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

[Athena]

This topic includes spoilers and information from all the books. Please proceed with caution if you haven’t read any or just some of the books. You can speculate and analyze both the show and the book series as a whole. For specific book discussion, check the individual book threads. Please use spoiler tags when discussing TV spoilers and unpublished works.

 

Some useful links: Diana Gabaldon's page on the series, Chronology, and Family Tree.

[WatchrTina]

Some people have complained that TV!Jamie seems small compared to Book!Jamie.  I think that may be due to the fact that we almost never saw Jamie standing up in the first episode.  The actor is quite tall (6'3" according to IMDB) and I think when we see him standing next to some smaller actors his size will become more obvious.  The actress who plays Claire is 5'9" but when you see them in close-up two-shots he doesn't look six inches taller than her -- probably because of the way the shot is framed.  I'm looking forward to a nice long-shot in the main hall of Castle Leoch where it becomes clear that Jamie towers over a good many of the men in the castle.  But they'll have to leave Dougal out of that shot.  Grahm McTavish is 6'2".

[auntlada]

Dougal's pretty tall himself, isn't he?

[Petunia846]

Yeah, I read that Sam is only an inch shorter than what is mentioned in the book as Jamie's height. The person who wrote the article thought the problem of Sam seeming too small was really that all the other actors were too tall to be average people of 200 years ago. Claire also seemed to be wearing some kind of clogs or something, so that probably made her a bit taller in this episode than she will be later. I think Dougal is supposed to be almost as tall as Jamie but not quite, so I guess that's acurate.

[Glaze Crazy]

I believe Jamie and Dougal are about the same height/size.  In one of the later chapters, which I hope they film/show, they match off for a display of sword fighting which is described as impressive due to their similar size and both being left handed.  I don't know if the left handed thing is going to be part of this story though.  TVJamie had his sword in his right hand in the first episode.

[peacefrog]

Douglas is supposed to be tall! Most of the MacKenzies are.

 

Someone mentioned in the Sassenach episode thread about Claire's narration sounding like she was talking about the past.  This is a great observation and I'm sorry I could not find who said it.  I'm wondering if we will get that "tone" the first and (hopefully a) second season. It could be part of the big "game changer" reveal about Dragonfly In Amber.

 

Edited to add: correct about left handed. At one fan event they revealed that Jamie will be ambidextrous due to the actor being right handed. 

Edited August 3, 2014 by peacefrog

[WatchrTina]

So now I want Dougal & Jamie to have that "I am not really left-handed" exchange from The Princess Bride.  Okay, maybe not.  

 

It will be interesting to see how they handle Sam's right-handedness vs. Jamie's left-handedness.  Sam is going to have to stage fight a LOT in this series and that can be dangerous so if he's going to do it with his left I hope he's training hard.  Masie Williams (Arya of Game of Thrones) is doing her sword-work left-handed despite being right-handed in real life, but she hasn't been called upon to swing a broadsword against a grown man the way Sam will be called upon to do.

 

Where it's really going to come into play is the climactic scene between Jamie and Black Jack Randall.  Which hand is going to suffer in that scene?

[TOWTooMuchTV]

One word: ROGER. Okay, more words. Where was wee Roger?? I know he has been cast so I assume we will see him at some point, but later on it's really rather important that Claire has met him, however briefly, isn't it? He is one of my favorite characters, so I was very concerned.

[Glaze Crazy]

I was also waiting to see wee Roger napping in the chair but I can fan-wank that Claire has other opportunities to encounter him as a child when she comes back in 3 years, since she spends a little time in Scotland before going home with Frank.  Or, since Frank remains in contact with the Reverend, she would undoubtly know about him even if she never met him as a child.  I can see where this bit of plot was not a critical point to include for the sake of screen time.

 

It's Jamie's right hand that "suffers" from Black Jack in the book with it being pointed out that, in fact, Jack did not do the real damage to Jamie that he thought he was doing since Jamie is a left handed swordsman.  I wouldn't be surprised if this whole detail is somehow reworked to accomodate the actors.  Of course, there is also the fact that Jamie tells Claire that he was forced to learn to write with his right hand so he is in fact somewhat ambidextrious, as peacefrog said above.

