The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

[chocolatetruffle]

On another note, I really hope in the show that Claire and Ian's bond is explored because I loved the scene in the book where Claire and Ian bond over having married Frasers during Jenny and Jamie's fight.  I also hope Jenny and Claire's relationship gets explored since that is a very important one.  But I always hated Jenny in the books (even the first book), so I'm not particularly looking forward to her in the show. She was just too possessive of Jamie and such a judgmental busy-body. 

 

That scene between Claire and Ian is one of my favorites in the book so I also hope they do it justice (or at least include it...).  Although I love the character of Jenny I can definitely see how her possessiveness of Jamie would grate on one's nerves.  It's a cool feature of Jamie's character that he was surrounded by two strong women growing up (his mother & Jenny).  It makes total sense that he would be head-over-heels for Claire.

[GHScorpiosRule]

GHScorpiosRule said:

 

 

 

I mentioned in the podcast thread that the episode's writer, (Toni Graphia), said that she wanted a shorter trial scene because of all that was to come with Claire and Jamie. Ron wanted the longer trial scene, yes, but neither of them said anything about him not wanting the stones scene to be longer. -- My personal frustration was that they didn't talk about the stones scene much, but they both said that they loved it in the book.  If this wasn't about the podcast comments, then my apologies. 

 

Right. I'm sorry if my original post sounded like I said that he didn't want it at all--I thought I said he cut the scenes at the Stones shorter because he wanted the witch trial to be longer; I still give him the side-eye/stink eye for that, because what is more important? The character beats? Or extras screaming "buirn da witch!" Please.

 

Y'all know where I stand on this issue.

 

And no need to apologize, it was your post about the podcast that I was referencing.

 

Okay, I'm finding I'm not liking Book!Claire at all in this second reading. It's not fair, but I'm finding myself comparing her to Show!Claire, where the latter is a lot more preferable.  

[tallyrand]

Me too! I never liked her. She was just an asshole about everything.

I really dislike her and Roger. He's just slightly less annoying.

 

Haha Roger is probably my favorite character in the later books.  I feel like Diana gave him enough faults and virtues that he feels like a real person (unlike the larger than life Jamie), and he was generally a nice and generous person.  Oddly enough, Jamie was never one of my favorites. It's odd how you can love a series and even love a couple, but not particularly like one of the characters involved in said couple.  Also, I could never really get into Lord John, which is a very unpopular opinion, I'm sure.

 

As for Book!Claire, she used to be my favorite literary heroine because she was so strong-minded and sure of herself.  She also had a hard time opening up to people and facing her emotions which I relate to.  However, she was so strong-minded that it would come across as insensitive and self-absorbed, for example, her dealings with Mary Hawkins and lack of sympathy for what Mary went through.  These qualities are in a way paradoxical to her being a healer, which is clearly her purpose in life and I always appreciated that juxtaposition.  As I got older and re-read the books, I liked her less and less. Although I still appreciate most of her qualities and she remains one of my favorite characters in the books. I think Show!Claire is a softer character in many ways (without losing Claire's confidence and strong will), partly because they have emphasized her bond with Frank more.  I really like what Caitriona Balfe brings to the role, as I think she exudes a natural warmth and strength which works perfectly for Claire.  

[bluebonnet]

I think I liked Jamie less as time went on, and I like him less as Sam H becomes my Jamie. I just got so tired of Jamie "I am a man" Fraser.  Like, everything he did had to be tinged with him marking his territory in some way, whether with words or gesture.  I didn't need to be repeatedly reminded that Jamie was a man and that men do certain things and take care of man things in manly ways.  Ugh, I hope Sam!Jamie doesn't go that way.  There were hints of it in his "I became a man" voiceover.  

 

I like Brianna very little but Roger a lot.  I probably faltered when he started to become some religious fanatic, but hopefully that's not something he goes back to.  

[lianau]

Actually, now that I think about it, Marsali is supposed to be even younger than Brianna. I could see them changing that though, since Marsali was 16 and Fergus was 30 when they got married. 

15 and I'd really like to know how that would be handled on the show .Will they age her up to make it more 21st century friendly  or go with the controversy .

[Keeta]

15 and I'd really like to know how that would be handled on the show .Will they age her up to make it more 21st century friendly or go with the controversy .

I expect they would cast slightly older just because that's normally what happens with high school aged characters on TV. My guess is the age difference won't be an issue.

[bluebonnet]

She would have to be at least old enough to be in compliance with any laws and regulations of the country or countries in which it's produced.  There are other compliance issues that go with the characters age and what sort of sexual scene is being displayed.

 

In short, laws will govern this more than the actual age of the book character.  

