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

[Glaze Crazy]

Jamie does try to warn Bird by telling him his women (Claire and Brianna) had dreams or visions of the Trail of Tears. He frames it in a way that Bird accepts as prophesy. He suggests that some (people/groups?) may choose one way while others might choose different.  I think, by now, Jamie and Co. have mostly accepted that the big stuff can't be changed but smaller/individual stuff can be. So, for the people they know and have interaction with, they do what they can.

Again, with the Native Americans, the activist that goes back in time further than Donner gets killed by the people he's trying to "enlighten" so they already know that pushing too hard can have negative effects.

Jamie also makes a comment at some point about the Declaration of Independence and which men will actually be "free", that it won't include the NA or the slaves. I think there are several places over the books where inequality among different peoples and genders is addressed. Including when Brianna is being held by Bonnet and shown off for future sale to creepy old men who don't care who she is. She realizes as a women in that time she has no agency for herself.  Claire also has a few times where she sees this happen also. Women who get kidnapped in the back country and sold into prostitution, that Phaedre might have been sold off for "reasons", herself when she gets taken for trial.

This is no doubt a YMMV situation.

[morgan]

I see what you all are saying and I totally get it when Catmac for example says she wants to see more characterization with the slaves rather than them as props.  But honestly I am wondering how much of that could be done considering the plot and focus of the story.  Could giving more time to develop the characters of background players make the story richer and better when they are already working with a lot of book and very few episodes?  

[lianau]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Claire did indeed buy a slave, but not exactly intentionally, as I recall. She kinda started a bit of a riot at the slave market and Jamie was basically forced to buy the slave for her. I believe she legally freed him, though. Isn't that how Brianna found out Jamie and Claire had been in Jamaica, she found the papers Claire filed to free him?

 

Jamie and Claire discussed their options. First Claire wanted nothing to do with him , then send him back to Africa . After realizing that he would never make it to Africa she wanted to free him but Jamie pointed out that with only  one arm and no usefull skills other than knowing how to cut sugar cane, he'd never make it on his own and would likely starve . They settled on trying to find a place for him on Jared's plantation . In the end he went with the black sailor (I'm blanking it on how he got on Jamie's boat , maybe with the pirates  but I'm not sure ) and lived with other escaped slaves .

I think Brianna found out that  Claire bought a slave , not that she freed one.

[peacefrog]

Well I'm sure not many will agree with me but IMO Voyager has the least amount of stuff in it, especially the last part. It's a pretty straight forward story and appears to be easy to streamline. 3 parts, years apart, reunion/lallybroch, voyage.

Edited July 1, 2016 by peacefrog
Typo

[CalamityBoPeep]

On 6/30/2016 at 7:57 PM, Glaze Crazy said:

 

I hope the show runners don't feel pressured to make adjustments to the story for political correctness. Of course, they can cut a lot of chaff in the attempt to tighten up some stuff and a lot of this might get cut for that anyway.

Personally, I hope they cut the Willoughby story entirely because it was farcical, unnecessary, and only served to make the book fatter. I felt like the only reason it even started was to get Jamie and Claire on the move so he wouldn't have time to tell her that he'd married. It could be cleanly excised with no damage at all to the overall exploration of the relationship of Jamie and Claire and how they've changed over time. Someone said it earlier... Willoughby was part of the plot to teach Claire acupuncture to cure Jamie's seasickness. The rest of that particular plot was unnecessary. As was the whole murder mystery plot. But, I guess if they took it all out, they might be able to fit the season into 13 episodes without shortchanging the Jamie and Claire moments, and we probably can't have that.

The part with Campbell's sister (forgotten her name, at the moment... Margaret? maybe... it's been a while) served to bring the voodoo ceremony into play, and allow us that scene where Bree gets channeled and speaks to Jamie... which really gave me chills. It was pretty awesome, so I'd love to see them keep it. But I'll bet Ron dumps that bit, since he seems kind of reluctant to explore the mystical stuff more than he has to.

