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

[Atlanta]

On 2/12/2017 at 1:16 AM, Dust Bunny said:

Agreed. The first time I read Drums of Autumn and Fiery Cross, especially FC, I felt it dragged the whole series down. ABOSAA, however, absolutely turned it around for me. Not only did I approach Echo and MOBY with more openness, it helped me better appreciate DoA and FC. I'm now listening to DoA via Audible, and I really enjoy it. I think ABOSAA depicted the relationships so strongly that it gave me new eyes for not just the later books, but also the earlier ones.

The audio books are excellent. Davina is a wonderful narrator. 

[WatchrTina]

I'm feeling smug.  In the run-up to the return of the show for season 3 I've been entertaining myself by re-reading this thread from the beginning and I've just gotten to a post where I predicted that there would be a scene in the wedding episode (S1E07) showing Frank & Claire's wedding.  Back in 2014 I said that Frank would "haunt that ceremony [Jamie & Claire's wedding] the same way Claire's fetch haunted Jamie's wedding to Laoghaire." I was right!  The flashback to their cute, registry office, spontaneous wedding was the opening scene of the episode. 

In related news, yesterday I finished my re-watch of season 2 and in the last episode there is a scene where 1960's Claire goes back to the (now-ruined) Lallybroch and she catches a glimpse of a kilted, 20-something Jamie standing in the arch-way.  Was that a "fetch" we saw?  According to Wikipedia, "A fetch is a supernatural double or an apparition of a living person."  Though I guess in a time-travel story like Outlander the definition of a living person has a certain amount of flexibility to it.

So, here's my new wedding-related speculation:  when we finally get to Lallybroch in Season 3 -- and all hell breaks loose -- I think we will get a flash-back to Jamie & Laoghaire's wedding from Jenny's point of view.  And in that flash-back we'll see Jenny catch a glimpse of Claire's fetch haunting the wedding, just like it does in the book. 

<snip>

I just deleted a paragraph I wrote about how hard it is going to be for me accept Nell Hudson playing 20 years older than the Laoghaire we last saw in Season 2 (I'm assuming the role won't be re-cast since none of the other adult roles have been re-cast).  But I've just recollected the discussions we had when we saw the season 1 episode where Laoghaire asks Jamie if he remembers when they first met (he didn't). I THINK we decided from that conversation that she is at least six years younger than him.  That makes her 16(ish) during season 1 and 38(ish) in Season 3.  It's going to be a stretch for someone as young and fresh-faced as Nell her to play that age (especially since people age "harder" in the 18th century) but Sam & Cait amazed me with with their ability to play younger in season 1 so I'll cross my fingers that Nell (aided by a good hair & make-up team and possibly some padding around the middle) can pull off the role of a furious, vengeful, 38-year-old woman-scorned.

Is it September 10th yet?

ETA:  My re-read of this thread continues and I just hit this comment (speculating on the season 2 finale).

On June 26, 2016 at 6:15 PM, kariyaki said:

It's not in the book, but I kind of would like a little scene of Bonnie Prince Charlie sneaking his way out of Scotland dressed as a maid. The Skye Boat song that the Outlander theme is set to is based on this.

We didn't make it all the way to Culloden in the Season 2 finale so it is entirely possible that a scene of BPC being spirited away from the battlefield will be included in the Culloden portion of season 3, episode 1.  I'm avoiding spoilers and hype so I have no idea if this is even a possibility but since I just finished my re-watch of Season 2 and I'm basically hating the "Bonny" Prince right now, I would be totally okay with a quick shot of him, humiliatingly dressed in woman's clothes (preferably ugly women's clothes), being bundled into a wagon and driven from battle.  

Edited September 4, 2017 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

I woke up thinking of Outlander (as you do) and I realized that I have a wee beef with a change made in the first episode of season 3 vs. the books.  In "Voyager", Claire tells the reader (and Jamie?) that her pregnancy with Brianna was very difficult.  If it hadn't been for 20th century medical advancements both she and Brianna would likely have died -- mirroring her pregnancy with Faith. So by sending her back through the stones, Jamie actually saved their lives and made it possible for them to all be together in the 18th century, albeit after a 20-year separation. This, in the end, gives Jamie and Claire (and we the readers) some solace at their having been robbed of all that time together.  

 In the show, we see no evidence of a difficult pregnancy. Quite the opposite -- we see Claire looking annoyed when a woman tells her not to carry heavy things and we see an unfeeling, paternalistic medical system wherein Claire's child is delivered by a man she's never met (not her own doctor) via means she does not want (twilight sleep / anesthesia.) I get why they did that -- the writers want to show Claire's disenchantment with the 20th century and I presume her experiences at the hands of the 20th century medical patriarchy will serve as motivation for her decision to become a doctor and a surgeon.  But by removing the storyline about Claire's difficult pregnancy, they also remove the main reason why Claire's journey back through the stones was the "right" thing to do.  Without the risk to Claire and the baby's survival, the decision to go back through the stones is rather tragic.  If Claire had instead gone to Lallybroch with Fergus and the men, she would have been there waiting when Jamie was brought home in the wagon and their whole lives would have been different.  Yes they might have had to live in hiding but they would have been together and, eventually, they could have slipped out of Scotland together.