 

I think about these books too much.  LOL.

[TOWTooMuchTV]

I was also waiting to see wee Roger napping in the chair but I can fan-wank that Claire has other opportunities to encounter him as a child when she comes back in 3 years, since she spends a little time in Scotland before going home with Frank.  Or, since Frank remains in contact with the Reverend, she would undoubtly know about him even if she never met him as a child.  I can see where this bit of plot was not a critical point to include for the sake of screen time.

I suppose. I could have lived with 20 seconds less of each Claire/Frank sex scene (especially the jumping on the bed) for a minute to meet little Roger. But then, this is a cable series...

[TOWTooMuchTV]

I can't remember, when does he first call her "Sassenach" in the book? It felt random and out of the blue when he just did it at the end of the episode (re-watching now). 

[Athena]

I can't remember, when does he first call her "Sassenach" in the book? It felt random and out of the blue when he just did it at the end of the episode (re-watching now). 

 

I looked it up to confirm, but he calls her this a lot in the first book. It's mostly starting when they get to Castle Leoch. It's teasing at first like in the episode, but it becomes an endearment as time passes.

[Petunia846]

I agree about calling her Sassenach as this point feeling a bit odd. It wasn't until later at Leoch in the book. Oh well.

 

I was the one talking about the voice overs, and yeah, I was thinking about the set up of Dragonfly too, how she's telling the story to Bree and Roger. The first book's first person narrative is kind of similar, but obviously we don't know who she's talking to, maybe just to herself. The first two books are so different stylistically from the rest, I want to hurry up and get on with this season so we can see TV versions of the rest of the books. I'm not at all impatient...no...definately not.

[TOWTooMuchTV]

I agree about calling her Sassenach as this point feeling a bit odd. It wasn't until later at Leoch in the book. Oh well.

 

 I was thinking about the set up of Dragonfly too, how she's telling the story to Bree and Roger. 

I thought it was later. Not a big deal, but just seemed shoehorned in here with no explanation. 

 

Wouldn't it be a great season ender and transition to the next season, if it does turn out that she is talking to Bree and Roger?? And that is revealed in the finale? For unspoiled non book readers, that would be an amazing twist, the same way we all experienced it reading the beginning of Dragonfly. It's definitely a different perspective than in the book. She is telling this story from some point later on, not just narrating as it happens.

[WatchrTina]

 

I can't remember, when does he first call her "Sassenach" in the book? It felt random and out of the blue when he just did it at the end of the episode

It didn't bother me at all.  The way Sam manages to purr that word just warms the cockles of my . . . heart.  He can say it any time he wants as far as I'm concerned.  And of course it nicely book-ends the episode -- Claire says it at the beginning and it is also the episode title so I'm happy to hear him saying at the end.

 

I will be very happy, however, if Caitriona is never obliged to utter the words "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ" again.   She had to say it twice in the first episode and it felt forced and unnatural both times.

[peacefrog]

http://outlandertvnews.com/2014/07/rory-burns-joins-the-outlander-cast-as-young-roger-wakefield/ 

 

There will be a wee Roger!  I'm impatient also to get further along in the series, I want to see who the cast as grown Roger!

 

Claire's Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ did sound forced. That's a result of them playing to the fans I guess.  I for one have no problem if they veer from the books, I would love to be surprised at some point.  

[WatchrTina]

Okay I will confess that I watched the episode about five times this past weekend and there is one continuity gaff that I have a hard time getting over.  When Claire trips and falls while running from the redcoats the top button of her dress pops off and the neckline gets torn -- well and good.  But how did that tumble magically remove the leather belt around her waist and her wrist watch?  She's quite clearly wearing a modern bra.  I have to assume she is also wearing stockings and garters like we saw earlier in the episode (though perhaps no panties the saucy minx).  Did they magically fall off when she fell too?  I did hear something rip when Black jack reached up under her skirt so maybe we can explain that away but it's a stretch.  I wonder if we are going to see anyone react her strange undergarments when she changes clothes at Castle Leoch?  I don't recall that being addressed in the book.

