“There are things that I canna tell you, at least not yet. And I’ll ask nothing of ye that ye canna give me. But what I would ask of ye—when you do tell me something, let it be the truth. And I’ll promise ye the same. We have nothing now between us, save—respect, perhaps. And I think that respect has maybe room for secrets, but not for lies. Do ye agree?”
Outlander is the popular story of Claire Beauchamp. She is woman on holiday in Scotland with her husband Frank in 1945. While there, she inadvertently touches some magical standing stones that transport her 200 years in the past, where she must navigate the Scottish Highlands during the Jacobite Rebellion. With the help of the MacKenzie clan and one James Fraser, hot Scot extraordinaire. This book review is an interesting one for me, because it is one of the few stories I have read, after watching the show/movie adaptation. This leaves me no choice, really, but to compare the two different executions and review them as a whole. Not to mention, that this is a story beloved by many and has a huge fan base. Fair warning, this one might be a little long!
First, I have to say that there are things that I love about this story and things that I dislike, both in the show and in the book. However, I do think the show is better, overall. I know! Blasphemy! But, it is true in this case. 
The show is more concise, the dialogue in many cases is cleaner and more effective, and the added bonus of seeing the scenery (and Sam Heughan) and hearing the accents just make the television series a more enjoyable experience. I have only seen the first season of the show, but I wanted to pause to read the book before starting season two. So, I really only picked up the book because of the show, and I went into it with some pretty high expectations.
Unfortunately, I was pretty darn disappointed