[Megan]

Haha Roger is probably my favorite character in the later books.  I feel like Diana gave him enough faults and virtues that he feels like a real person (unlike the larger than life Jamie), and he was generally a nice and generous person.  Oddly enough, Jamie was never one of my favorites. It's odd how you can love a series and even love a couple, but not particularly like one of the characters involved in said couple.  Also, I could never really get into Lord John, which is a very unpopular opinion, I'm sure.

 

Roger just grated with his weird obsession/hang ups about sex. His behavior after finding out Briana was pregnant after being raped was gross. He seemed more mad that someone else had sex with his woman, than the fact that y'know, she was raped. He goes on and on about how Briana belongs to him. He outright resents Jem most of the time.

 

He actually seems almost as old fashioned in regards to women's abilities and their "place" as Jamie.

 

 

 

I like Brianna very little but Roger a lot.  I probably faltered when he started to become some religious fanatic, but hopefully that's not something he goes back to.

 

I'm only on Echo and right now he doesn't want Briana to work.  If he's really going to go all religious nutjob, I'll like him even less. Maybe I am missing something, everyone else seems to love him.

 

I do like Claire a lot.  I enjoy her.

[WatchrTina]

Okay I have a speculation/hope for the next episode.  In the book, when Claire is dressing up for Quarter Day, (the day each quarter when the tenants come to the Laird's home to consult with him about the running of the estate) she laments having left Jamie's mother's pearls back at Leoch.  That's when it is revealed that Murtagh went back to Leoch and fetched Claire's things for her, including the pearls.

 

I want this to happen and here's why.  

1. We need to retrieve Claire's wardrobe.  Terry (the costume designer and Ron's wife) worked too hard on it to give it all up now and I suspect she will insist that they write that in to the story.
2. Much more importantly, I want a flashback to Murtagh confronting Laoghaire about what she did.  Preferably in front of Mrs. Ftiz.  I want the two of them double-teaming Laoghaire to let her know just what a low-down, dirty, evil, besom she is.  I have feeling Duncan (the actor who plays Murtagh) could really give us a show if given the opportunity to unload on Laoghaire.

 

Item 2 probably won't happen -- too many other things to do.  Item 1 probably WILL happen (Claire needs those pearls for book 2 so she can pawn them to provide blankets and other items for the Lallybroch men when they are imprisoned for desertion) but it will probably be explained in a throw-away line with no Murtagh-point-of-view flashback.  Sigh.  I'd really like to see him throw down on her.

Edited April 24, 2015 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

She would have to be at least old enough to be in compliance with any laws and regulations of the country or countries in which it's produced.  There are other compliance issues that go with the characters age and what sort of sexual scene is being displayed.

 

In short, laws will govern this more than the actual age of the book character.  

That they won't use an underage actress is clear but will they age the character ? I personally have no problem with the 15 -30 thing but I know how much fuss some people like to make about these things .

[bluebonnet]

That they won't use an underage actress is clear but will they age the character ? I personally have no problem with the 15 -30 thing but I know how much fuss some people like to make about these things .

This is anecdotal so someone will need to verify.  A friend mentioned to me that the rule governing sex in film are so varied from place to place that it's easier to just keep characters at the upper end up the age of consent (18) when they are going to have consensual relations with another character.  Or, to bypass, just not mention age at all with the implied assumption that everyone is 18.

 

 For Marsali, in the book, the major issue Jamie has with her and Fergus is that she's so young.  It might be easier to just introduce her as 17 with her and Ferg being married when she turns 18.  Still young, even for the time period.  

 

 

WatchrTina, it's brilliant! Fingers crossed something like this happens.  

[justmehere]

Yeah, that was my reaction as well.  It suggests to me that Ron and Toni think they did a good job of portraying the decision at the stones and expect a positive reaction from the fans.  Some people HAVE said they liked the episode but my gut says a majority of the non-book readers watched the show and went "Huh?  She stayed?  She was running to those stones calling Frank's name less than a week ago and in the interim she's been assaulted and nearly raped by a psychopath (who now knows her name and who she married), subjected to corporal punishment by her husband, and nearly burned as a witch.  And she STAYED?  Why?"  Other than talking about taking out the voice-over (which many people have said would have been a really good idea to keep in) and going to great lengths to film the shot of her looking at her two rings so as to "show, don't tell" the inner turmoil she was going through, they didn't talk at all about the difficulty of depicting such a gut-wrenching, life-altering, decision.  I wonder now if they are reading comments like these and realizing that maybe they made a mistake.

 

Ron is less sentimental, certainly, and yet he shows great sensitivity at times. His view of this episode is a bit baffling, especially because he has gotten a lot right. I liked the anecdote about Sam that Toni told, but I couldn't believe they were going on about it rather than talking about the decision. My worry now is their comments at the end -- I can't remember specifically, but I got the impression that they were done with the topic, and the characters won't have any more to say about it; Claire stayed, and that's settled. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

[Dejana]

This is anecdotal so someone will need to verify.  A friend mentioned to me that the rule governing sex in film are so varied from place to place that it's easier to just keep characters at the upper end up the age of consent (18) when they are going to have consensual relations with another character.  Or, to bypass, just not mention age at all with the implied assumption that everyone is 18.