Edited July 2, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep
Spelling matters

[Keeta]

8 hours ago, CalamityBoPeep said:

Personally, I hope they cut the Willoughby story entirely because it was farcical, unnecessary, and only served to make the book fatter. I felt like the only reason it even started was to get Jamie and Claire on the move so he wouldn't have time to tell her that he'd married. It could be cleanly excised with no damage at all to the overall exploration of the relationship of Jamie and Claire and how they've changed over time. Someone said it earlier... Willoughby was part of the plot to teach Claire acupuncture to cure Jamie's seasickness. The rest of that particular plot was unnecessary. As was the whole murder mystery plot. But, I guess if they took it all out, they might be able to fit the season into 13 episodes without shortchanging the Jamie and Claire moments, and we probably can't have that.

ALL OF THIS. I think the writers are capable of making Willoughby "work" (enough), but ultimately I just don't care about that story element and think it's completely unnecessary. 

[lianau]

5 hours ago, Grashka said:

 

 

Regarding homosexuality - I'm not sure which character is supposed to have enlightened views and how, since not many people are actually aware Lord John is homosexual. Back then in the army it was considered a crime punished by death (DG drives that point home several times). I'm not even sure his brother Hal is aware.

No doubt in my mind that Hal know about his brother's sexuality . I mean he made John look at Hector's body after Culloden  , protected him during the almost scandal that send John to Ardsmuir and the entire passage in book 8 about how John somehow ended up raising Fraser's son and marrying Fraser's wife  . Or even Hal's reaction to Percy's resurrection , that nobody dies that conveniently .

[Athena]

I don't want Willoughby in the show either. Maybe the show will improve it, but it honestly made me wary and annoyed when I read it in Voyager. I am Asian and the character made me uncomfortable. I could see where DG tried to make the character more complex, but it came off as forced. A lot of the interactions Willoughby reminds me of yellowface such as the Mickey Rooney character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. What was the point of the character? To introduce Claire to acupuncture? There are a lot extraneous characters in these long epic novels, but I definitely think he was one of my least favourite.

[Archery]

Moore and Co. seem pretty ruthless cutting stuff for time so if it doesn't advance the plot, or can be condensed, that's what they'll do.  I think they will see Willoughby as more problematic than helpful and reduce his role to a walk-on -- if they think it's important for Claire to have the acupuncture needles.  They'd have to give Willoughby a slow burn to make his mannerisms, eccentricities, and speech palatable.  I don't think they'd spend that time for no payoff.  

As a black person, I don't think I would mind if they included the slavery bits, as long as it's done authentically.  It is was it is (was).

[CalamityBoPeep]

19 minutes ago, Archery said:

Moore and Co. seem pretty ruthless cutting stuff for time so if it doesn't advance the plot, or can be condensed, that's what they'll do.  I think they will see Willoughby as more problematic than helpful and reduce his role to a walk-on -- if they think it's important for Claire to have the acupuncture needles.  

Since they haven't really had any focus on Jamie's seasickness, I think it's safe to say they don't even need to have her learn acupuncture. I can't think of a future story line that uses it. Maybe in one or two surgeries over the next 5 books? But still, they have other ways to deal with the need to kill pain.

Edited July 2, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep
Because three "really"s in two sentences is ridiculous.

[Andorra]

Ron Moore told some fans at a football game last week, that

Spoiler

Willoughby will appear in S3. 

[morgan]

Well damn.  Well will be curious what he does.  

[Keeta]

Well that's rather disappointing. Oh well...

[CatMack]

The one time I liked Willoughby was at the end, when he actually acted like a real person with his own motives. Revealing he betrayed Jamie essentially because of Jamie's racism (giving him a white name, treating him with condescension and a lack of respect). It's one of the few times racism has consequences for the people perpetuating it. If they can write him as an actual person for his entire run, instead of relying on racist stereotypes for most of it, then I'm much happier with them keeping him and fixing the problems with his character, rather than cutting one of the very few non white characters from the books who actually gets to affect the story and do more than make Claire feel horrified and guilty. 