So while I understand why they made the changes in the show, I think it's a shame that Jamie's sacrifice in sending Claire and her unborn child back to Frank is robbed of its main virtue -- that by insisting she go Jamie ended up saving her life and that of their unborn child.

Edited September 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Totally agree @WatchrTina! And I'll add my issue, for the lack of a better word for what else they changed/filled in.  Like I posted in the episode thread, from what I can recall from the buik, That motherfuckingmurderingRAPINGarsehole Black Jack was found lying across Jamie's legs, specifically the thigh that was his most mortal wound, and it was thought that his body was the "pressure" that stopped him from bleeding out. 

But what does this show do? They position both Sam and Tobias as lying next to each other, in a pseudo lover-like embrace, which peeved me off to no end. Then there was the same lover-like slo-mo of them fighting, which came across as more dancing and embracing. I don't give any figgety bluedilly FUCKS how gorgeous the sunlight was that day. Film it and use it for something-fucking-else.  It's scenes that were shot like this that let idiots continue with the false narrative that Jamie is bi-sexual, and has feeling for his fucking rapist. (Wish I were typing from me phone so I could insert the ragey emojis!)

And I haven't forgotten that in season one, when Frank oh so understandingly told Claire it was okay if she had an affair during the war, is now seen as this never broke his vows to Claire during the war (which I got vibes that he did, that's why he told her it would have been okay if she had done so), in order to show how wronged he was in 1948 Boston, that while he was true to her, she was off "fucking" someone else. Which, to a point, I can understand Frank's anger, but not the holier than thou attitude that was coming from him.

[toolazy]

I'm going to go on record as saying that seeing BJR's face anywhere near Jamie's mid-section would be far more disturbing than the way the show positioned them.  Reading it is one thing - actually seeing it is another and it would have taken my brain places it didn't want to go. 

[toolazy]

5 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

the show, I think it's a shame that Jamie's sacrifice in sending Claire and her unborn child back to Frank is robbed of its main virtue -- that by insisting she go Jamie ended up saving her life and that of their unborn child.

Going back saved their lives whether there was a difficult pregnancy or not.  Remember, they were just this side of starving at Lallybroch, without two more mouths to feed.  Also, she was also wanted by the English because of her role in the rebellion so if she had been found at Lallybroch, the English would have rained hell down on the estate.  

In the 20th century, Bree had vaccines and antibiotics and a MUCH better chance at surviving to adulthood than she would have in 18th century Highlands. 

[Eureka]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I haven't forgotten that in season one, when Frank oh so understandingly told Claire it was okay if she had an affair during the war, is now seen as this never broke his vows to Claire during the war (which I got vibes that he did, that's why he told her it would have been okay if she had done so), in order to show how wronged he was in 1948 Boston, that while he was true to her, she was off "fucking" someone else. Which, to a point, I can understand Frank's anger, but not the holier than thou attitude that was coming from him.

It also makes it that much more unbelievable that he will cheat on her later and threaten to take Bri away, as happens in the books. Although I admit I felt bad for Frank in last night's episode, it's hard to reconcile this character with the original in the books.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Eureka said:

It also makes it that much more unbelievable that he will cheat on her later and threaten to take Bri away, as happens in the books. Although I admit I felt bad for Frank in last night's episode, it's hard to reconcile this character with the original in the books.

Not only that, but the show had Claire throw that line at him that there were probably enough women at the college who he could go and fuck. I don't recall her ever saying that in the buiks.

[Scarlett45]

@GHScorpiosRule I saw TVFrank's attitude and line "I'm not the one fucking other people" as not about sex, but as a response to Claire's coldness toward him and two lines earlier in that scene he was trying to speak to her about their lack of connection as couple (he went to touch her in an innocent way and she flinched) and she made it about his sex drive and the other available women if he wanted to have sex.

I understand why Claire was upset, but I think deep down inside she knew that Frank wasn't harrasing her to have sex with him then, he wanted her to care for him the way he cared for her/the way they used to be. I don't think Frank was ever per se mad at Claire for loving Jaime (or having sex with Jaime) while she was stuck in the past, but for treating him like he was a stranger when he was trying to connect and love her as he felt a husband should. 

I think that's why he was at that point "I didn't make you come to Boston", meaning "I understand you loved someone else, but if you're incapable of loving/being affectionate with me you have a right to leave, please leave rather than make us both miserable."

[FnkyChkn34]

35 minutes ago, Eureka said:

It also makes it that much more unbelievable that he will cheat on her later and threaten to take Bri away, as happens in the books. Although I admit I felt bad for Frank in last night's episode, it's hard to reconcile this character with the original in the books.

I think he's just a self-righteous hypocrite.  He wants to act all holier than thou about cheating and what-not, but I also think he did it during the war and will obviously do it again.  During Frank's "stay or go" speech last night is the only time in the show or books that I have felt any sympathy for him.  Maybe it's because we saw him from a third person POV and not Claire's biased POV, but I agree with you that I did start to feel bad.  I also agree that he wasn't being "Frank" there so any warm and fuzzy feelings I had towards him quickly left and probably won't be felt again.