 

 For Marsali, in the book, the major issue Jamie has with her and Fergus is that she's so young.  It might be easier to just introduce her as 17 with her and Ferg being married when she turns 18.  Still young, even for the time period.  

 

 

WatchrTina, it's brilliant! Fingers crossed something like this happens.  

 

I'm not sure what sex scenes have to do with anything, unless there's going to be a fan/viewer revolt not to see the Fergus/Marsali wedding night (do they ever get love scenes in the books? I can't recall any). Unless there's some law against portraying underage characters having offscreen sexual contact with adults, but then you wouldn't have all those TV movies about FLDS guys and teachers creeping on students... I do agree with the general idea that they might age up Marsali a few years, since Fergus is supposed to be 30 at that point, and the age difference is going to bother some viewers looking at them through a present-day filter.

[maraleia]

Full disclosure. My second great grandfather on my dads side (who came here from Northern Ireland) married my second great grandmother when he was 35 and she was 16 and this was in 1851 so it wasn't all that uncommon back then.

 

The only thing they would have to do is have the actress who plays Marsali be at least 18 and they are all set.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The only thing they would have to do is have the actress who plays Marsali be at least 18 and they are all set.

 

Exactly. Another full disclosure here--both my grandmothers, maternal and paternal, were 13, and 10 when married to my respective grandfathers, who were at least 10 years older. So there you go. Hey, it was over 70 years ago, and times were different then in India. Well, amongst the middle class anyway. But that's a rant on another subject best suited elsewhere.

 

Plus, in historicals, huge age gaps are common; to use another example for modern day television, Genie Francis was 18 to Anthony Geary's 30-something, when Luke and Laura became a hit on General Hospital, back in '77 or '78.

[bluebonnet]

I'm not sure anyone would dispute that the marriage age has been younger in the past.  Marriage ages were younger 10 years ago than they are today.  

 

The issue would be laws.  Child labor laws and such.  Then there is another issue if they ever intend to have Fergus and Marsali shown being an actual married couple.  The actress can't be younger than 18 (in most places) and in most places, they can't have the character playing younger than 18 even if the actress is 18.  Obviously they don't have to show Marsali and Fergus as a real couple nor will they have to show Marsali doing normal things like feeding her firstborn, but there is also an issue of the audience reaction.  The audience can know and accept that marriage ages differ, but in large part, western audiences prefer to see consensual couples that fall into the most widely accepted age of consent, which is 18.  Eighteen is still plenty young enough for Jamie to get all paternalistic (which he never needs a reason to do anyway).  One of the big deals will also be that Laoghaire hates everyone and she'll be raging and making the blood money payments that much more annoying to deal with.  

[Nidratime]

How old was Laura Ingalls supposed to be when she and her future husband -- and then husband -- Manny were courting and got married on the Little House on the Prairie show? I always thought she looked incredibly young, while he seemed a full grown man. Was she supposed to be 18 in the show? There are plenty of shows that have "teenage" characters in very romantic relationships, let alone sexual ones, so I don't think that would be a problem. Maybe the age difference would be, but I don't know.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh ewwww! You mean Jamie actually sired a child* that that hosebeast birthed?!

 

*Remember, I only got far as a third through Voyager and the last thing I remember was Jamie thinking about his sister, Jenny or something.  I'm a spoilerwhore, so feel free to fill me in!

[bluebonnet]

Most of those teenage shows have both characters below 18.  Vampire shows typically even have the vampire technically less than 18.  Can't speak for Laura Ingalls, though I doubt Little House on the Prairie was showing nudity on network tv in the 1970's and 1980's.  

 

But this is also why I stated upthread that someone needs to verify this as what I'm claiming is anecdotal, based on a friend who experienced frustration with his own film because he could not show certain things with a consensual relationship when one character was supposed to be younger than 18.  

Oh ewwww! You mean Jamie actually sired a child* that that hosebeast birthed?!

*Remember, I only got far as a third through Voyager and the last thing I remember was Jamie thinking about his sister, Jenny or something.  I'm a spoilerwhore, so feel free to fill me in!

 

No, Marsali is Laoghaire's child from a previous marriage, but she calls Jamie father.  

Edited April 24, 2015 by bluebonnet

[GHScorpiosRule]

No, Marsali is Laoghaire's child from a previous marriage, but she calls Jamie father.  

 

Phew! Thanks for clarifying, bluebonnet.