[morgan]

I could see how they could tweak the character and hopefully they will.  They have certainly tweaked others to make them more palatable (hello Fergus!  Love book Fergus but boy how they changed some of the more controversial parts of him).  

[CatMack]

They've fleshed out a lot of side characters from the books, which is why I have hopes for a lot of the upcoming side characters who were iffy in the books. 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, CatMack said:

The one time I liked Willoughby was at the end, when he actually acted like a real person with his own motives. Revealing he betrayed Jamie essentially because of Jamie's racism (giving him a white name, treating him with condescension and a lack of respect). It's one of the few times racism has consequences for the people perpetuating it. If they can write him as an actual person for his entire run, instead of relying on racist stereotypes for most of it, then I'm much happier with them keeping him and fixing the problems with his character, rather than cutting one of the very few non white characters from the books who actually gets to affect the story and do more than make Claire feel horrified and guilty. 

I actually liked the character of Willoughby because I felt like that's exactly what the point of him. To me, Willoughby was a bunch of stereotypes from the other character's POV--showing their own racism--but it was clear to me he was far more than what others were seeing and was sort of playing along with their expectations. I actually think Diana was sort of subversive with this character.

This is one of those things that might actually translate to screen better than it did in the book. The right actor can make all the difference, but it's probably easier to see there's more to Willoughby when you actually see him.

[CalamityBoPeep]

I hope y'all are right. The side characters are getting fleshed out well, so far, so there's that. They can handle Willoughby well, if they put their minds to it. It'd be kind of interesting to see him handled like John Steinbeck wrote Lee in East of Eden. 

Spoiler

(The Chinese cook who knew everything that went on with the main players, and served a hugely satisfying role. Racism surrounded him, and he played into it, allowing people to not see him, but he had the most insight of all the characters, and you knew his "Chinese-isms" were faked.)

 

The idea that he might be included does give me pause though, since it means we wouldn't be spared the farce. It'll end up being Plot, Plot, Plot again, with no time for reveling in the fact that our pretties are back together.

Oh well. I'm enjoying the show, for the most part. I do treasure those moments when we see the connection of Jamie and Claire shining through. And I still have the books. Seriously, though... I want to see Jamie going to pieces over the pictures. If we get that before the farce starts, I'm good. LOL

Edited July 2, 2016 by CalamityBoPeep
Added Spoiler tag for those who haven't read East of Eden

[morgan]

Yeah I can't see them going Mickey Rooney/breakfast at Tiffany's with no thought or twist to it.  At the same time, I could so easily skip him completely no matter how he is handled.  

[AD55]

3 hours ago, CatMack said:

They've fleshed out a lot of side characters from the books, which is why I have hopes for a lot of the upcoming side characters who were iffy in the books. 

I have hope, in part on the basis of Battlestar Galatica, that Moore and company will be more alert to how race is handled. In general, I don't believe  questions related to race, class, and even, weirdly, gender genuinely interest Gabaldon all that much. She made a comment on her twitter feed to the effect that you don't have to call yourself a feminist to be a strong woman, which is why she rejects the word. Well, yes, there have always been women who have overcome sexism to do remarkable things. As a scientist, Gabaldon herself is one of them. The problem with that attitude is that it ignores the fact that women and people of color shouldn't have to be twice or three times as smart, ambitious, and talented to be afforded the same opportunities. I am thinking of people who believe racism no longer exists because a black president was elected. Uh, no.

Of course, writers don't have to be interested in everything, but as CatMack points out, "if you're only going to focus on your core group of characters and not flesh out anyone else, then maybe don't make one of your recurring locations a slave plantation.  Because one of the unintended side effects of Gabaldon's refusal to spend any time or nuance fleshing out these non white characters is that people of color become props to her white characters."
 