[morgan]

I find it so fascinating to see the different ways people read characters, especially ones like Frank.  The Frank we saw in last night's show was very much the Frank I read him to be, at least in the first few books.  Of course, I also originally interpreted (and still do) his questioning of Claire's war time fidelity not as a result of his own guilty conscious but more as someone who had just lived through a long war who saw many people turn outside their marriages for comfort.  No doubt they both saw infidelity in others as a fairly regular thing.  I think it hit him just then as he saw the scot staring up at Claire that maybe she might have done something, so he broached the subject.  And I think he was being understanding if it when he broached it because war is hell and sucks and often after years of separation sees good people make selfish choices.  

I feel for Frank.  I always have.  And if he does eventually stray (which I took during my first few reads as gospel, but then I have read some interesting thoughts from others about that possibly not being a given) I think he finally does to find solace because he doesn't have Claire any more.  She never really was his again after coming back.  God that would be crushing.  

I know I won't change anyone's perception of Frank, but it's how I see him.  And I think Tobias does a great job with him.  

I agree with everyone about the twilight sleep and how violating that must have been for anyone not wanting it.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I don't think Frank was ever per se mad at Claire for loving Jaime (or having sex with Jaime) while she was stuck in the past, but for treating him like he was a stranger when he was trying to connect and love her as he felt a husband should. 

But that's exactly what he was at the end of last season, when he gave her that ultimatum. Forget about Jaime, never mention his name, and we will raise this child as "our" child. Anyhow, I just this writing for Frank as a way to make him less of an asshole on the show, than he was in the buik. Because, Tobias Menzies.

[lianau]

43 minutes ago, Eureka said:

It also makes it that much more unbelievable that he will cheat on her later and threaten to take Bri away, as happens in the books. Although I admit I felt bad for Frank in last night's episode, it's hard to reconcile this character with the original in the books.

I find it very believable , Frank is trying to be married to a woman who's freezing him out , who is cheating on him emotionally 24/7 . It's only natural that eventually he started to look for that emotional connection somewhere else .

[Scarlett45]

21 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But that's exactly what he was at the end of last season, when he gave her that ultimatum. Forget about Jaime, never mention his name, and we will raise this child as "our" child. Anyhow, I just this writing for Frank as a way to make him less of an asshole on the show, than he was in the buik. Because, Tobias Menzies.

As a book reader I'm sure your interpretation is correct, (and I can see writers changing things up for Tobias) but from what I saw in the show, TVFrank saying "we will raise this child as our child", means "we are committing to each other again as a husband/wife and our family together", very similar to a "closed adoption" which was how most adoptions where handled in the U.K. in the 1940s/50s. He didn't want Claire speaking to the baby about their biological father etc. I can understand that ultimatum.

Basically if Claire hated his guts or was incapable of being a wife to him (socially/emotionally/physically) due to her grief over Jaime, or hell just because she didn't love him any more then they should split up now. Sounds fair to me.  TvFrank (selfishly) wanted his wife back, after 3yrs of thinking she was dead, that's a hard pill to swollow now knowing she actually falling in love with another man.

Im eager to see how BookFrank and TVFrank compare. @morgan it seems that you and I are of the same mind. On a personal level I don't see cheating if you've been forced away from your partner for YEARS and may die at any moment (like in a war zone) in the same vein as someone who's fucking around cause they like sexual variety. Not saying spouses cannot be faithful during long separations, but asking someone to go without affectionate/sexual touch for years, and the stress of war/immanient death is a lot. I wouldn't blame Frank or Claire if they sought some comfort during the war. I don't expect Jaime to be celibate during his 20yrs separation from Claire. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Scarlett45

[GHScorpiosRule]

41 minutes ago, morgan said:

I find it so fascinating to see the different ways people read characters, especially ones like Frank.  The Frank we saw in last night's show was very much the Frank I read him to be, at least in the first few books.

Actually I think (for me), the show is fleshing out Frank to be more sympathetic because they got Tobias Menzies to play him, instead of the asshole I perceived and still think him to be from the buiks.  And I was one who barely got through the first buik, suffered but persevered to read the second, and gave up a third into Voyager.   I didn't have the attachment to Jamie and Claire that all my friends who insisted that I give this series a try because Jamie was just as yummy as Roarke from J.D. Robb's In Death Series. What led to the comparison was a line by Roarke to his wife's one time, one night stand, who had grabbed Eve by the shoulders to take his "hands off my wife" with Jamie telling Black Jack the same thing in Outlander. This was nearly 15 or so years ago, and I couldn't do it.

And I reread them before the series started to...refresh my memory.

Edited September 11, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

Add me to the list of people who didn't like Claire suggesting to Frank that he go have sex with some of the co-eds.  That is something he eventually does in the books  -- and Claire finds out about it but ignores it until he threatens to take Brianna back to the UK with him -- but I always assumed that happened after a few years of cold shoulders from Book!Claire.  Furthermore Book!Frank certainly didn't need Claire "suggesting" the option to him -- he was perfectly capable of coming up with that on his own (count me among the readers who assumed he cheated on Claire during the war).  I assumed that in the first few years after Claire's return their shared parenting of Brianna was a balm over their failure to ever really re-connect physically or emotionally after Claire's return. Frank and Claire do occasionally have sex in the books but Frank knows she never stops loving Jamie and eventually he finds someone (or several someones) who wants to be with HIM.  So that line from Claire in S03E01 struck me a odd and premature.  