 

It is really very, very odd. Years ago when I finally picked up to read the first book, I'd already read over 10 books in the JD Robb series I mentioned up thread. I can't recall what the number is, as she released two a year. Anyhoo, the debate between my friends was who was the better hero, Jamie or Roarke? Even though Jamie was from 1743 and Roarke, 2059; The only thing different about Robb's series was the cool gadgetry and technological stuff; at the heart, it was still dealing with people, humans and relationships.  This second re-read? Roarke is STILL the better character/hero, to me. I know I'll be having a fine conversation this summer when I meet up with my girls, who are also loving the show. I'm finding I can't get a sense of who Jamie is as a character, and I'm up to the wedding. Well, the decision that Claire has to marry Jamie. I don't recall having that problem when I first read this book.

[AD55]

I think I liked Jamie less as time went on, and I like him less as Sam H becomes my Jamie. I just got so tired of Jamie "I am a man" Fraser.  Like, everything he did had to be tinged with him marking his territory in some way, whether with words or gesture.  I didn't need to be repeatedly reminded that Jamie was a man and that men do certain things and take care of man things in manly ways.  Ugh, I hope Sam!Jamie doesn't go that way.  There were hints of it in his "I became a man" voiceover.  

 

 

This is both hilarious and reflects my exact feelings about Jamie. From about midway through Voyager, I find him increasingly unappealing. I do like Roger, and I'm also among the tiny few who have a fondness for William. I grant he's annoying, but it's not easy to accept that everyone you're close to has been lying to you. Discovering that your father by blood is leading the opposition can't be easy -- he doesn't belong anywhere and that's a hard thing to accept when you're young. I keep wondering if he will give up the earldom (?). Roger and William are both deeply flawed and loaded with self-doubt, which I find more attractive than Jamie's confidence that he's always in the right or, at least, that being a man means acting as though you think you are. I hope that Sam's Jamie continues to be less cocksure of himself, though I'm not overly hopeful since Moore has embraced Jamie as the "king of men."

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think I liked Jamie less as time went on, and I like him less as Sam H becomes my Jamie.  

 

Egads. This is me right now. I get a better sense of who Jamie is as a character from the show than the books, and I'm picturing his face and his voice as I read.

 

And it's not like I was a teenager when I read the books I did, initially. I was in my early 30s. So I'm still trying to figure out how it was I loved Book!Jamie back then, but now I'm having a hard time trying to figure out who he is. And I keep hitting a brick wall.  I've said before that I don't like books in first person. I still don't. And I hate to keep making comparisons, but the other two authors I read (not talking about Nora here), have done a few books in first person, and with them, I KNOW who the hero is, what he's about, the characters are very well fleshed out, even though I don't see things from their POV.

 

But I have decided that I will read the entire series, and going forward, promise not to make any more comparisons! I promise!

[lianau]

How old was Laura Ingalls supposed to be when she and her future husband -- and then husband -- Manny were courting and got married on the Little House on the Prairie show? I always thought she looked incredibly young, while he seemed a full grown man. Was she supposed to be 18 in the show? There are plenty of shows that have "teenage" characters in very romantic relationships, let alone sexual ones, so I don't think that would be a problem. Maybe the age difference would be, but I don't know.

I have no idea how old she was supposed to be on the show but real life Laura was 15 and Almanzo 25 (they married when she was 18) . 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, they just got married, and it's getting better. I'm starting to recognize Jamie now. And I noticed the changes they made from the book, and I like some, but wish other stuff was translated.

 

I'm trying to figure if Jamie's Scots brogue, is noticed/said more when he's nervous/emotional/angry, etc, because Gabaldon sure can't make up her mind to have him say "ye" or "you", "scairt" or "scared" to name a couple from off the top of my head.  And since I promised no more comparisons, I won't get into another one. But it's sooo hard. And that's it for me tonight. I hope I haven't killed this thread...

[WatchrTina]

GHScorpiosRule the one that stuck out for me was in the Wedding episode when Jamie insisted that they be married in a "church" even though in episode 3 he talked about the "Black Kirk."  I'm pretty sure Scots still call them "kirks" even now so I felt certain that someone from STARZ in the USA gave that note ("Say church, not kirk or the American's won't know what it is he's demanding.")  Actually, I think that was a pretty good note because a lot of Americans would have been confused by a demand to be married in a "kirk."

[GHScorpiosRule]

GHScorpiosRule the one that stuck out for me was in the Wedding episode when Jamie insisted that they be married in a "church" even though in episode 3 he talked about the "Black Kirk."  I'm pretty sure Scots still call them "kirks" even now so I felt certain that someone from STARZ in the USA gave that note ("Say church, not kirk or the American's won't know what it is he's demanding.")  Actually, I think that was a pretty good note because a lot of Americans would have been confused by a demand to be married in a "kirk."

 

So true, WatchrTina. But I would have known, as I'm sure others I know would have, who read, or have read historical romances that have featured Scots/Highlanders!

