<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about this–how old are Jamie and Claire by now (meaning the end of the latest book–is that 8?). </p>
<p>SPOILERS</p>
<p>Claire was 27 when she first went back in time, she stayed a few years so she was maybe 30 when she went back to her own time? Then 20 years until she goes back to the past, and she has been there 6 or 7 years (how old is Jem in the last book–at least old enough to go to school). So she has to be close to 60–how much more is going to happen to her?</p>
<p>I loved the first few books, but I have to say that my interest started to flag as time went on. Endless descriptions of diapers and nursing. And I’m not a fan of Bree’s. And all that agonizing about the Buggs, and Lizzie and the brothers and on and on. I don’t even remember half of what happens. I haven’t read the latest book yet, although I plan to. If anything, I am inspired to reread the first two. :)</p>
<p>Yes I think Written in My Own Heart’s blood has them at about 60. They’re grandparents several times over. Still getting busy every chance they have, however, on blankets tossed on the ground, potting shed tables, wherever…pretty unrealistic as Claire never complains about her back aching after a night on the hard ground, she hops up in the morning like there’s nothing to it even at her age. Maybe she is so good with the herbs she can make her own ibuprofen.;)</p>
<p>Just remembered a Daphne Du Maurier time travel book that I liked very much - The House on the Strand.</p>
<p>Lol we can’t believe Claire gets it on so much at 60 and she has no aches and pains but we believe she traveled through time twice </p>
<p>I guess making out with Jaime has an anti-aging effect.</p>
<p>^^ Hahaha!!</p>
<p>Speaking as a person born in 1953…we’re not dead yet!</p>
<p>Diana is 62…just saying…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not picking on you, Snowdog, but just in re-reading this about it being “unrealistic” to have sex so much at that age, as though traveling through time 3 times (I forgot about a trip, maybe more) was something more “realistic” than a 60 year old couple still sexually active! LOL!</p>
<p>My mom and I used to talk about All My Children animatedly, and my stepdad, would finally interrupt, saying, “OMG, who are you talking about who’s been married 8 times and is now pregnant with their step nephew’s son’s baby?” We’d die laughing, not at him, but at ourselves for acting like these were real people we were actually mad at for their various immoral escapades. </p>
<p>I was watching Outlander with DH, and at one point I said, “Oh, like they would really use piss to set dye in cloth!” He said, “yeah, like a lady really walked through a stone and landed in Scotland in 1743 right as her husband’s look alike ancestor just HAPPENED to be riding by!” :D</p>
<p>They really did use urine to “fix” the dye in wool, Nrdsb4! That wasn’t my problem with that episode- the fact that the event was moved far up in the time line and wasn’t done at Lallybroch DID bother me! to me
The whole show is “off”. Padding the story to include gratuitous sex (the event in the ruins of Castle Leoch…), the police pics of the “Highlander” and Frank going off in the rain to meet strangers who could take him to the Highlander, Frank meeting little Roger without Claire Roger present (there goes her eventual line when meeting Roger when he’s all grown up), Claire’s “capture” while heading back to the stones (and Frank’s parallel venture). None of the extra embroidery adds anything to the story and it’s dragging it down.
After loving these books for over 23 years, this is precisely why I never wanted to see them on the screen.</p>
<p>I’m 54 and I wasn’t talking so much about the 2x nightly sex in book 8 (although I admit that’s not my life lol) as doing it here there and everywhere with sleeping on tavern floors and campsites thrown in. One night in a tent and I can barely move but then again - I’m not a time traveler either!</p>
<p>I take your point completely nrdsb4 and agree, also was an AMC fan for years and am happy to suspend disbelief with a good story. Sometimes it’s little details that help keep that going for me. I don’t think it would take away from Claire to admit that at 50+ most younger men are not going to be looking appreciatively at ones décolletage (one of DG’s favorite notes) or for Claire to admit that her backside hurts after a couple of rounds on the ground with Jamie. But that’s me. </p>
<p>Or that she doesn’t feel like having sex all the time…but I guess it is Jamie. I think Claire is about 62 at the end of book 8 and Jamie 57.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree, and so does Diana Gabaldon, who said she loved the parallel story of Frank. Because she made the choice to tell Outlander completely from Claire’s point of view, she was unable to do that. Might explain why she changed that in the ensuing novels. </p>
<p>I agree though, that if one is so attached to a story that they cannot tolerate any changes to a screen adaptation, with their time constraints and poetic license, and that it is just going to cause the viewer to become ultra critical and upset, it may be best to keep the story in one’s imagination. I, on the other hand, and enjoying the show immensely no matter that they make changes I might not have made. They’ve made some beautiful changes too, as in the scene where Claire drops the ring and it falls into the floorboard crack, and the ending image of her looking at both hands with wedding rings on them. Brilliant!</p>
<p>I actually loved the parallel at the stones with Frank. </p>
<p>I did too, Consolation. The music during that scene alone made my heart ache and race. I’m looking forward to the Outlander soundtrack being released.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wondered if there were some scenes with Roger that didn’t make the show because I thought the edit missed the mark where Roger is concerned. There’s little chance that this was Frank’s introduction to Roger, and chances are Claire also met Roger during their visits. It also appears that Frank is staying with Rev Wakefield. I think it left Roger’s identity rather ambiguous to non-Outlander readers. I even read tongue in cheek speculation that he was Rev Wakefield’s and Mrs. Graham’s love child. We could still get a flashback to him though. </p>
<p>I don’t agree that it’s all that critical that Claire say “My how you’ve grown” to Roger later. It really doesn’t play a critical part in the story at that point, it’s just a nice little line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it was a really ingenious idea and very powerful as well. I imagine DG would have no problem admitting that she wishes that she’d thought of it herself. Of course, because the whole book is Claire’s version of events, it couldn’t have been written that way.</p>
<p>^^ Later on she writes from other characters’ points of view. She could have done so in Outlander if she’d wanted, although I think it’s better in book 1 that she didn’t.</p>
<p>^^^Of course there are limitations when you write it in first person. But advantages as well.</p>