Quote

 

I actually liked the character of Willoughby because I felt like that's exactly what the point of him. To me, Willoughby was a bunch of stereotypes from the other character's POV--showing their own racism--but it was clear to me he was far more than what others were seeing and was sort of playing along with their expectations. I actually think Diana was sort of subversive with this character.

This is one of those things that might actually translate to screen better than it did in the book. The right actor can make all the difference, but it's probably easier to see there's more to Willoughby when you actually see him.

 

While I am not sure I agree that Diana was subversive with this character (or at least, not intentionally), I agree with you about POV and the right actor being able to introduce complexity to the portrayal of Willoughby, DittyDotDot. That's an advantage television has over a first-person book narrative.

[mary2013]

Didn't Jamie tell Claire he gave Mr. Willoughby an English name because his Chinese name sounded like something very crude in Gaelic? 

[Haleth]

I wish Willoughby would be left out too.  The interactions between him and the Frasers are cringeworthy.

As far as changing his name, Jamie renamed Fergus too.  So there's that.

[Athena]

17 hours ago, Grashka said:

Ha! Lee from East of Eden was the first character that came to my mind when I was reading "Voyager" for the first time, wishing Mr Willoughby has been written in a different manner. I loved Lee and his backstory was one of the most memorable and heartbreaking I've read about...what happened to his mother haunted me for a long time.

East of Eden was one of my favourite novels. I loved Lee too. If show!Willoughby is like Lee, I'll be very pleased.

I do not necessarily agree that DG was being subversive about Willoughby. It's not like Jamie or Claire or anyone else was particularly contrite. If DG used it as A Very Special Lesson on How to Treat Orientals, then it didn't work for me. I do think DG has done well with her Native American characters and some of her African American ones so it's not like she can't write POCs.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, Athena said:

East of Eden was one of my favourite novels. I loved Lee too. If show!Willoughby is like Lee, I'll be very pleased.

I do not necessarily agree that DG was being subversive about Willoughby. It's not like Jamie or Claire or anyone else was particularly contrite. If DG used it as A Very Special Lesson on How to Treat Orientals, then it didn't work for me. 

That's not what I meant. I just think Diana was trying to have a discussion about race, just not in a straightforward and/or typical way. I think it was entirely purposeful how Willoughby appeared to as a stereotype to others because they weren't seeing him as a person, but as a Chinese man. I think she was pointing out how, even though the Scots are being unfairly treated and judged by the English simply because they were Scots, the Scots were also unfairly judging and treating people of other races, too. Almost everyone in this book is unfairly judging another based on nothing other than race rather than seeing the individuals themselves. 

I also think it's purposeful Diana doesn't fill in many of the slaves and other background POC in the books for the same basic reason. Claire and Jamie take a great dislike to slavery, but they also don't try to change the system or get to know any of these people. It's not about the people, but the idea of it all. I think it was a prevailing attitude towards slavery by people who didn't own slaves at this time. They didn't like the idea of slavery and chose not to participate in the practice, but they also didn't do anything to stop the practice. Plus, just because they were against slavery didn't necessarily mean they wanted a bunch of free black folk living next to them. I think Diana is purposefully using Jocasta and her plantation as a way to point out that it's easy to stand up and say slavery is wrong, but it's another thing to actually take action and/or live by those principles.

Edited July 3, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

That's not what I meant. I just think Diana was trying to have a discussion about race, just not in a straightforward and/or typical way. I think it was entirely purposeful how Willoughby appeared to as a stereotype to others because they weren't seeing him as a person, but as a Chinese man. I think she was pointing out how, even though the Scots are being unfairly treated and judged by the English simply because they were Scots, the Scots were also unfairly judging and treating people of other races, too. Almost everyone in this book is unfairly judging another based on nothing other than race rather than seeing the individuals themselves. 

