet. Hence her obsession with finding out about what happened to Jamie.

Grim though. The housekeeper believed her. Liked that bit.

Anyone recommend the books?

The housekeeper was the only one in series one who suspected the truth.

She wasn't there for Culloden, hence being desperate to know what happened.

The books are shite. Enjoyable, easy and quick to read, poorly researched but strangely compelling shite.

I read them while on hiatus from a literature MA and craving brain candy instead of impenetrable Russian tomes. I re-read them before series one aired.

I enjoyed the first two and a half books. After that they got a bit turgid and there are now about seven I think.

I think you have to read the first three as a trilogy and then walk away.

Blimey, 7? Am partial to strangely compelling shite though.

Impenetrable Russian tomes - when W&P was on it brought back so many memories of the professor (self-proclaimed Tolstoy expert) who droned on for many a month. If only they'd had the James Norton version, I'd have got a better mark

Oh the droning. Oh dear Lord the droning. And the earnest, rapt attention of other students while you snort laughed your way out of a particularly satisfying light snooze.

It wasn't always Russian. For three hours we debated one line of Joyce text. I'll never get those hours back.

You poor love

I should have got a 1 just for the art of the snooze. Bastard. He's written a(nother dull) book and I should be on the DM with a sad face for his ruining my love of Russian literature

Apols for derailing.

Who was the cousin & why was he such a bigwig in France? Thought Jamie's family were minor 'aristocracy'/landowners. Or is that all part of the tosh bit of the story? Nothing against tosh mind.

haven't seen episode 1 yet, but book cousin is a v wealthy wine merchant, so naturally v important in France. Scottish family is related to the Camerons (Collum and Dougal who we saw in S1 are Jamie's uncles. His mother C & D's sister) ran away with his father causing a bit of a scandal, but was eventually forgiven. Lallybroch (I think) was J's father's property.

Agree with compelling tosh, but I do need to know what happens in the next book each time

You'll find out more about Jared. He's a wine merchant, rich and a Jacobite. He's also a handy plot device which gives them a place to stay and a way into French society! Jamie also spent years in France in the past with that bit of his family. Hence he's fluent in French which again, helps.

As a postgrad student, we had to teach a wee bit. I'd take my topic, research it and prepare an informative lecture and seminar. Several of my fellow students did no such thing. One of them brought in some impressionistic prints and asked us to just look at them while he quoted nihilistic philosophy. I tried to catch somebody's eye to share my incredulity. Nope. Lots of earnest nodding and rapt attention.

So it ruined literature, art and philosophy for me. We deserve a medal. And counselling.

Forget medals & counselling, embrace the Tosh.

I proofread (read did half the fucking work) an EU project for a group of academics & when it was suggested I be acknowledged (not remunerated) there was an outcry.

Don't know much about the Jacobite Rebellion but reading the books has more appeal than what I'm supposed to be doing. Sadly my children are hogging my Kindle & saying "But Mum, you told us to tell you you've got work to do".

The first three books (and at a pinch, the fourth) are definitely the best. I have read all eight, but the story in the later books meanders all over the place and could do with a firm editor to bin large chunks of it. I keep reading to find out what happens in the end to the characters. DG is currently writing book 9, but has said that this is not the final book and that there is still much more to come.
I was very impressed at how they dealt with Frank and Claire's relationship in this first episode and look forward to seeing the rest of the series. I thought the changes from the book were sensible and explained a lot. I do wonder what they intend to do if they carry on the adaptation and adapt Book 3. Those of you that have read 'Voyager' are probably thinking the same thing. It will be a difficult book to convert to screen and retain viewer interest.

It'll be interesting to see whether the rest of the series will be set in the 18th century til the last episode or whether there'll be flashbacks in each. Also keen to see when adult Roger and Brianna will make an appearance.

I have read 4 outlander books in the past month and can attest that they are compelling and fun, although not of a high literary standard (thank god). I'm not so compelled to consume book 5, but I think it's because series 2 has come along.

I'm very much looking forward to grown up Roger; Richard Rankin is lush.

Oooooh there's a new thread!

I've read that people weren't keen on the first half of the episode being devoted to Frank and Claire, but I thought it was lovely/sad. The missing bits of Claire's life with Frank in America have always been really interesting to me. I really really hope they hop back and forth.

It was fantastic!

I was actually really enjoying Claire and Franks reunion (Tobias Menzies is a brilliant actor) and felt a sense of a disappointment when the story line flipped back to the 18th century.

Then I remembered Jamie and thought yay!

Balfe's acting skills seem to have improved slightly too (compared to the beginning of season 1)

They've made TV Frank much nicer and understanding than book Frank. I recall him being irritated and embarrassed at the start of her return. By the end of their marriage he's a racist, adulterous tosser.

I've always thought Frank got a raw deal from Outlander fans I've never understood the hatred. Seems sometimes just because he's not Jamie is reason enough not to like him.

Both disappointed in and enjoyed Ep1
Disappointed they deviated so much from the book (and I couldn't give a flying f that Diana Gabaldon approved it) I loved the start of Dragonfly and think non readers have missed something. Saying that I did enjoy it.

I didn't like the racist Frank in the books, but the affairs I could understand; all those years for both of them in a marriage that wasn't what it once was could easily end like that.

Ooh, a thread where we can talk about it. Yay!

Was a bit bored for the first 40 minutes, if I'm honest. But then Jamie! Hurrah!

The books are awful, by the way. Read up to no. 4 or possibly 5 and all I can say is Diana Gabaldon could do with a very strict editor. By the time I'd given up, Roger was the only character who I still liked. I'm intrigued to know where the series is going to take the storyline though.

I'm not a blind Jamie fan. He's deeply flawed. I don't like book Frank one bit. He was a misogynist. His marriage with Claire wasn't predicated on any belief they were equals. That was part of the draw to Jamie. A key part of his character growth was that despite the trappings of his time, Jamie did come to see Claire as an equal. He wanted Claire for who she was. Frank wanted a dutiful wife. He was unchanging, racist, misogynistic and adulterous.

If we're talking characters unfairly sketched, I give you poor Laoghaire.

Disappointed they didn't start the same way as the book.

Looking forward to Roger and Brianna.

I'm watching episode 1 at the moment and my attention is wandering.

I'm in the process of rereading the whole series on my kindle and I'm enjoying them more than I am the adaptation, even though I'm on book 6...

Can someone answer something for me? Maybe someone who's read the book... Claire told Frank that she had been with another man for 2 years - how then could he have thought that the baby was his when she first told him she was pregnant?

I thought at first that maybe it had only been a matter of weeks/months from his perspective but then later, when he goes back to tell her he's willing to take on Jamie's son, he says he was on his own for 2 years.

Then again, I'm sure he's head would be a bit scrambled.

Was he not just shocked she was pregnant as they'd never managed to conceive