You may have heard of Outlander, a little tale of time travel and kilts that spawned, oh, several dozen sequels, and a TV series that's headed into its sixth season. Being a fan of time travel stories, I agreed readily when my wife wanted to watch it, and we quickly became hooked.
Also, I love the Bear McCreary score.
Naturally, that led to reading the book. It's a long book, and I'm told the first novel is the shortest of them.
But it shares with the series a gift for detail, which should satisfy history buffs even as the story rolls along fast enough to keep the casual reader entertained.
Claire Randall is a World War II nurse, reunited with her husband, a history and genealogy buff, at the end of the war. They're vacationing in Scotland when they discover an isolated circle of standing stones, not uncommon in that country. It's the kind of thing you shouldn't visit again right after a group of white-clad women do a spooky dance inside it, but Claire is the curious sort.
Next thing you know, she's right back in a war again, this time between the English and the Scottish ... in 1743. Women are second-hand citizens, Claire has the healing powers of a witch, and there's some guy who looks exactly like her husband threatening her at every turn.
Oh, and then there's James Fraser, that redheaded muscle man in a kilt, who's as close to being the perfect man as the 1700s could produce. From the moment she dresses his wounds ('cause he's an awesome warrior man, don'cha know), fate keeps bringing them together, until she finds herself torn between her past life, which is in the future, and her present life, which is in the past.
Outlander is a slam-bang adventure, a hot (heavily R rated) romance, and a meticulously researched historical novel. I found myself fascinated by the detail: Diana Gabaldon clearly did her due diligence, but doesn't overwhelm the reader with so much detail as to make the story boring. Her characters are well drawn, and there are plenty of twists to go around. Just keep in mind that many of those twists are on the violent side, and on at least one occasion the sexually violent side.
Yes, I plan to read the other novels, although considering the size of my present reading list, I'll probably have the TV series finished, first.
This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.
@c-squared runs a community witness. Please consider using one of your witness votes on us here
Yeah, that TV series is on Netflix and I was concidering to watch it ( being time travel and all) but then I read the description. That says basically the same as you do - one timetravel, and after that its all fighting and romance and more fighting, and probably drinking if its genuine scottish.
Talking about time travel, I now have finished watching Timeless. The ending was somewhat conclusive, but not fully so. And it was not a TV movie, just a normal episode. Or has that movie a different title? I cannot find anything on Netflix.
The finale of Timeless aired the next winter and was titled "The Miracle of Christmas Parts 1/II":
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8776744/?ref_=ttep_ep11
I wonder if it just hasn't been added to Netflix yet, for some reason? sigh I miss Timeless ...
There is more time travel later on in the Outlander TV series (and I assume in the books), but it doesn't start until later on--and meanwhile there sure is a lot of romance and plenty of fighting, and they don't go short on the drinking! Overall the series is about a 20th Century woman trying to adapt to a very different past, but her romantic life is a large part of the tale. It's just that her love life is complicated not just by two men, but by one of them being her husband who hasn't even been born yet! I like both history and time travel confusion, so it's the thing for me.
Ah, thanks for the info on Timeless! Or that follow up movie, rather. No, its not on Netflix, it seems. May be they still bring it later, who knows. The politics behind the rights of films was always a mystery to me. Sometimes they show one or two movies out of a franchise, but not the remaining ones. Or they only show some stuff for a certain limited time.
Oh well, there is always enough other things to watch anyway. I cannot keep up with it all even if I try. But at times I wonder myself about my choices. May be you remember a TV show called Quiz Taxi NYC? I like it for some reason, dont know why. Sad isn't it? Its 10 years old and always the same - but its entertaining.
But I do find something new at times. The movie Highwaymen for example was not bad. About 2 Texas Rangers (Costner/Harrelson) that chase down Bonnie and Clyde, may you have seen it? Not exactly a new story, but well made.
Quiz Taxi! I looked it up, and it's the same show as the version I've seen over here, Cash Cab, except that one takes place in Las Vegas. I don't usually watch quiz shows, but only because of a lack of time--I caught Cash Cab a few times and thought it was a pretty interesting concept. I assume one is a spinoff of the other, or someone's getting sued!
Yes, Cash Cab New York City is the proper name, Quiz Taxi is the German version. I forgot, sorry.
I don't quite understand why I'm watching this. As I said, its basically always the same, just with different people and different questions. Some of which I don't have a clue about, because they are very specifically American. And yet its kinda interesting to see how the people do in the game.
In general, I don't watch game shows. With very few exceptions may be. There was one on German TV some time ago called "The Thingy from the Roof", perhaps you had a American version, too. It was a weird concept: people would send some item to the TV station, and a group of celebrities in the studio had to guess what these items are, what its used for ect. Sounds simple, but you wouldn't believe what strange items there are - especially if they are a bit older. That was quite interesting, to guess what it is myself, rather than watching what they guess.
I suspect a lot of game shows would be way more fun to participate in than to watch. There are exceptions: There was one called Match Game, in which celebrities would hear a sentence, then fill out the last word--usually with something from the gutters of their minds. It was fun to watch because they picked people with fast minds who were fun to listen to.
As for why we watch them ... I just don't know. Sometimes it seems like there's a horrified fascination.
Well, yeah... especially the part where you win the money would be more fun if you do it yourself, rather than watching someone else win. :)
But if the questions are a bit interesting its already a good start. Something better than "Which Rapper published the album XYZ in 2004?"
And yes, there is this factor of "will they make it?", especially also in Cash Cab. I guess we all have a certain perception when we see people the first time, and we make assumptions about their personality, intelligence ect. I guess thats also part of it.