I also think it's purposeful Diana doesn't fill in many of the slaves and other background POC in the books for the same basic reason. Claire and Jamie take a great dislike to slavery, but they also don't try to change the system or get to know any of these people. It's not about the people, but the idea of it all. I think it was a prevailing attitude towards slavery by people who didn't own slaves at this time. They didn't like the idea of slavery and chose not to participate in the practice, but they also didn't do anything to stop the practice. Plus, just because they were against slavery didn't necessarily mean they wanted a bunch of free black folk living next to them. I think Diana is purposefully using Jocasta and her plantation as a way to point out that it's easy to stand up and say slavery is wrong, but it's another thing to actually take action and/or live by those principles.

You have some non-book readers who think Gabaldon giving Claire a strong knowledge of botany was too convenient for the story and think she's a "Mary Sue" for it. I could only imagine their reactions if she and Jamie started up an abolitionist society or were shown to have a historical role in furthering along the anti-slavery cause. Given what happened with Culloden and how it sometimes seems like their efforts may have inadvertently brought it about, who knows if Claire wouldn't have set back the repeal of slavery 50 years if she'd done more to help? I didn't read these stories expecting Claire to go charging into the past all Harriet Beecher Stowe or like Hermione Granger with S.P.E.W. In any time, there are outliers, but people are generally products of their culture and environments. Yes, it's always possible for people to have held a more progressive perspective on this or that issue and some people did, but if it were so easy for everyone to have held the "correct" view at the time...then, they would have, and history would have played out differently.

I've seen a few comments about Diana Gabaldon prefaced by "as a white woman", but when first starting the series and seeing her name and photo and where she was from, that was not my first thought. A quick search shows her to be of Mexican ancestry on her father's side, though being from Mexico wouldn't necessarily preclude a person from being white as well. It doesn't really matter to me, but I don't know how she identifies racially.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Dejana

[Andorra]

Quote

A quick search shows her to be of Mexican ancestry on her father's side, though being from Mexico wouldn't necessarily preclude a person from being white as well. It doesn't really matter to me, but I don't know how she identifies racially.

Actually she denied being of Mexican ancestry recently on twitter (about a month ago). She says that is one of the wrong things that reappear all the time in Wikipedia no matter how often she deletes it. She is actually of Spanish ancestry. 

[Dejana]

57 minutes ago, Andorra said:

Actually she denied being of Mexican ancestry recently on twitter (about a month ago). She says that is one of the wrong things that reappear all the time in Wikipedia no matter how often she deletes it. She is actually of Spanish ancestry. 

Interesting, thanks for the info!

Edited July 3, 2016 by Dejana

[bearcatfan]

6 hours ago, Andorra said:

Actually she denied being of Mexican ancestry recently on twitter (about a month ago). She says that is one of the wrong things that reappear all the time in Wikipedia no matter how often she deletes it. She is actually of Spanish ancestry. 

Probably because almost anyone can edit Wikipedia and someone is convinced that she is of Mexican ancestry. DG and this person have probably been going back and forth for years!

[maraleia]

12 hours ago, Athena said:

East of Eden was one of my favourite novels. I loved Lee too. If show!Willoughby is like Lee, I'll be very pleased.

I do not necessarily agree that DG was being subversive about Willoughby. It's not like Jamie or Claire or anyone else was particularly contrite. If DG used it as A Very Special Lesson on How to Treat Orientals, then it didn't work for me. I do think DG has done well with her Native American characters and some of her African American ones so it's not like she can't write POCs.

I think Diana has a limited world-view like lots of white Americans do and that shows up when she writes POC characters as you said Athena. Also, it's Asians not Orientals.

[Athena]

10 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

That's not what I meant. I just think Diana was trying to have a discussion about race, just not in a straightforward and/or typical way. I think it was entirely purposeful how Willoughby appeared to as a stereotype to others because they weren't seeing him as a person, but as a Chinese man. I think she was pointing out how, even though the Scots are being unfairly treated and judged by the English simply because they were Scots, the Scots were also unfairly judging and treating people of other races, too. Almost everyone in this book is unfairly judging another based on nothing other than race rather than seeing the individuals themselves.

