Funny isn't it that the English and Scottish view of Charles is often polar opposite? At high school, we were taught one year by a very gentile English history teacher and the next a very proud Scot and the difference in their perspectives of the Stuarts was marked.

He is icky but according to a number of English historians (the Scots tend to be a little more forgiving), he was a foppish, cowardly, inexperienced somewhat egomaniac who led his brave guerilla fighters to a pointless death and, as we all know, destroyed the Highland culture as a result.

From your laptop to god's ears………

Anyone but me imagine this material in the hands of Joss Whedon? Claire would be a heroine female CEOs would aspire to and Jamie, in the hands of both Heughan and Whedon, would be a hero for the 21st century.

Oh lord. The Sarah Michelle/David/James crazy all over again.

The die hard fans will never leave, but the more casually interested probably left after Claire snarked at Jamie for hiring a pickpocket. That was the low point for me. How many more times can this woman scowl about nothing?

Although you'd have to concede that a key component of bodice rippers are the rapetastic scenarios. I got sick of the exhausting number of potential rape scenes in both the book and the show. Poor Claire could scarce sneeze without some brigand, Scottish or English, trying to put his hand down her bodice. It got…

I'm prepared to beg……or The Walking Dead.

Ah, gotcha. I don't really follow the social media/vile PR world of the show so I'm a bit of a lost fawn when it comes to being quietly manipulated by the evil TV Empire.

…or playing swords with Dougal/Murtagh.

….also when he's kilt wearing.

…and NOT a silly show when Sam Heughan removes his shirt….then it's deathly serious.

I have no experience of it but can imagine it bewitches the sufferer at some unexpected times.

Who are the three trolls?

But that's pretty typical bodice rippers - the rapetastic sex scenes. I thought the Jamie/BJR scenes were handled very well or well as they can be in this medium. The book was better in that explained how BJR burrowed into Jamie's psyche and affected his view of hiimself and his relationship with Claire.

I take issue with using PTSD as a device by Moore to refocus the story back to Claire. It's seems tawdry and opportunisitic and that, ladled on top of Claire's already incessant moaning and scowling, was more of Moore's (say that in a hurry!) harpyish Claire tedium.

Your somewhat florid responses notwithstanding, I don't think anyone here is saying that Outlander is entirely without merit. Far from it. Most people here, except for you, are trying to engage in rational, objective debate where we all share opinions and unpick their various merits.

I've read your post 12 times and can't tell if it's serious or snarking. Just to declare my hand: I'm a white collar professional from Australia, the veracity of which becomes clear if you click my name and see my previous not-at-all-Starz-related posts. Also, not male.

Mine too but only because I've found the rest of season 2 a bit boring and too un-Jamie!

Now that I reread what I wrote it does sound hopelessly pompous. I think it a bit ridiculous to intone darkly about writing that has never set out to be, and has no pretentions to, "great literature", not that I'm even sure what that means. In Gabaldon's case, it's not even great storytelling as, post book 2, the…