Edited April 25, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[Nidratime]

I would not have known and I read historical romances.

[chocolatetruffle]

Also is Ep 3 they referred to the Black kirk or kirk yard, 6 or 7 times as well as having Claire refer to it as a church and ask about monks who built it.  So although I had never heard the word before I figured it out pretty quickly.

[methodwriter85]

I'm finally gotten far enough in the book- I'm at the part where they're at Lallybroch and Jamie gets ambushed and Claire and Jenny go after them.

 

I generally think that the show improves on the book, although I'm disappointed by the apparent changes they made to the reveal and decision episode.

 

Sam Heughan makes Jamie feel way more real than he does in the book.

Edited April 26, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Dejana]

Was just reading the non-book thread for the latest episode and I think the show is starting to have major problems selling the show's central love story, problems almost entirely of their own making. Because they've built up Frank, he's seen as her true love with whom she was perfectly happy. You have people who don't get why Claire is content to remain in 1743 just because she's met some hot Scottish guy, especially when she was thisclose to getting back to Frank not very long ago. From what they've seen, she was a respected professional in her own time, rather than a combat nurse pushed back into the homemaker role, now that the war was over. Why can't she take Jamie to the future, and why does he just believe her about the technology in the twentieth century? They've already had it with what a creepy sadist Black Jack is, and all the rape/attempted rape that's already been shown. So good luck to the show, stemming the revolt once Wentworth comes along, not to mention S2, if those viewers haven't bailed already. 

 

I'm not saying that every non-book fan feels that way, but it's a natural result of giving Frank more dimension than he had in the books and downplaying the appeal that life in 1743 had for Claire. And while the book series isn't complete, Gabaldon settled the Jamie vs. Frank issue for Claire back in the mid-1990s. I would sort of get it, if this was a situation like you've seen with the YA movie franchises where they are just trying to inject a little drama into the story (without undercutting the central couple), or the "wrong" co-stars have the most chemistry together, or the character that the protagonist is supposed to end up with is played by someone who was cast at a very young age and grew up to be not much of an actor, so they try to overcompensate by minimizing the number of scenes for the wooden no-talent. I see that not all fans think Sam Heughan is the strongest actor, but presumably TPTB like him and aren't going to change the story so drastically that Claire lives happily ever after with Frank. I worry that if you don't sell enough non-book people on Jamie/Claire, that it will shorten the life of the show.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Dejana

[Nidratime]

Frankly, I don't get worked up over what people who never read the books expect and how disappointed they might be because -- Hello?! -- their expectations are not the story. That being said, I'm not noticing non-readers saying that Frank was Claire's true love and they can't imagine why she didn't choose him. I *am* noticing people saying that they can't imagine why she chose to stay in such an unsafe time period with no modern conveniences or advancements for women. But, hey, I've read the first few books and *I* would've never chosen to stay in the past either and I don't even like Frank! That's not the story, though. It's not my story. It's Claire's story and it's her choice. So, the idea is go along for the ride, just as one would if you were watching a show about people trailblazing the frontier or jumping onto a ship and exploring the world or climbing into a rocket and blasting into space. I wouldn't choose to do any of those things either, but I wouldn't mind reading about characters who choose to do those things because they make mighty fine yarns.

 

Also, let's keep in mind that message boards are just a small microcosm of the audience. It's a very self-selected group and not representative of all opinion out there.

[Petunia846]

Another mistake I think they've made is downplaying the fertility troubles between Claire and Frank. The one scene in the book that turned me off from Frank was when Claire was talking to him about how nice it was that the Reverend had adopted Roger and wouldn't it be nice to adopt one of the many war orphans that there were at the time. Frank just totally shot that down and said he could never raise someone else's kid (words he obviously regrets later when Bree comes along...which I love), and no, they're going to have a biological child or none at all, which is heartbreaking to Claire. It wasn't all sunshine and roses with them, it wasn't all just historical research over tea and spying on early morning Druid dances.

[nodorothyparker]

It's not just nonbook readers though.  I'm seeing more and more discussion on this site and elsewhere from people who've read it and people who haven't who are all having trouble with all rapeyness all the time.  My husband hasn't read the books and I already know Wentworth is going to be the absolute last straw for him, and that's if I can even bring myself to watch it.  With books you can skim or skip over things entirely or put them down for awhile when something gets to be too much.  There's just no break from it with the show and with what we've seen so far, I think we have to assume there's going to be absolutely no holding back when they get to that prison cell.

 

The thing is I do sort of understand how some of this happened.  Tobias Menzies is a terrific actor.  He can clearly handle pulling off some really messed up stuff, and so they ran with it and ended up expanding both the Frank and the Black Jack roles.  Expanding Frank in and of itself wasn't a terrible idea since he's barely there in the first books but it along with some odd storytelling decisions did have the unintended result of making Claire's choice make even less sense.  But now we've seen way too much of Black Jack and he's long since passed the point of being a complete cartoon caricature of a villain well before what should his worst, most vile moments.  So it's either going to be underwhelming by comparison and fall flat (unlikely) or it's going to turn off a huge chunk of the audience, which will either bail or be forced to accept that the character isn't going to see any comeuppance and will be sticking around for season 2 to rape a child.

