<p>I just today finished “Outlander,” which I got for free on my Kindle over a year ago. I guess Amazon gave that one away to hook people in so they’d buy the rest of the series. At the moment I’m moving on to read “11/23/63” for the CC Book Club, but I’ll probably then read the next in the Outlander series. </p>
<p>IMO Gabaldon is a decent writer, but she drags some scenes out w-a-y too long. Yes sex is a part of life, but dropping in an encounter every so many pages reduces the book to a Harlequin romance in many ways. The time travel twist does keep things more interesting, though.</p>
<p>^^^^^I think a lot of people love the Outlander books in spite of themselves. There is much to criticize, but there are so many elements that draw you back. I swore I was done with the series, but I know that’s not true. I will certainly read the next installment. I’ve got to know how Lord John Grey is going to answer Jamie’s last words: “Why?”</p>
<p>Speaking of that, one thing that bothers me is how much Lord John Grey is still “in love” with Jamie. I don’t think any normal gay man would continue to have such hopeless feelings for so long, it’s a bit insulting. </p>
<p>I loved the first three books but wasn’t too crazy about the next 2 (or 3? how many are there anyway?). She did redeem herself with the last two and it should be interesting to continue to learn about Ian, Willie and some of the other new characters. I can’t remember many more names, it’s such a large series that all of that is becoming a blur.</p>
<p>They are going to start filming the Outlander TV series this fall. The series will be on STARZ in the spring. I guess I’m going to have to add STARZ to my cable channels!</p>
<p>I loved the books, only problem is Diana Gabaldon takes a long time to write, she needs to take lessons in speed writing from Kirsten Ashley (though she is a much better writer, and being historical novels they require a lot more work and effort:). Problem is I’ll probably have to go back and re-read the previous books, it has been so long:)
+</p>
<p>The books make such a big deal about Claire’s golden eyes. I wonder if they will replicate that in the actress playing her with contact lenses or something.</p>
<p>^^^I agree, but they really are in a tough position. The characters are so ingrained in our imaginations, partly due to the fact that so many books about them were written. I think it was similar to the casting of Gone With the Wind. People felt really possessive of the characters and it was possibly going to cause an uproar no matter who they chose. </p>
<p>Although I thought Vivian Leigh was Scarlett brought to life (British factor notwithstanding). Ashley Wilkes-total fail.</p>
<p>I thought the GWTW casting was brilliant, except for Olivia DeHavilland, who had the right air of gentility but not the waifishness of Melanie.</p>
<p>This girl seems reasonable for Claire–although she ought to have a big curly mass of hair, and I <em>strongly</em> doubt that they would cast someone with a sufficiently luscious ass, since Beyonce isn’t available --but the guy does not look at all like a strapping red-head with Viking ancestry and catlike blue eyes.</p>
<p>I think they will change the color Caitriona Balfe’s eyes. Imagine Sam Heughan with red hair and he’ll do. If you are on facebook, “like” Diana Gabaldon’s page and you’ll get all the updates as they come out. There are also lots of pictures.</p>
<p>Really?! Wasn’t Ashley Wilkes as written 25-ish at the beginning of the novel? And NOT British? I thought Leslie Howard was roughly 46 when he filmed GWTW. I found him supremely disappointing. But Clark Gable was great, and your comments about Olivia are spot on. Melanie was constantly referred to as semi emaciated in the novel. </p>
<p>Vivien Leigh was just incredibly perfect. Slanted green eyes, just like a cat.</p>
<p>Yup, Vivien was Scarlet indeed. I liked Leslie Howard as Ashley. If we want to talk ages and stuff, let us not forget the husbands and children of Scarlet’s that were–mercifully–dropped from the movie.</p>