I understood your viewpoint  and I concede that Diana may have tried to have some sort of discussion about race. However, the execution did not work for me. We will have to agree to disagree on this and hope the show does a better job of interpreting the character.

32 minutes ago, maraleia said:

Also, it's Asians not Orientals.

As an "Oriental", I don't like the term either and I was using it ironically given the time period. ;)

[maraleia]

43 minutes ago, Athena said:

I understood your viewpoint  and I concede that Diana may have tried to have some sort of discussion about race. However, the execution did not work for me. We will have to agree to disagree on this and hope the show does a better job of interpreting the character.

As an "Oriental", I don't like the term either and I was using it ironically given the time period. ;)

Got it.

[Archery]

I can't speak for the Asian pov, obviously, so I can only hope for the best with Mr. Willoughby (who, to be fair, didn't bother me as much as he could have, because I interpreted him as being intentionally subversive -- like The Spook Who Sat By The Door).  But with respect to black characters, I typically just want them to be authentic -- not Good, or Bad, or Trying To Make A Very Special Point, but someone who could conceivably act a certain way in a certain circumstance, even if I don't agree or don't like it.  Under that perhaps very low bar, few of DG's characters stand out to me as bothersome.  I do think there is an advantage to bringing these problematic characters to the screen, though, as actors of color may be in the best position to imbue the character with the three-dimensionality that a white author might not.  That is, actors might develop backstory or motivation, or slide away from more troublesome aspects because of their own life experiences as a people of color, resulting in a fuller characterization.     

[asp]

Emigrants names and surnames were frequently changed upon arrival at Ellis island, to make them sound more English, why would it be any different in 18th century Scotland? Especially if Mr. Willoughby's Chinese name meant something dirty in Gaelic?

I love Mr. Willoughby and think he is a fantastic character.

Edited July 5, 2016 by asp

[morgan]

I think having the title in first person really throws me off because it immediately makes me think of Claire. Are they leaving the Ridge?  Sad if so.  With the war I wonder if it's William and Lord John heading back to England?  But that doesn't really seem to make sense.  

Now the real question...when will it be out?

[ElsieH]

I think it's a little odd. Her titles have gotten longer and longer, which never bothered me all that much. But this is a complete sentence, doesn't seem much like a title to me (compared to "Outlander" for example). At any rate, I take it as coming from Claire too, and if talking to bees is a custom when someone particularly dies, hmmm. Might be ominous. Or I'm just reading too much into it.

[morgan]

Not just dies...born, dies, comes or goes.

[DittyDotDot]

Didn't Diana once say she thought the story would end in Scotland? Perhaps it is just that they're leaving the ridge, in the end?

The title does sound rather ominous, though.

[AheadofStraight]

Morgan - I believe I've seen her say that the publisher is pushing for her to release the book along with the season 3 premiere of the show.

I've also seen people refer to it as GOBEE in homage to MOBY.

[morgan]

So about a year from now or thereabouts?  Maybe?  Interesting, I didn't know that about ending in Scotland.  

Is it wrong that I just want them to live a happy life for the rest of their days on the Ridge?  Sigh.  Totally unrealistic I know.  Wouldn't make for much of a book, let alone two.  But I would still love reading about them facing the regular daily challenges of life.  

[morgan]

Oh interesting about the flowers and the date!  I have read all the big books and many of the others but until the show I never spent any time in the fandom or even noticing any interviews with Diana so I feel completely out of the loop.  I didn't even know about the show until a couple of months before season 1 started!  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm not wedded, if ye will to this series in the buiks as most of ye ken. BUT. If the last two buiks do head in the way that ye all have been speculating? All I ken is that I dinna, and that is DO NOT, want to see

Claire and Jamie's deaths happen on the page[/i]. I want it done "off screen." And because I do, I know it won't happen that way. So not looking forward to that part.