Edited April 26, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[WatchrTina]

ETA:  This was written in response to Petunia846: I vented quite a bit about the way the decision at the stones was portrayed (or not portrayed) but I forgive the show-runners for not being able to show us Claire finding satisfaction and contentment in many aspects of her life in the 18th century.  There just isn't time.  That same lack of time also resulted in the book's traumatic events being condensed in the TV show -- two rape attempts in one day! -- which makes Claire's life seem like she careens from peril to peril.  I sympathize with the show-runners for that necessity and I just hope it doesn't make Claire choice completely unbelievable to the non-readers.  I hope they recall that Frank and Claire had been living apart for most of their marriage; that Claire had just lived through several years worth of life-threatening traumatic events by serving close to the front lines of World War II; and that there was even a hint, in episode 101, that Frank may have been unfaithful (I assumed he was projecting when he suspected Claire of taking a lover during the war.)  It's never addressed, even in the books, but I suspect that one of the reasons BookClaire finds a level of satisfaction and contentment in her life at Leoch is because of the contrast to World War II.  Yes, she had to deal with musket wounds and sword gashes and the hopeless results of a boar attack but there will be no blitzkrieg or gas attacks in the 18th century.  There will, however, be Culloden.  I wonder if part of her motivation to stay is the hope that her foreknowledge might allow her to save Jamie -- not change history -- but perhaps save this one man from what she knows is coming.  An unsullied TV viewer could perhaps have thoughts along the same lines and there by fan-wank themselves into understanding Claire's decision.  It's asking a lot but hey, if we can accept Cylons that look just like humans, I think we can get over Claire's un-explained decision at the stones.

 

ETA to reply to nodorothyparker:  Like you, I am deeply concerned about the fan reaction to the Wentworth scenes.  I cannot recall a single TV show in which a heroic lead (a handsome, funny, charming heroic lead) has been the victim of a prolonged, sadistic, on-screen rape.  Beaten and tortured?  Sure -- happens all the time.  But not raped.  And not manipulated into a position where he has to submit, unresisting to the rape.  And not one where the assailant alternates between torture and (for lack of better words) "making love."  The only thing that even approaches it is what went down on the TV show OZ and the viewers weren't in love with the character who was repeatedly raped by Schillinger.  I gave up on OZ pretty quickly.  I really, really hope Wentworth does not provoke similar reactions.

 

But about Black Jack -- I am very curious to see how Tobias plays him and how the scene is written.  Because the book includes Black Jack calling Jamie Alex and begging him to say "I' love you" which Jamie will not do (which leads to the beating where Black Jack loses control.)  That scene might give viewers some insight into Jack's pathology and make him less of a cartoon and more of a realistic, fucked-up human being.  I don't know.  I both dread seeing it and look forward to seeing how everyone rises to the challenge in equal measure.

 

 

it's going to turn off a huge chunk of the audience, which will either bail or be forced to accept that the character isn't going to see any comeuppance and will be sticking around for season 2 to rape a child.

Well if they stick to the books we will end the season with the viewers and Jamie and Claire believing that Jack has been trampled to death by cattle, so there's that.  BTW can I just say I REALLY hope they use the shaggy red Highland cattle for that scene.

Edited April 26, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bluebonnet]

I think they could have done little things to show us just how satisfied Claire is with Jamie in the 18th century.  They can stick in scenes just about anywhere.  Like showing Claire's outright joy wauking with the ladies in Rent.  Or her short pause and inward reflection when she's gifted with a vase, which we already know she has wanted.  Or her contentment in healing the sick and injured like we see her doing before Colum decides she must stay.  These sorts of things were nearly non-existent between the time they returned from rent and the time she ended up back at the stones.  She had two near rapes back-to-back.  She had been forcefully dragged away when her hands had been inches from Frank, literally, and all while she was screaming towards him.  She had been beaten by her husband and then gone through several days of arguing with him.  She had dealt with a girl trying to get in between her marriage.  Then there is the witch trial.  

 

There is not a lot of joy or contentment outside of orgasmic sex with Jamie that we see Claire experience, especially between the time she was running full on screaming for Frank at the stones to the time Jamie brought her back to the stones.   It's not that I can't imagine Claire being happy in a place where there are no hot showers or feminine products, it's that they aren't showing me this.  Something beyond a good orgasm needs to be keeping Claire there.  I feel like everything after the stones will be colored with knowing that we hadn't seen why Claire chose to stay.  