In a related complaint, I know that it is only a few months into their reunion and Claire is heavily pregnant (so I totally get why should would not be open to sex) but I thought her shrinking from Frank's every touch was also a bit much.  Still, I get that the show-writers are having to imagine these scenes and I can wave away a bit of Claire's out-of-character behavior as the result of raging pregnancy hormones and insufficient sleep, seasoned by prolonged grief.

Edited September 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[FnkyChkn34]

12 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

In a related complaint, I know that it is only a few months into their reunion and Claire is heavily pregnant (so I totally get why should would not be open to sex) but I thought her shrinking from Frank's every touch was also a bit much.  Still, I get that the show-writers are having to imagine these scenes and I can wave away a bit of Claire's out-of-character behavior as the result of raging pregnancy hormones and insufficient sleep, seasoned by prolonged grief.

Also, her actions are probably a bit exaggerated to convey the point on the screen, whereas in the books we could read a more subtle description that results in the same understanding by the audience.

[Eureka]

1 hour ago, lianau said:

I find it very believable , Frank is trying to be married to a woman who's freezing him out , who is cheating on him emotionally 24/7 . It's only natural that eventually he started to look for that emotional connection somewhere else .

As we see later though, she does resume some semblance of normal life with him again. They do sleep together again. I guess by unbelievable I mean, he's acting so hurt by her being with someone else and brought it up several times and then goes and does the same thing. Or at least, if that happened to me, I don't think I would be able to do it, I'd sooner leave the marriage first.

[nodorothyparker]

I was a little surprised by Claire's suggesting that Frank go fuck a co-ed this early in the story but I'm not terribly bothered by it.   At most, it's been maybe half a year since she had to leave Jamie and came back and then quickly moved to an entirely new country to play dutiful housewife.   That's not really that long to be grieving someone and the life she expected to have that's now lost to her, especially when she's heavily pregnant which can do a real number on your sensitivities and emotions.  Meanwhile, she's obviously feeling very fenced in by the confined role everyone seems to expect her to play as the professor's wife as Frank is nattering on about tea bags as if any of this is perfectly normal.  He may be ready to pick up right where they left off to play happy family as if Jamie never happened beyond as a convenient sperm donor, but she's clearly not there yet.  Feeling like he's pushing her only results in her pushing back.

Yes, they do eventually reach a place where they're able to make it work for awhile but I've always been struck by how lonely each of them must have been in that marriage.

[DittyDotDot]

17 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Yes, they do eventually reach a place where they're able to make it work for awhile but I've always been struck by how lonely each of them must have been in that marriage.

Yeah, that was always what struck me too. It's such a sad situation for both of them, IMO.

[toolazy]

4 hours ago, Eureka said:

It also makes it that much more unbelievable that he will cheat on her later and threaten to take Bri away, as happens in the books. Although I admit I felt bad for Frank in last night's episode, it's hard to reconcile this character with the original in the books.

 

I'm not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not but

Spoiler

Diana Gabaldon has implied that there is something more going on with Frank's England trip than meets the eye.  "You don't know why he wanted to take her" is a pretty close paraphrase of what she said.  I'm pretty sure it's something to do with him realizing that she is one of the people who can go through the stones.  

[FnkyChkn34]

On 9/4/2017 at 6:15 PM, DittyDotDot said:

It probably comes down to perception, but,

  Reveal hidden contents

yes, IMO, book Brianna was a somewhat bratty teenage know-it-all in the books. She grows out of it somewhat, but I think Brianna is supposed to be a child of that generation who emerged in the wake of WWII; the generation who grew up with electricity and indoor plumbing and a lot more options than their parents ever dreamed of at their age. I think her entitled and somewhat arrogant attitude is a purposeful contrast to the children like wee Ian who were raised in the wake of Culloden.

Personally, I didn't have an issue with the actress or the portrayal on the show as much as I did with Brianna in the books. Brianna is just such a thin character in the books until around book 7 or 8, IMO.

I totally agree.  I can't even get through book 5 because Brianna is an annoying brat.  She sucks the life out of every scene in the books.  The actress doesn't bother me though, so I'm actually hoping that showBrianna can redeem bookBrianna for me.

[Atlanta]

I have times of liking and disliking Brianna, but I loved her in the most recent book. I guess I could chalk up her brattiness and attitude to being a product of two strong willed parents and digesting what her mom dealt with... time travel, etc.

[satrunrose]

On 9/14/2017 at 7:06 PM, Atlanta said:

I have times of liking and disliking Brianna, but I loved her in the most recent book. I guess I could chalk up her brattiness and attitude to being a product of two strong willed parents and digesting what her mom dealt with... time travel, etc.