[AheadofStraight]

17 hours ago, morgan said:

So about a year from now or thereabouts?  Maybe?  Interesting, I didn't know that about ending in Scotland.  

Is it wrong that I just want them to live a happy life for the rest of their days on the Ridge?  Sigh.  Totally unrealistic I know.  Wouldn't make for much of a book, let alone two.  But I would still love reading about them facing the regular daily challenges of life.  

She has another recent comment on CompuServe saying a year, 18 months most likely. Who knows :)

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I think having the title in first person really throws me off because it immediately makes me think of Claire. Are they leaving the Ridge?

Okay I'm restating a bit of speculation I've posted before.  Remember when Jamie was given the Ridge?  The Governor really needed men with Jamie's qualities (a leader, a laird, someone who could attract settlers and run tenant farmers in an effective manner.)  Because of that he just "overlooked" the fact that, as a Catholic, Jamie was not allowed to receive a land grant in that colony.  That has been hanging over Jamie's head ever since.  I guessed long ago that some arsehole with an attorney was going to try to nullify that land grant and that the cure was going to be the assigning of the property to Roger, echoing the plot point years ago when Jamie had to "give" Lallybroch to Jenny's son, wee Jamie.  I've always assumed that this is the reason Roger and Brianna were married by a Protestant minister in a very public way, and that it was one of the reasons why Diana had Roger nearly become a Protestant minister.  I assumed it was so that Roger was unimpeachably NOT Catholic (despite having a Catholic wife) and so he can hold the land.  Based on this new title, I'm now thinking that in order to ensure that legal maneuver works, Jamie & Claire can no longer live on the Ridge; they leave and Claire tells Brianna, "Go tell the bees I am gone."  It will be sad if I'm right.

[morgan]

Very interesting there, WatchrTina!  I've wondered about that land grant too but I think I tucked it away in the back of my mind and pretended it was all settled.  But maybe not.  

Wondering if Jamie and Claire do end up back in Scotland, where would they go?  What would that look like?  What about Jenny?  Ian?  Would Roger and Bree really stay behind?  Hmmmm....

Going to hope for Christmas 2017 for the book then and if it comes earlier I will be so excited.  Hopefully not much later.  

As for seeing them dying on page, part of me doesn't want to but most of me needs to.  I will weep...will downright ugly cry.  But I need to know how they end.  

Edited July 6, 2016 by morgan

[WatchrTina]

If you have not read "Dragonfly in Amber" or don't want to be reminded of the ending in advance of the last episode of season 2 avert your eyes now.

I'm an idiot.  I know I should put the book down and come to the finale episode without the book fresh in my brain but I have no self control AT ALL so I just read the last 18th century chapter in the book.  In a restaurant.  Tearing up and snuffing like an idiot, in public.  In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably also mention that I'm the teeniest bit drunk. On bourbon.  Because.

Oh. My. GOD that good-bye scene.  If we do not get the "Lord, ye gave me a rare woman, and God! I loved her well" speech I will fucking riot.  It won't be very effective, all alone in my apartment, but I will RIOT.  And we need slow, tender, nekkid goodbye sex; followed (in the morning) by fully dressed, up against the wall, urgent, last-chance, goodbye sex.  Mark me, it's important!  (They can skip the carving of initials in each other's hands if they have to skip something.)

God.  This book.  This show.  

Edited July 7, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

Yeah, that might have been a bad move, WatchrTina.  I don't blame you though, it's hard to resist.  I am keeping my book on the shelf until after, I just have to. The show will be different, I just feel it in my gut.  I think their goodbye will still be intense and heartwrenching, but it won't be that same scene.  

Usually I sneak-watch the new eps on Saturday morning upstairs in bed when I wake up around 6.  I don't tell my husband (he's up by 5) I just act like I haven't seen it at all when we finally watch it together later that day.  I've already informed him that I will be watching downstairs on the big tv first thing, with my bowl of kashi and box of tissues.  I'm going to watch with an open mind and a positive outlook and just let whatever happens happen.  Can't wait!!!!!!!  I am trying to refrain from picking up the book till Sunday or Monday to resist that immediate comparison.  So hard to do. 