 

Of course, things are also colored by the fact that Jamie is now a crazy person barely different than people chanting "we're going to burn the witches".  It's really ridiculous that he believes in outrageous things with zero proof.  

[CatMack]

I've said this a few times but I think mostly on tumblr (I think, sorry if it was here and I'm repeating myself). 

 

I think a big part of the pacing problem has to do with the midseason break.  They knew there was going to be a hiatus, they decided Jamie at the window was the cliffhanger they wanted, and everything else had to be structured around that.  We had to draw out the things in the first half of the season, giving a lot more time to Frank and Black Jack among other decisions, so that we could end up at that window at the end of episode 8 and not a moment sooner.  And now we have to cram everything else into the back half, and if that means character beats get shortchanged so the plot can happen, well tough, they only have 8 episodes to take Jamie and Claire from that window to the abbey.  

 

There's still room for improvement even within individual episodes.  I absolutely think Ron was dead wrong to extend the trial at the expense of more time at the stones.  That is a completely baffling decision I will never understand.  But overall I think the pacing problems can all be traced back to the hiatus dictating how long it took to get to certain plot points.  

 

I'm hopeful that this will improve next season.  I forget which interview it was, but Ron pretty much confirmed a few weeks ago that season 2 won't have a midseason hiatus.  Ron Moore is also one of the few showrunners who I've seen willing to admit when he was wrong and something didn't work (he did it a couple times during Battlestar Galactica) so I have at least some hope that he'll listen to the more mixed reviews these last few episodes have gotten and will take it into account when making writing and editing decisions going forward.  

[chocolatetruffle]

There is not a lot of joy or contentment outside of orgasmic sex with Jamie that we see Claire experience, especially between the time she was running full on screaming for Frank at the stones to the time Jamie brought her back to the stones.   It's not that I can't imagine Claire being happy in a place where there are no hot showers or feminine products, it's that they aren't showing me this.  Something beyond a good orgasm needs to be keeping Claire there.  I feel like everything after the stones will be colored with knowing that we hadn't seen why Claire chose to stay.  

 

This!  There should have been more time taken at Leoch.  They could have started the episode with Claire confronting Leghair about the ill-wish.  Then either cut to a VO montage of Claire & Jaime settling in to married life at Leoch or a short scene of domestic bliss, during which the summoning and changeling scenes also happen.  Then we have the good morning sexy times/Duke has arrived scene and off we go to that part of the story.  They could have trimmed some of the Dougal/Colum/Duke stuff (and cut the Arthur Duncan flatulance scene) to make time for the additions.

[nodorothyparker]

Well if they stick to the books we will end the season with the viewers and Jamie and Claire believing that Jack has been trampled to death by cattle, so there's that.

 

Which is a cop out and not one likely to fool many.  It may have been sufficient when it was written back in the '90s, but most TV viewers by now are jaded enough to know that if you don't specifically see someone die they may very well not be dead and will likely turn up at the most inopportune moment.  Throw in the fact that none of our players who have been repeatedly victimized by this cartoon monster, particularly Jamie, have any hand in exacting any kind of vengeance and it just comes off looking very weak for all concerned.  I know that even now, 8 books later, we still don't know exactly how Black Jack did die so anything's possible, but  TV seldom has that kind of patience. 

 

I agree that a huge chunk of the problem in all of this, from pacing to the storytelling that would have made Claire's choice believable, was the break and deciding that HAD to be taken at that window.  Without spending a fair amount of time considering it, I'm not sure where a better place for the break to have occurred would have been so I won't pass judgment on it other than thinking that it's made for a horribly rushed second half.

Edited April 26, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[chocolatetruffle]

Also take into consideration that a large part of Ep 10 wasn't in the book and from next week's preview 

much of what happens there isn't from the book either.

 Ultimately, the second half didn't need to be as rushed as they made it.

[CatMack]

Definitely true.  It's not all the midseason break's fault.  I just think that skewed the basic layout of the entire season and they were working at a disadvantage from that point on.  They could still be doing a lot better though.  

[AD55]

Without spending a fair amount of time considering it, I'm not sure where a better place for the break to have occurred would have been so I won't pass judgment on it other than thinking that it's made for a horribly rushed second half.

 

When I first heard there would be a midseason break, I assumed episode 8 would end with Jamie leaving Claire staring at the stones. By about episode 4, I realized they hadn't left time for that and figured they would end with Claire kidnapped by Randall.

 

ETA. In Outlander world, eventually every female character is either raped or threatened with rape. I don't think the series is any worse in this regard -- the truncated format just makes it seem worse. I don't see how the showrunners could have cut any of the rapes, though they might have avoided two attempted rapes in one episode, as DG sets up the book so that the plot revolves around these incidents. It drives me crazy in the books and it's what I dislike most about the series.