 

Oh well, as long as I'm talking about continuity gaffs -- Claire walks into the hut in daylight, fixes Jamie's arm, and walks out 5 minutes later into full night.  It's raining quite steadily in the close up when Jamie struggles to cover Claire with his plaid.  Cut to the next shot as the horses start walking -- no rain.

 

See what watching 5 times will do?  The two-week wait for the next one is just going to kill me.

[peacefrog]

WatchrTina I hear ya! I've only watched it once on my phone because I just could not wait.  I am saving my obsessive watching until after the official premier, so I can't really comment on many details but I will keep an eye out!

 

I do hope there will be many non-book readers joining the discussion.  I'm going to be annoying my husband with questions about what he thinks about each scene to get his reaction.  

 

Does anyone think any new characters for the tv show will be created?  Kind of like a mixture of minor characters rolled into one?  Also does anyone think any character might have their life extended beyond that in the book?  

[Petunia846]

http://outlandertvnews.com/2014/07/rory-burns-joins-the-outlander-cast-as-young-roger-wakefield/ 

 

There will be a wee Roger!  I'm impatient also to get further along in the series, I want to see who the cast as grown Roger!

Your link didn't work when I tried it. Can you try it again. I can't say Roger is my favorite secondary character (after Jamie and Claire), that would be Young Ian, but he's certainly up there. I'm entirely optimistic about future seasons, so this is important stuff. *wink*

 

I don't think they'll change anything about major characters, and I can't think of any real minor characters in the first book that could be rolled into one or who died. In later books maybe, but who knows. I don't know how they're going to deal with all the different points of view we see in the later books. Especially the last one it seemed like it was someone new every other page. I guess that'll make life easier for Cat.

[Dejana]

Okay I will confess that I watched the episode about five times this past weekend and there is one continuity gaff that I have a hard time getting over.  When Claire trips and falls while running from the redcoats the top button of her dress pops off and the neckline gets torn -- well and good.  But how did that tumble magically remove the leather belt around her waist and her wrist watch?  She's quite clearly wearing a modern bra.  I have to assume she is also wearing stockings and garters like we saw earlier in the episode (though perhaps no panties the saucy minx).  Did they magically fall off when she fell too?  I did hear something rip when Black jack reached up under her skirt so maybe we can explain that away but it's a stretch.  I wonder if we are going to see anyone react her strange undergarments when she changes clothes at Castle Leoch?  I don't recall that being addressed in the book.

 

I don't have a copy of Outlander in front of me, but I seem to remember that upon Claire's arrival to Castle Leoch, proper eighteenth century clothes were found for her. The woman who brought them saw the bra and definitely found it odd. I can't recall if she just looked at it curiously or said something.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Dejana

[peacefrog]

http://outlandertvnews.com/2014/07/rory-burns-joins-the-outlander-cast-as-young-roger-wakefield/ 

 

I hope this works, I'm on a kindle and seem to have trouble copying links. If it doesn't work it is outlandertvnews.com the July 30 entry, appears to be on page 2. Sorry!

 

Edited to see it doesn't work. 

 

I have a question regarding Jamie's hair, giggle.  I have no problem with the actor, think he's perfect.  However, I see upcoming photos of his hair getting longer, which it does in the books but it is very curly!  I don't recall ever hearing it described that way.  There are some still photos of Sam Heughan with his hair straight like at comic con *fans self* which to me seem much more "Jamie".  Was the curly hair in the book or is this to make him look younger? 

Edited August 5, 2014 by peacefrog

[Petunia846]

I found it by looking back through their site. So cute! I wonder when he shows up then, and I still feel like it's important that Claire knows him somewhat, not just that we see him with Frank and the Reverend. Oh well. We'll see.

 

I feel like I remember Jamie with sort of wavy hair, but not super curly like Claire's. I have no idea where I'm getting that impression from though.

