October poll results

Here are the results of the October poll, which asked the question, "How long have you been reading Diana Gabaldon's books?"
  • 21.11% - 2-5 years
  • 17.50% - Since OUTLANDER was first published.
  • 15.02% - 20+ years
  • 9.91% - 5-10 years
  • 9.75% - 15-20 years
  • 9.18% - 10-15 years
  • 7.86% - 1-2 years
  • 3.52% - 6 months to 1 year
  • 3.22% - Less than 6 months
  • 1.75% - I haven't read any of Diana Gabaldon's books, but I've watched the OUTLANDER TV series.
  • 0.25% - I read excerpts of her work on Compuserve before OUTLANDER was published.
  • 0.93% - Other

There were 3,662 responses to this month's poll, which is very impressive! Thanks very much to everyone who participated.

I didn't vote in the poll myself, but it's been almost 11 years for me. I discovered OUTLANDER in November 2006. You can read the story here if you're interested.

Please take a moment to vote in the November poll, which asks the question, "Would you go through the stones, if you could?" Thanks!


Mary Tormey said...

hi Karen I was first introduced to the Outlander series by a friend who works at my local Barnes & Noble and knew I loved Historic fiction , beginning with read "Gone With The wind ' in HS , then moved on to Jane Austen , so she told me the series would be perfect for me so I took the first books and read them by the time I got to "Drums of Autumn ' I was hooked ,Diana is a wonderful writer and am so glad I found this wonderful series , can't wait for Book #9. please post more soon. Sincerely.

laine said...

How did Jamie lie to Claire as she accused him of doing? She quoted his words to him from their wedding night about how there was respect between then and respect has room for secrets but not for lies. The technicality of a "lie of omission" doesn't hold because how is that different from a "secret"? Not only that but Jamie was stumbling toward telling Claire about Laoghaire that first night together when she stopped him, saying there would be time later and he was all too happy to postpone a revelation he feared might drive her back until their own relationship was better cemented. And then in the TV version, he had commenced telling her when his second family made a premature appearance thanks to Jenny's unforgivable meddling. (Not enough is made of this betrayal by Jenny instead of letting Jamie defuse the situation in his own way. Jenny threw the stick of dynamite trying to blow up his relationship with Claire).

So I ask again, where was the lie and how does Claire get away with being so holier than thou making Jamie apologize when there was no lie? He told her she was the only one he ever loved and that was the plain truth. She believed him readily when he told her he never loved Geneva. The same went for Laoghaire.

Anonymous said...

I think the “lie” was that he said he never fell in love with anyone else. Claire, like most women, connect marriage with falling in love. So he said he never fell in love with anyone else. But there he is, married to Laoghaire. He tells her he isn’t in love with her but I don’t think anyone, let alone Claire, would say “ok then” and drop it. In the book she is so upset that she can’t think straight, she was irrational even. If I recall correctly, she was even angry he didn’t chase her down when she fled (he was busy being shot) and she admitted it was her ego that was bruised (or something like that). Also keep in mind the anger of 20 years apart. I think the angry sex (attempt) was symbolic of their utter anger that they both missed out on all this time.

kkilgrow said...

I enjoy reading your review and then watching the episode again. Thank you for sharing what your keen eyes see.

I agree with you on the casting of young Joanie. Choosing that gem of an actress was excellent. The writers did a wonderful job with her script and she delivered her lines with a bubbly personality and later with sincere love for her Da. It has been too many episodes since Jamie had relaxed to the point of smiling from ear to ear. Even in the reunion scenes, he did not have that kind of joy on his face. The scenes with Joanie explained to me why Jamie would marry Claire's enemy. The writers did an superb job showing this without using words.

Now for why Laoghaire was repulsed by Jamie in bed in the series is still very confusing. His financial and manual labor explanation is understandable for her to have him as her husband. My question is, "Why would she not bed with him after the marriage?" She lusted after Jamie throughout the series?" Then in this episode she comes to kill Claire not Jamie. When she shoots him accidently, she attempts to run to him with caring - love on her face only for Claire to turn her away. In the book, she had not seen him since she was a teen. I can understand how her feelings could have cooled after that long of a period and only wanted his support not his love. Also, the book let us know that she did not feel needed by him. And the book tells us of the fetch seen by Jennie at the wedding. It would be a bit creepy for her to bed with him after hearing of this event. During the series she is yearning for his love from the beginning and many years after in the "Fox's Lair" episode. Then she is cold in Jamie's bed after the marriage. The writers end it with her trying to get to Jamie and comfort him with her love after accidently shooting him. Will we ever have clarity on her change of attitude towards Jamie's bedding in the series?

I truly appreciate all your work. Thank you.

Powered by Blogger.