Edited April 26, 2015 by AD55

[Petunia846]

I agree so much with you guys talking about the season pacing. So much. Most of episode 6 wasn't in the book either, and other than the actual conversation with Randall, I don't see how the added material have had any impact on the rest of the season. Same with the Frank scenes in episode 8, though they at least did character work for one of the main characters.

[methodwriter85]

It drives me crazy in the books and it's what I dislike most about the series.

 

Yeah. That's why I asked earlier if Brianna ends up getting sexually assaulted/raped, and then surprise, surprise- she does indeed get raped! I'm surprised Roger or William haven't been. I would definitely be shocked if we see Amanda in her 20's and she DOESN'T get raped.

 

I'm getting towards the last couple of chapters of the book and man I'm scared at these Black Jack scenes. LOL.

Edited April 26, 2015 by methodwriter85

[bluebonnet]

Yeah. That's why I asked earlier if Brianna ends up getting sexually assaulted/raped, and then surprise, surprise- she does indeed get raped! I'm surprised Roger or William haven't been. I would definitely be shocked if we see Amanda in her 20's and she DOESN'T get raped.

 

I'm getting towards the last couple of chapters of the book and man I'm scared at these Black Jack scenes. LOL.

Roger does get nearly murdered every other chapter.  William, too.  Probably Young Ian, also.  I think it also starts to happen to Bree around the same time.  It's like, nearly murdered is suddenly exchanged for definitely raped.  

[methodwriter85]

Yeah, like I said, the advertising for the show was basically "Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman: Highlander Edition." I was basically expecting a romantic historical drama with more graphic sex, but this was a lot gritter than I expected. And Claire and Jamie live FAR from happily ever after.

[tcay]

The "nice" thing about the book is since it's all Claire's POV, you don't witness the rape. There are a lot of disturbing hints--you find out his injuries and there are details about his condition that are upsetting, but there is never a full recounting of what happened. 

 

I really, really hope the show does not linger on those scenes. From this point on I'm not really excited to see more episodes. Just dread!

[Keeta]

The "nice" thing about the book is since it's all Claire's POV, you don't witness the rape. There are a lot of disturbing hints--you find out his injuries and there are details about his condition that are upsetting, but there is never a full recounting of what happened. 

 

I really, really hope the show does not linger on those scenes. From this point on I'm not really excited to see more episodes. Just dread!

 

Ugh, I know! I'm hoping we'll still get some good moments next episode, but after that... not looking forward to Wentworth.

[WatchrTina]

 

The "nice" thing about the book is since it's all Claire's POV, you don't witness the rape.

I listened to the end of the book during a long drive last weekend and, alas, we DO witness the rape.  Jamie feels the need to unburden himself to Claire so he tells her EVERYTHING.  The details of the rape go on and on.  He does it to try to make her understand why he cannot come back from it, and he encourages her to go back to Scotland, to the stones, to Frank.  Then he begs her to leave the room because he's going to be very very sick.  It was heart-breaking to listen to.  Not looking forward to seeing it.

[nodorothyparker]

There's more than enough with all the details he tells Claire and what we get throughout the rest of the series in dreams and flashbacks.  And I think we can all assume at this point, given that the show made the whipping so much worse than anything I might have envisioned in its efforts to show and not tell, that they're going to play it for all its worth.  I think assuming anything less at this point will be setting myself up to not be able to make it through.

[AD55]

The "nice" thing about the book is since it's all Claire's POV, you don't witness the rape. There are a lot of disturbing hints--you find out his injuries and there are details about his condition that are upsetting, but there is never a full recounting of what happened. 

 

I really, really hope the show does not linger on those scenes. From this point on I'm not really excited to see more episodes. Just dread!

 

Based on the interviews I've watched, Moore et al are planning to film Wentworth in all its horrific glory. DG has said she's never seen such brave performances from two actors. In interviews, Moore reported that they didn't feel they could shy away from those scenes. They've filmed the other violent assaults as flashbacks as the characters relate what's happened. I'm not looking forward to it. The homophobia bothers me more than anything -- the predatory gay man is a damaging cliche, and I do think we're meant to think of Randall as gay since he can't perform when he's trying to rape Claire and Jenny. He's not just turned on by violence because he rapes Jamie even though Jamie doesn't fight back.

 

Someone in the no book thread mentioned that Outlander has 2 stereotyped gay men -- the prancing Duke of Sandringham whom we know has pursued young men who aren't interested and Black Jack. I've always suspected that DG created Lord John in response to critics who took her to task for her appalling portrayals of gay men.

 

Moore has mentioned that both Frank and Black Jack have been traumatized by war, and he has BJ tell the story of the young soldier who was beheaded, which I don't think is in the book. I don't recall any hint that either man suffers from PTSD in the book. I think that was Moore trying to find a rationale for BJ's violence other than his being a psychopathic gay man.