[Athena]

I thought Jamie had wavy hair too. I'm wondering how they'll age everyone up. 

 

I have very mixed feelings about Brianna though I like Roger. I like Young Ian and Fergus as well. 

[WatchrTina]

Peacefrog I noticed Sam's hair too.  I understand that they are shooting the episodes essentially in order so that means they can let his hair grow out naturally, as Jamie's does over the course of the first book (after being cut off due to his head injury.)  I love that nod to realism and I do wonder if Sam has committed to wear it long until the renewal of the 2nd season is announced (because there just HAS to be a second season.)  I recall Adrian Paul growing his hair out to play Duncan MacLeod (of the Clan MacLeod) for his part in the TV show Highlander, and he kept it long for several seasons (lord love him.)  I hope Sam does the same, because I do so love a Highlander with long wavy hair.  It will also make it all the more dramatic if he is able to really cut it off, on camera, for a certain dramatic moment in book 2 (like Natalie Portman did in V for Vendetta and Anne Hathaway did in Les Miz.)  Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will be heard then!

[absnow54]

I thought Jamie had wavy hair too. I'm wondering how they'll age everyone up.

I assume they'll recast, which is unfortunate, because I really like the current actors they have in the roles. Cait and Sam are both in their 30's so they're already fairly older than their characters in the first two books, but I don't think I'd buy them as parents of a 20+ year old a few seasons down the line. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they departed from the books and stayed in the 1940's/1740's time to deal with Claire's reappearance, but I also never got into the later books, so the new cast of characters don't appeal to me.

[WatchrTina]

 

Cait and Sam are both in their 30's so they're already fairly older than their characters in the first two books, but I don't think I'd buy them as parents of a 20+ year old a few seasons down the line.

I'm hoping that they will find a way to age up Cait and Sam.  If they can play 10 years younger now (and I do think Sam, in particular is carrying it off) then I'm hoping they can play 10 years older in 2 years when we need them to have aged 20 years.  A new hairdo, different hair dye, slightly different make-up and our willful suspension of disbelief may pull it off -- particularly if they cast a very youthful-looking Brianna.  If we're going to see the transition from Culloden to Jamie's years in then cave and then his years in the prison and then his years as "MacKenzie" on the horse farm , that will work best if they stick with Sam all the way through.  Besides, I expect to be so in love with the main actors by the end of season 2 that re-casting would be unthinkable.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think, in current age of technology and what have you, and with the wonders of make-up, that they will be able to age both Sam and Cait so that they look believable as parents of a 20 year old.

[Athena]

I'm hoping that they will find a way to age up Cait and Sam.  If they can play 10 years younger now (and I do think Sam, in particular is carrying it off) then I'm hoping they can play 10 years older in 2 years when we need them to have aged 20 years.  A new hairdo, different hair dye, slightly different make-up and our willful suspension of disbelief may pull it off -- particularly if they cast a very youthful-looking Brianna... Besides, I expect to be so in love with the main actors by the end of season 2 that re-casting would be unthinkable.  

 

Yes, Sam is playing youthful very well. We'll definitely see his range towards the end post-Black Jack experience. I think they'll end up casting an actress for Brianna who is probably only a few years younger than Cait and Sam. I can't see them casting a teenager for the part. I'm already warming up to Cait and Sam; I can't imagine them recasting. It would be jarring for the audience, and I think the production want to keep the continuity. 

[peacefrog]

I agree there will be no recasting. I even thought Cait looked much older than 27/28 in the first episode.  She won't need much, this is not an insult! Plus she is always described as looking like she never ages, same as Jamie. Claire also will need to be 20 years older next season if they follow the books. (My wild speculation is they save the reveal that she is back in 20th century until midseason, if they go a split season route again). I think she just needs lighter streaks in her hair to show the passage of time.

 

They will also need to consider aging for Bree and Roger as they age a bit as well.  Fergus, Lord John and Young Ian casting should have similar issues, although I think with Fergus they will do a child actor first. 