[AheadofStraight]

@WatchrTina, based on these comments from Diana, I think ye might want to set expectations low, lass. FWIW, Diana, yes I *do* think they should spend some time on the 2 people who are the point of the show. How many minutes did we see Claire and BJR last episode?! (This was Diana's response to someone saying that in the GIFs she saw, J&C were fully dressed so she's worried there won't be the love scenes at the end.)

Quote

Spoiler

Um...y'all have _seen_ the pace of the season so far? And y'all do realize that they're fitting the _entire_ framing story from the book into this last episode, besides the events that lead up to Jamie and Claire's farewell?

And yet you seriously think that they're somehow going to spend fifteen of their 90 minutes in watching Claire and Jamie take each other's clothes off , make wedding-night-style love to each other all night and put them on again?

Don't get me wrong; it's a beautiful, riveting, emotional episode. But It Is Not Like It Is In The Book, and unless y'all are deliberately setting yourselves up for an orgy of griping and whining afterward (not that I think _you_ are, B <g>, but I do get that impression now and then from the overall tone of remarks...<cough>)...I'd really advise y'all not to dwell on all the details you _want_ to see ahead of time, because...that's not how it works.

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by AheadofStraight

[Petunia846]

I'm sorry, but that comment from Diana makes me want to throw something. I'm starting to really hate how condescending, she and the producers can be about how we feel about the show. Like we're not allowed to have feelings and be disappointed? If we're disappointed there's something wrong with us? Yes, actually, I do expect them to spend at least 15 minutes out of 90 on, you know, the central, integral relationship between the main characters of the whole series. Geez.

[Petunia846]

I'm definitely excited to see Bree and Roger, but I feel like there's a lot of that framing device that could be streamlined. I was going to say a lot of the rest of the season could have been streamlined too, but I actually think they did a fairly admirable job with it this year. I think I just miss the breathing room they had first season with 16 episodes. Ironically, it's the first season where I feel like they made bad choices in what to cut back on and what to expand, and I think some of those decisions cascade over into this season. For example, the amount of BJR we got this season was probably actually exactly the right amount, but it grated on me because of how much extra BJR we got last season. Same for Frank.

Maril gives me hope. She seems to embrace the love story aspects more than some other people do.

[morgan]

I think this is why I have such different expectations, even trying not to have expectations, of the finale.  I hadn't read that from Diana, but going by what they have shown us on the show I definitely am just hoping for something heartfelt but def not long.  There is a frenetic/rushed feel right now, I don't see them stopping time to give us what the book does.  

I love the show, I love the books more.  After last season I live by what Diana says and remember I still have my books. Honestly I have such strong scene/character visions from reading the books that oftentimes seeing the scenes played out on screen disappoint me anyway, at least till the 3rd or 4th viewing when I start seeing them through my show-eyes vs my book-eyes.  At which time the two are completely divided, they are just different and I accept their differences.  The point is I rarely really get exactly what I want it to be, what my personal vision/expectation is.  Even if it's verbatim.  (For example when Claire tells Jamie she is from the future...the delivery is so different! ).

I do feel for those who are non book readers because they are getting a very different story/shortchanged.  But I also have realized that fellow book readers and I often read/interpret the books so differently too.  So same words read, but their story is different than mine.

I compare to GOT.  I'm a non book reader of GOT with no intention of reading them.  I do read the book readers threads and see how they are compared, favorable and unfavorable.  I'm sure bookreaders think I'm shortchanged, and maybe I am.  I'm definitely not as engaged with many of the characters that they are.  I tend to like the ones no one else does.  But I'm good with that, and maybe non outlander readers are too so maybe I shouldn't care about them.  

2 more days!!!!!