I appreciate your opinion, even though we disagree.

Good point. But how else would I indicate that I am discussing only the series, not the books. I also say: "I am speaking strictly about the television series, not the book, since we all agree the two should each be judged on their own merits."

I am discussing how the series itself progresses, not the book. To me, series and books are almost, by this time, completely separate. It is now Moore's "Outlander," not Gabaldon's. I am criticizing how Moore develops his story on its own merits. Why would this be a waste of time?

Thank you for your response. I am watching to see how the mistakes occur, to see how to avoid making these kinds of mistakes in adapting historical fiction. My interest is in criticizing this sort of thing, not creating it. I wish Moore had done a better job of it, but I will admit it is rather interesting to observe…

I think we are meant to see that something is being done to weaken a carriage wheel while the writer/director credits roll, just before the episode itself begins.

I was surprised to see that both the newbie comment thread and the expert comment thread for the most recent episode of "Game of Thrones" had over 2200 posts in them, so far. Maybe AV Club thinks two reviews and two comment threads are not necessary for "Outlander" because there are far fewer posts on its comment…

I found myself asking similar questions. Why is the reveal about Black Jack Randall as well as the restoration of Jamie and Claire's marriage so unsatisfying in Moore’s “Outlander”?

I thought he was perfect also, both impish and impudent.

Would you call this historical fiction? That's how it's labeled everywhere I look.

I think it's a valid criticism (and so did Aristotle).

Just stop. No need for name-calling.

Missed this reply of yours. Let's get at this a better way. I do not understand why Moore, if he can do whatever he likes, does not create any truly admirable women in Season 2 besides Claire and Mother Hildegard and her staff.

Then it's time to stop. That's all I'm saying.

Why are there no women in Moore's Paris that seem admirable, besides Mother Hildegard and her staff? Why so few admirable women?

Because, as YOU say, he is doing something entirely different with the series from what she is doing in the novels. You are the one who insists that he does not have to follow the novel in his adaptation.

Why should there be no equal to Claire in the story?

I think we'd better stop here. I could do that, but it would tax you.

I am sorry to have taxed you. Seeing as how that is the case, thanks for being such a good sport.

Why NOT married: Moore can invent anyone he wishes to reside in his Paris, as he is not bound by Gabaldon's novels, as he has shown.

No, that is the point precisely. If we are to judge Moore's accomplishment alone—because he does not adapt Gabaldon's book but does his own thing—why cannot he make better characters than she does who are women? He thinks he has done that with Black Jack Randall, after all. He invented the fellows who invade…