[Petunia846]

Yeah, in the later books I remember reading several times about how Claire doesn't look her age as time goes on, especially compared to the people who are really from that time. It's stressed a lot that the hygiene and nutritional regiment that Claire enforces with brushing teeth and eating leafy greens and fruits has helped keep her and Jaime and some of those around them looking younger than normal. The only thing I ever remember being mentioned is more gray hair and then at some point they have to get glasses (which I found hilarious). I would think Jamie will be the hardest for hair and make up with all the scars that he accumulates and things like his fingers that get messed up.

[WatchrTina]

 

I think they'll end up casting an actress for Brianna who is probably only a few years younger than Cait and Sam.

Gosh, I hope not.  I know Brianna is at least 20 when she appears on the scene but I hope they cast someone who is 18 or so to contrast with Sam and Cait who will be 36 and 37, respectively (if IMDB has its facts straight) in two years.  They'll all have to play older than their true ages but at least the contrast in their appearances should make the parent-child relationship plausible.

[DoughGirl]

I have very mixed feelings about Brianna though I like Roger.

I absolutely loathe Mary Sue Brianna, and in consequence don't like Roger for marrying her. It's petty, I know.

[WatchrTina]

Edit:  This was written in response to DoughGirl's comments in the Episode thread about not liking the depiction of the trip through the stones, but was moved to this thread by the moderator.

 

I guess I like the voyage through the stones being described by metaphor because that's what Diana does in the books.  It's a pretty good metaphor -- imagine you fall asleep in a car only to awaken to the noise, confusion, flying debris, weightlessness / sensation of falling, and spinning images outside the windows of a car tumbling off a bridge.  It surprising she survived that crash (I guess they landed in water?) and Claire feels like a survivor when she wakes after passing through the stones.  I'm also aware that Ronald Moore was very concerned that the trip through the stones not be too SciFi.  It makes perfect sense that he would want to stay away from us seeing her dematerialize in the 20th century and rematerialize in the 18th.  You just know someone would take the footage and add Star Trek transporter sound effects to it.

 

That being said -- DoughGirl has a point in that Claire does look just a bit too pretty when she wakes up. Not a hair out of place from her harrowing journey.  I doubt I'd look that nice on the ground if I fainted outdoors.  But of course I think that has to do with the costume design because next 5 minutes are when her perfectly appropriate, very tidy and sensible 1945 attire gets converted into a wholly believable 18th-century woman-in-jeopardy-in-her-shift look.  First she forgets the shawl (hard to for get a coat you are wearing outdoors on a cool November day so that's why she's wearing the shawl), then she falls down while running and her top button pops off, her belt "breaks" and falls off and even her watch falls off (crummy craftsmanship in 1945).  Add a smudge on the face from the tumble and bit of mud and leaves on the back of her dress and tousle that hair that looked so pretty just a few minutes before and the transformation is complete.

Edited August 6, 2014 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

That is good point @DoughGirl about Claire looking fine after the trip through the stones. I admit I did not think about it and did like the way they handled it.  I get that they did not want "cheese" but it did not convey the awfulness of going through.  The music was the buzzing or humming but not to loud, no"screaming", then they went to silence and black screen IIRC. 

 

For this season the main difficulty for Claire regarding the stones is finding her way back to them. Later on more is made of how terrible it is when she is trying to avoid them and how it could kill someone.  I wonder how they will do the scene when she has to make the choice to stay? She kind of fades from Jamie's sight, right? Can't really use the car crash metaphor again. Interesting to see how they will do other's trips through because it kind of has to be shown that you can't use the stones easily like a revolving door.

[DoughGirl]

That is good point @DoughGirl about Claire looking fine after the trip through the stones. I admit I did not think about it and did like the way they handled it. I get that they did not want "cheese" but it did not convey the awfulness of going through. The music was the buzzing or humming but not to loud, no"screaming", then they went to silence and black screen IIRC.

For this season the main difficulty for Claire regarding the stones is finding her way back to them. Later on more is made of how terrible it is when she is trying to avoid them and how it could kill someone. I wonder how they will do the scene when she has to make the choice to stay? She kind of fades from Jamie's sight, right? Can't really use the car crash metaphor again. Interesting to see how they will do other's trips through because it kind of has to be shown that you can't use the stones easily like a revolving door.