I don't like Brianna when she's in the 18th century. She's just so exhaustingly perfect. She's an artist, she invents matches and indoor plumbing, she can wrestle wild animals, she can do all the heavy lifting of an 18th century frontier woman, she's beautiful, and everyone (even William) is attracted to her etc. etc. If she had one flaw or thing she sucked at, like Jamie's singing, I would find her more compelling but no. She's still entirely kick-ass in the 20th century, but there's...I don't know, more vulnerability and I have more of a sense of her wrestling with problems that don't have easy answers than I do on the Ridge.

 

Oddly, I feel the opposite way about Roger. I'm really interested in his journey to fit in and find his place in the 18th century. He seems to see the Ridge as a particularly interesting living history museum and I like that that has a big and tragic payoff. Once they get home though, I just kept wanting him to get over himself already. 

[Haleth]

I can't stand Bree in either century because she is so perfect at everything.  The job she gets in Scotland, something like manager of the electric power plant construction project?  Whatever it was, a kid fresh(ish) out of college with only a bachelors degree in engineering and absolutely no experience, is completely unqualified for the job. It really annoys me that she is such a special snowflake. 

[Nidratime]

Perhaps the show will make her less perfect.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't find Bree interesting at all in the "modern" time line.  There, she's just a character.  Most of my interest/caring lies in her relationships with our other existing characters who reside in the 18th century.  I admit I spent most of those last two books impatiently skimming for whatever to happen to get her and the family back in time to go ahead and happen.

[DittyDotDot]

Well, to be fair to Bree, It's not like Claire or Jamie aren't basically perfect either. I mean, they're able to do pretty much anything the narrative needs while everyone in the room falls in love with them on first glance. So, maybe it's genetic? ;)

3 hours ago, satrunrose said:

I don't like Brianna when she's in the 18th century. She's just so exhaustingly perfect. She's an artist, she invents matches and indoor plumbing, she can wrestle wild animals, she can do all the heavy lifting of an 18th century frontier woman, she's beautiful, and everyone (even William) is attracted to her etc. etc. If she had one flaw or thing she sucked at, like Jamie's singing, I would find her more compelling but no. She's still entirely kick-ass in the 20th century, but there's...I don't know, more vulnerability and I have more of a sense of her wrestling with problems that don't have easy answers than I do on the Ridge.

I agree with you that Brianna isn't very interesting in the past, but to be fair, she doesn't invent anything. She just uses knowledge from the future to copy other people's inventions in the past. But, as I recall, the matches weren't immediately successful or sustainable and the plumbing hasn't yet been achieved,

I think Bree has lots of imperfections, but they're in her personality, not in her physical abilities. She's such an entitled little drama queen at times and I actually think the "inventions" show those imperfections. Unlike Claire experimenting with making penicillin, I always saw these things as Bree being somewhat arrogant and self indulgent with these unattainable grand plans. She didn't need to invent ceramic pipes and dig the Suez Canal to get water to the cabin when a simple gravity-fed wooden aquifer would've actually been achievable with the technology available to her and made her life so much easier, even if she would've still had to heat the water the old fashioned way. Instead of actually having a form of running water in the cabin, she concocted this huge production of something no one had ever seen before so she could prove she wasn't just a simple housewife. 

3 hours ago, satrunrose said:

Oddly, I feel the opposite way about Roger. I'm really interested in his journey to fit in and find his place in the 18th century. He seems to see the Ridge as a particularly interesting living history museum and I like that that has a big and tragic payoff. Once they get home though, I just kept wanting him to get over himself already. 

I feel the same way. Bree doesn't have a place in the past while Roger doesn't have one in the future. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Nidratime]

I haven't read the books that far, but that's ironic. Bree has a direct connection to the past. If not for virtue of timing, Bree might have been born and raised in the past. Yet, she doesn't fit in the past. Roger, is definitely a many times descendant. He's not someone who could've been born back then and yet he's more comfortable there.

*****

In any event, I just finished listening to Ron's podcast with Toni and Matt joining in and I just loved all the explanations and reasons for what they did. It makes me want to turn to fan-critics and say, listen to this! You may not agree, but they had reasons and rationalizations. Also, I love the little segment they showed after the episode on STARZ that gives you some of the same information.

[WatchrTina]

4 hours ago, Haleth said:

The job she [Brianna] gets in Scotland, something like manager of the electric power plant construction project?  Whatever it was, a kid fresh(ish) out of college with only a bachelors degree in engineering and absolutely no experience, is completely unqualified for the job

My recollection is that she WAS qualified for the job but even so she suspects that she would not have landed it if ANYONE else (anyone with a Y chromosome) had applied for the position.  She gets the job only because she is so clearly qualified AND no one else applied.  They couldn't justify not giving it to her.

I look forward to seeing how the role of Brianna-in-the-18th-century is written.  I have a really strong mental picture of her and, so far, the actress who plays her is a complete miss for me.  I may get over it -- I had similar reactions to Sam & Cait at first but they won me over in the very first episode.  Sophie did not win me over in her first episode but in fairness she had some really thankless dialog to get through. I'm hoping Sophie will bloom when she gets to the meatier plot-lines that Brianna gets embroiled in in the past.  This season I'm afraid all she'll get to do is assist her mother with research (and Roger-the-historian is going to be more effective in that role than Brianna) and then she'll get one tearful farewell scene.  I'll bet Sophie can't WAIT until season 4.