Yes, that's true. But it does get a little revolving door-y as the books go on which is one reason I don't like them as much as the first three.

In the book the stones "scream" when Claire just touches them. And there was no split stone as the gateway or portal to pass through. I think that was too important to leave out. Having a gateway to pass through is less sci fi to me than just getting whisked away by touching a stone.

[nodorothyparker]

I just reread it because I couldn't remember, and she does make the car crash analogy about her initial trip through the stones. 

 

But I agree the way it was presented was a little underwhelming.  There were no split stones or stones screaming and you got no real sense of how frightening the experience was or as we find out in subsequent books that people could be killed trying to get through.  That's a huge part of the decision later of whether to try to go back and find Jamie again.  The trip was that daunting that Claire initially hesitated about going back for the man she'd mourned 20 years for and why she got so angry when she thought he didn't take how much she'd risked to come back seriously enough.  While beautifully shot, this does make it seem like going through is not really that big a consideration in the grand scheme of things.

Edited August 6, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[DoughGirl]

While beautifully shot, this does make it seem like going through is not really that big a consideration in the grand scheme of things.

That is the way I felt about it. You've described it much better than I did though.

[WatchrTina]

So here's a book vs. series question / speculation.  The book is written in first person from Claire's point of view, therefore whenever Jamie and Claire are apart we can only find out what Jamie has been up to if someone else tells Claire or if Jamie himself tells Claire after the fact.  This actually works quite well in the book with the very bad things that happen to Jamie while in prison.  We don't find out about the very worst things until Jamie gets to France and finally unburdens himself to Claire. So I'm wondering if the show is going to follow that guideline.  They don't have to.  They could elect to go the old show-don't-tell approach and actually show us what goes on in that cell before and after Claire turns up.  She doesn't have to be in every scene in the show just because she's present on every page of the book.  But personally, I'm not sure I want to see that.  Hearing about it second hand while Jamie is in the safety of a monastery on a different continent will be hard enough (was hard enough in the book).  I speculate that the series will follow the book's lead and we will only "see" as much of the very bad things as Claire saw (though perhaps embellished with brief flashbacks while Jamie tells his tale).  It's actually a nice out for the show-runner because quite frankly I'm fairly sure they don't want a lengthy, close-up study of their handsome hero being subjected to very very bad things.  As for me, I cheerfully have a TV crush on the character already and I have no desire to see him dragged into an episode of the prison drama, Oz.

Edited August 8, 2014 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

I think it will be implied at first then when in the monastery we will get flashes and him telling the story.  I do think a lot will be filmed of it.  They could  hold a lot of footage and slowly use it through the seasons, revealing more of went on. 

 

One of the biggest themes I think is dealing with traumatic stress and this certainly is Jamie's. It's horrible to read and will be bad to watch but they have to show that the stakes are high.  Outlander does not have the high main character body count as shows on today but really bad things happen to them. I do think Tobias and Sam are going to be awesome. 

[Athena]

Gabaldon herself said she is looking forward to see how the Jamie torture scenes are handled. It's a pivotal moment in the book for Claire and Jamie. Ronald D. Moore is a showrunner who features tough subjects and scenes. I am not looking forward to it because I tend to avoid that kind of violence for TV and movies, but I do want to see what the actors do with it.

[SonofaBiscuit]

So, I have not read the books but I went online to read some spoilers to get just a general idea of what I'm in for.  I absolutely hate the idea of a twenty year separation between Jamie and Claire.  They aren't going to be together for very long before they are separated and I hate the idea that Frank, who I immediately decided was an absolute bore of a man, is going to go on raising Jamie's child for the next two decades.  Gosh, I would really prefer that the time jump was shorter, but I'm not sure that the TV show can do that since it looks like the daughter will have a role in later books. 

 

How in the world are they going to do this?  Are they going to show a few episodes of Frank and Claire reunited and raising her daughter and just keep jumping ahead a few years every couple of episodes until twenty years passes?  I think that this could be a real problem for the show too, because if people really connect with Jamie and Claire's story and the chemistry is there, I'm not sure viewers are going to want to watch an entire season of Frank educating little Brianna on the exciting world of genealogy and useless historical trivia.  Eh, I know I'm probably being way harsh on poor Frank here, but in a contest between him and Jamie?  I would take Jamie every time.  Sorry Frank, but the cards are really stacked against you here.     

[absnow54]

The 20 year time jump between the first and second book is very abrupt, so I don't they'll pay anything more than a few passing mentions and the occasional flashback to Frank raising Brianna.

[auntlada]

Even in the second book, you only get a few scenes in flashback from those years. I think you get more of Jamie in those years, although I'm not positive. It's been a long time since I read the second book. I'm not sure where my copy is, and it might be falling apart too much to read anyway. I vaguely recall thinking I needed to get a new one.

Edited August 8, 2014 by auntlada

[peacefrog]

The parts that take place in 1968 in the second book are mostly Roger, Brianna and Claire.  Claire takes Brianna to Scotland with intentions of telling her about her biological father.  She asks Roger to find out something for her.  There are a few parts where we read about life with Frank like was mentioned but not many. 

 

We have been speculating how the show will handle this, when the big reveal is.  For season 2 there will be plenty of 18th century action leading up to Culloden though. 

Edited August 8, 2014 by peacefrog

[GHScorpiosRule]

We have been speculating how the show will handle this, when the big reveal is.  For season 2 there will be plenty of 18th century action leading up to Culloden though. 

 

Oh goodie! I'm wondering if they'll have the Duke of Chamberlain look like the porculent, grotesque, overweight Pillsbury Doughboy he was.  Well, that's what all the paintings of him I saw in Scotland resembled! I want ACCURACY!

[SonofaBiscuit]

The 20 year time jump between the first and second book is very abrupt, so I don't they'll pay anything more than a few passing mentions and the occasional flashback to Frank raising Brianna.

 

 

Even in the second book, you only get a few scenes in flashback from those years. I think you get more of Jamie in those years, although I'm not positive. It's been a long time since I read the second book. I'm not sure where my copy is, and it might be falling apart too much to read anyway. I vaguely recall thinking I needed to get a new one.

 

OK, good.  Online info made it seem like most of the book was taking place back with Frank in the 20th century.  Still sad that Jamie won't get to raise his daughter and will be missing Claire for 20 years, though.  Also sad that Jamie will be 20 years older (but happy that physically he will look pretty much the same.  They can color his hair and whatnot, but he'll still have those abs).  Has anyone said that it will be one book per season?  I'm hoping that they drag the first book out into at least two seasons, actually, but I don't know if there's enough story to tell there. 

[nodorothyparker]

The bulk of the second book is written as a flashback that continues the story from where the first book ends, so still young Jamie and Claire for most of it.  Older Claire does appear in the 1968 story but there's not a ton of that comparatively. 

 

I know I've read somewhere they're hoping to make each season equal one book.  If that's the case, we wouldn't even see older Jamie until third season because we don't catch up with him until the third book.

[DoughGirl]

Gabaldon herself said she is looking to see the Jamie torture scenes are handled. It's a pivotal moment in the book for Claire and Jamie. Ronald D. Moore is a showrunner who features tough subjects and scenes. I am not looking forward to it because I tend to avoid that kind of violence for TV and movies, but I do want to see what the actors do with it.

That scene actually gave me nightmares. Don't think I want to watch it.

[some1105]

Non-reader/non-spoilerphobe here: could someone tell me who that was in the square peeping at Claire?  It looked too small to be Jamie.  Thanks bunches!

[Petunia846]

I'm pretty sure it is Jamie or supposed to be Jamie, he's just out of context so it's hard to tell the size. In the book it's described to where it pretty much has to be Jamie, but honestly the "ghost" is never mentioned again in the first book or any other book, so no one (except the author I guess) really knows.