[Atlanta]

I think Roger had a much harder time (in the past) as a man of arts and letters (he was on the verge of being ordained). It was all about working the land and being a warrior. Bree likes to tinker with technology and was trained for frontier life thanks to Frank. Roger never had that. Keep in mind that I'm no Bree fangirl, but she graduated MIT in the early 70s with a degree in engineering. It's a dichotomy. Both had their strengths and weaknesses in both the past and present. I didn't like her until the most current book. EVERY character in the book and show has annoyed me at one time or another. LOL

[Quickbeam]

The casting bothered me a lot as Bree is supposed to be a large woman, tall and broad.  A size 16. They couldn’t find that, really?

[toolazy]

21 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

The casting bothered me a lot as Bree is supposed to be a large woman, tall and broad.  A size 16. They couldn’t find that, really?

Chemistry and acting chops are more important than size.  Sam isn't nearly as big as Jamie is described in the books so it kind of makes sense that Bree wouldn't be as big as well.  It's very easy to believe that Sophie is the daughter of Caitroina Balfe & Sam Heughan.  As for chemistry and acting chops, the jury is still out but I'm willing to give the actress the benefit of the doubt.

[Atlanta]

3 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Chemistry and acting chops are more important than size.  Sam isn't nearly as big as Jamie is described in the books so it kind of makes sense that Bree wouldn't be as big as well.  It's very easy to believe that Sophie is the daughter of Caitroina Balfe & Sam Heughan.  As for chemistry and acting chops, the jury is still out but I'm willing to give the actress the benefit of the doubt.

Agree. Also, a 16 in the 60s is different from what it is today. Also, Cait is taller and thinner than book Claire and has blue eyes rather than whiskey colored. Book Roger has green eyes, but Rik has blue. Not a big deal.

[satrunrose]

On 9/22/2017 at 9:25 PM, DittyDotDot said:

Well, to be fair to Bree, It's not like Claire or Jamie aren't basically perfect either. I mean, they're able to do pretty much anything the narrative needs while everyone in the room falls in love with them on first glance. So, maybe it's genetic? ;)

I agree with you that Brianna isn't very interesting in the past, but to be fair, she doesn't invent anything. She just uses knowledge from the future to copy other people's inventions in the past. But, as I recall, the matches weren't immediately successful or sustainable and the plumbing hasn't yet been achieved,

I think Bree has lots of imperfections, but they're in her personality, not in her physical abilities. She's such an entitled little drama queen at times and I actually think the "inventions" show those imperfections. Unlike Claire experimenting with making penicillin, I always saw these things as Bree being somewhat arrogant and self indulgent with these unattainable grand plans. She didn't need to invent ceramic pipes and dig the Suez Canal to get water to the cabin when a simple gravity-fed wooden aquifer would've actually been achievable with the technology available to her and made her life so much easier, even if she would've still had to heat the water the old fashioned way. Instead of actually having a form of running water in the cabin, she concocted this huge production of something no one had ever seen before so she could prove she wasn't just a simple housewife. 

I feel the same way. Bree doesn't have a place in the past while Roger doesn't have one in the future. 

I agree, Jamie and Claire are also pretty darn perfect, but the narrative isn't shy about pointing out the flaws that they do have, from the more serious (Jamie's stubbornness and use of violence without thinking things all the way through; Claire's jealousy and habit of getting herself into the middle of situations where she can accidentally get herself killed) to the silly (Jamie can't wink or sing). I like your take on Bree's inventions pointing to a flaw of arrogance or hubris, but I wonder if people would like Bree more if that was made more explicit in the books. I think I might. 

[toolazy]

I would like Bree better if she had mentioned to her parents that she and Roger were handfast. 

[Eureka]

On 9/22/2017 at 5:10 PM, satrunrose said:

I don't like Brianna when she's in the 18th century. She's just so exhaustingly perfect. She's an artist, she invents matches and indoor plumbing, she can wrestle wild animals, she can do all the heavy lifting of an 18th century frontier woman, she's beautiful, and everyone (even William) is attracted to her etc. etc. If she had one flaw or thing she sucked at, like Jamie's singing, I would find her more compelling but no. She's still entirely kick-ass in the 20th century, but there's...I don't know, more vulnerability and I have more of a sense of her wrestling with problems that don't have easy answers than I do on the Ridge.

It reminds me of Ayla in the Clan of the Cave Bear series. I love the series, but man, she invented everything. Lol.

[DittyDotDot]

18 minutes ago, Grashka said:

IMO Claire and Jamie are larger than life as characters but I wouldn't say they are perfect, 

My point was that I don't see Brianna any more perfect than Jamie or Claire, not that Jamie and Claire were in fact perfect. They all have a certain amount of unbelievable capabilities--as all fictional characters do--but they all have flaws too. I think it just comes down to personal preferences on whether you tolerate the flaws or not. 

28 minutes ago, Grashka said:

As far as falling in love on the first glance, when I think about it, I don't think anyone really fell for either Claire on Jamie like that ;-) Well, Jamie ALMOST fell for Claire on the first glance, but I think it was actually more like a third or fourth glance ;-) Brianna and Roger though.....;-)

I wasn't speaking about "love" but how other characters are physically attracted to her--which, IMO, goes the same for Claire and Jamie. 

[lianau]

51 minutes ago, Grashka said:

IMO Claire and Jamie are larger than life as characters but I wouldn't say they are perfect, Jamie in particular has some deep flaws, which the author (in the narrative), other characters and Jamie himself are all aware of, so it's not the case of Gary Stu character who fucks up but no one, including the author, points it out.

There is a subset of fans however who ignore all his flaws and see him as perfect . St Jamie who can't do anything wrong and the St.Jamies  who then ,in response to it , hate on every character who doesn't treat Jamie accordingly . That includes Brianna and William who both don't immediately dump their father figures  for Jamie .

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, lianau said:

There is a subset of fans however who ignore all his flaws and see him as perfect . St Jamie who can't do anything wrong and the St.Jamies  who then ,in response to it , hate on every character who doesn't treat Jamie accordingly . That includes Brianna and William who both don't immediately dump their father figures  for Jamie .

I got into an ill-advised internet argument with some people who were over-the-top Jamie worshippers.  They'd been complaining about how much time was being spent on Frank & Claire and I pointed out that the showrunners probably wanted to split time more-or-less evenly between Claire & Jamie.  That caused them to lose their minds and they said that was ridiculous because who cares about Claire when the entire story is actually all about Jamie.  After all, they said, Diana G got the idea from the Jamie Fraser character in Dr. Who.  So really, who cares about Claire? Jamie is the center of everything. 

It was very odd.  I mean, I'm accustomed to folks who bristle at their favorite things changed for the show but this was a whole nother level of crazy.  

It's as though the books are Sacred Texts that are being defiled by Ronald Moore.  

[lianau]

And Claire is their self insert character and since they only want Jamie , Claire isn't supposed to be anywhere else or have opinions that are not theirs .

[nodorothyparker]

I don't know that I agree with everything this writer is trying to say but I found it a very interesting take nonetheless in light of our discussion this past week on show vs. book Frank and how he's being perceived.   This is based entirely on Frank's story as presented on TV and echoes more eloquently a lot of opinions my decidedly pro Frank nonbook reader husband has had.

In defense of Frank Randall

[FnkyChkn34]

I think I found the right topic. :-)

I have a bookMurtagh vs. showMurtagh observation/question.  I went to the wikia and read that Murtagh tried to win over Ellen in 1715, so he'd probably be about 18-20 years then, correct?  Let's just say he was born in 1695 then for argument's sake, because I couldn't find his birthday anywhere else.  So for him to still be there when Jamie and Claire get to the American colonies in 1767, he'll be 72 years old.  Umm... what?  Even if he was born in 1700 and only 15 when he tried to woo Ellen, he'd be 67.  Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  I get that some people in those days really did live that long, but many did not, and Duncan Lacroix playing someone who is approx. 70 years old?  (The Google is letting me down when I asked it to find Duncan's age, but the range I'm seeing is 42-47.  We all obviously know that Jamie/Sam and Claire/Caitriona have to age, but only into their 40s, but that's only a 10 year age difference from their real ages, not 25.)  Hmm...

[Hyla]

Thanks for posting the link above! I've really enjoyed Frank's character in the show and find him to be very sympathetically portrayed.

But, I can't help thinking too much so! While I like what they've done giving Frank more of a voice and equal time his presence has really taken away from Claire's story and the integrity of Claire's character.

And that's a shame because there aren't a lot of series out there with a strong female adventurer as the central focus. (And I do feel Outlander is Claire's story over any of the other characters).

What I would really like to read and am having trouble finding is an article or discussion about how the male point of view has altered Outlander. How a series written by a woman, with a female protagonist and supported by a majority female readership lost out to a male producer, male writers and male viewers who identified and sympathized with him rather than Claire.

I've been bothered by interviewers who leave the actors at a loss by attacking the central premise of the story.  Like Stephan Colbert did while interviewing Caitriona Balfe https://youtu.be/NMoD8Va_zu8

Edited September 25, 2017 by Hyla
Spastic phone

[Bort]

23 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

So for him to still be there when Jamie and Claire get to the American colonies in 1767, he'll be 72 years old.  Umm... what?  Even if he was born in 1700 and only 15 when he tried to woo Ellen, he'd be 67.  Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  I get that some people in those days really did live that long, but many did not,

The high death rate was pretty much from children. If one made it to adulthood and still died young, it was from war (the men) or childbirth (the women). I've gone walking through some pretty old cemeteries and there were plenty of people who had lived well into their 70s.

[DittyDotDot]

37 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think I found the right topic. :-)

I have a bookMurtagh vs. showMurtagh observation/question.  I went to the wikia and read that Murtagh tried to win over Ellen in 1715, so he'd probably be about 18-20 years then, correct?  Let's just say he was born in 1695 then for argument's sake, because I couldn't find his birthday anywhere else.  So for him to still be there when Jamie and Claire get to the American colonies in 1767, he'll be 72 years old.  Umm... what?  Even if he was born in 1700 and only 15 when he tried to woo Ellen, he'd be 67.  Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  I get that some people in those days really did live that long, but many did not, and Duncan Lacroix playing someone who is approx. 70 years old?  (The Google is letting me down when I asked it to find Duncan's age, but the range I'm seeing is 42-47.  We all obviously know that Jamie/Sam and Claire/Caitriona have to age, but only into their 40s, but that's only a 10 year age difference from their real ages, not 25.)  Hmm...

Actually, Claire and Jamie initially age to their 40s, but the last book has Jamie is approaching 60, as I recall, which would put Claire almost 70. But, I agree with you that it would be fairly far-fetched for Murtagh to survive a war, prison and 14 years indentured servitude and make it into his 70s. But no more far-fetched that Jamie survived to fight in the American Revolution in his 60s. It's not that people didn't live to be that age, it's that Murtagh and Jamie lived a very hard lives and it's pretty remarkable they survived the prison years alone. At least Jamie didn't get transported and sold into indentured servitude in his 50s, though.

5 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I don't know that I agree with everything this writer is trying to say but I found it a very interesting take nonetheless in light of our discussion this past week on show vs. book Frank and how he's being perceived.   This is based entirely on Frank's story as presented on TV and echoes more eloquently a lot of opinions my decidedly pro Frank nonbook reader husband has had.

In defense of Frank Randall

I enjoyed the article, but rolled my eyes at a bit of the Claire-rants. I mean, I agree with her that Frank is a tragic figure and Claire isn't necessarily the good guy here, but I also don't think that makes her the bad guy either.

Edited September 25, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, Claire and Jamie initially age to their 40s, but the last book has Jamie is approaching 60, as I recall, which would put Claire almost 70. But, I agree with you that it would be fairly far-fetched for Murtagh to survive a war, prison and 14 years indentured servitude and make it into his 70s. But no more far-fetched that Jamie survived to fight in the American Revolution in his 60s. It's not that people didn't live to be that age, it's that Murtagh and Jamie lived a very hard lives and it's pretty remarkable they survived the prison years alone. At least Jamie didn't get transported and sold into indentured servitude in his 50s, though.

Right, they all continue to age, but I was just referring to this season for now.  :-)  If a 40 year old Sam Heughan also tries to play a mid-60s Jamie in a few more seasons, then I'll probably still have the same comment. ;-)

But you hit on why I think it's far fetched - they lived a hard life even before the war, then fought in a war, then were imprisoned and Murtagh was already on death's door because he was sick, and now he's going to survive the trip to the colonies and indentured servitude for 14 years?  Jocasta living to be in her 70s makes much more sense, given that she was wealthy and lived in relative luxury.  Murtagh, not so much.

[Nidratime]

Quote

What I would really like to read and am having trouble finding is an article or discussion about how the male point of view has altered Outlander. How a series written by a woman, with a female protagonist and supported by a majority female readership lost out to a male producer, male writers and male viewers who identified and sympathized with him rather than Claire.

Well, I take your point, but this show isn't being brought to us totally through a male prism. Maril Davis -- although not a writer -- has had a lot of input. Toni and Anne have been principle writers and Anne Forrester was director of the Wedding episode as well as at least one if not both of the excruciating Jamie and Black Jack season one finale episodes. This doesn't take into account that Diana is still a consultant. Plus, this season, the pendulum swings to the women's side because -- I believe -- the majority of the writers are now women. There are three men, including Ron, and the four(?) others are women. Plus, I believe the majority of the episodes are now being directed by women.

To me, besides gender, one of the more interesting divides has been between book readers and non-book readers and how they perceive the story. For instance, Matt Roberts is one of the biggest fans of the books, having been central to getting this story to Maril and Ron's attention, while Toni Graphia -- who Matt often collaborates with on episodes is not a book reader. I believe she just reads the season that they are currently working on.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Nidratime

[katville]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

Actually, Claire and Jamie initially age to their 40s, but the last book has Jamie is approaching 60, as I recall, which would put Claire almost 70. But, I agree with you that it would be fairly far-fetched for Murtagh to survive a war, prison and 14 years indentured servitude and make it into his 70s. But no more far-fetched that Jamie survived to fight in the American Revolution in his 60s. It's not that people didn't live to be that age, it's that Murtagh and Jamie lived a very hard lives and it's pretty remarkable they survived the prison years alone. At least Jamie didn't get transported and sold into indentured servitude in his 50s, though.

I enjoyed the article, but rolled my eyes at a bit of the Claire-rants. I mean, I agree with her that Frank is a tragic figure and Claire isn't necessarily the good guy here, but I also don't think that makes her the bad guy either.

I don't think that age difference is correct. There is only 4 years difference in age between them.

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, katville said:

I don't think that age difference is correct. There is only 4 years difference in age between them.

I thought there was 8 years between them. Isn't Jamie 20 and Claire 28 when we first meet them?

Either way, my point stands that they will age much more as the show goes on and will probably still be played by the same actors who are much, much younger.