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

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks @Nidratime. Here's hoping they'll avoid all the racially offensive shit.

[nodorothyparker]

5 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I don't think Jenny cared about Laoghaire as much as just wanted Claire to go back where she came from and leave Jamie behind. I'd say she wasn't thinking any more rationally than Jamie was in not telling Claire before they arrived at Lallybroch.

That's my read too and Jenny says as much when Claire asks her about it.   It's not that she particularly cares either way about Laoghaire as much as she knows she'll at least anchor him to the place enough that he'll never leave again entirely.  

From Jenny's perspective, Claire maybe took off and abandoned Jamie and by extension all of them when things got bad.  As an Englishwoman with supposed French relations, Claire got to skip suffering the hunger and brutality of the English occupation after Culloden to presumably live comfortably in France.  Where once Jenny was willing to give her and her unknown origins the benefit of the doubt, too much bad stuff has happened and too many years have passed for her to so blithely accept them a second time.  Throw in that while Jenny may be fully aware that she doesn't know everything Jamie's gotten himself into over the years, she at least seems to have some idea that if Claire didn't have some role in some of it she probably encouraged him in it.  And now that Jamie's back home free in Scotland and things have finally begun to settle down and he's doing okay, only NOW does Claire show up for it to potentially start all over again.

The book never really answers the specifics about the legal obligations of returning from the supposed dead.  With communications and travel being what they were at the time, I'm sure there must have been some kind of official guidelines on the matter.  Ned Gowan does tell Jamie that Laoghaire would be within her rights to sue him for bigamy and intent to defraud but it would be a public spectacle no one wants and thus it's in his best interests to offer her a settlement.  The real point of that, of course, being to move the plot along and not bog Claire and Jamie's big reunion down with tedious court proceedings.

[koboldin]

43 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I don't think Jenny cared about Laoghaire as much as just wanted Claire to go back where she came from and leave Jamie behind. I'd say she wasn't thinking any more rationally than Jamie was in not telling Claire before they arrived at Lallybroch.

I was rewatching season 3 this weekend, and I believe Jamie never corrects Jenny's understanding that Claire is dead. So the idea she'd get Jamie married off makes sense - he was a widower and a mess, and Jenny's MO is to fix things via marriage. She almost immediately regrets it because of Claire's fetch haunting the vows.

Now, how Jenny behaves when they return, especially with the ridiculous cover story in play...I'm hoping they let the Murrays know a la Murtaugh instead of using the lame explanation with giant, obvious holes in it. I'm also really hopeful they streamline the reveal and resolution. Hopeful, but ready for crazy. 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

The same could be said of Claire--that she was a bigamist. Show!Claire even said it. She was married to Frank in the future when she married Jamie; as for Jamie's marriage to hosebeast, well, it had been over seven years since Claire...left/was gone/dead. I'm not sure what the laws were regarding how long a spouse had to be gone before being declared legally dead. I don't recall what Ned Gowan found when he looked up the law and drafted the divorce settlement. All I know is Jamie had to fork over some monetary settlement, even though hosebeast found someone she loved and wanted to be with. That should have ended any monies Jamie was giving her.

Wasn't it more like 18 years since Claire had been gone?  I think Jamie just agreed to pay her to get rid of her, and because he felt bad for her, but not necessarily because he had to under the law as a real divorce settlement.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Wasn't it more like 18 years since Claire had been gone?  I think Jamie just agreed to pay her to get rid of her, and because he felt bad for her, but not necessarily because he had to under the law as a real divorce settlement.

Roughly yes. And you may be right. But it just irks me. And I don't any more emphasis on redeeming her because her first husband wasn't a good husband. 

[nodorothyparker]

5 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think Jamie just agreed to pay her to get rid of her, and because he felt bad for her, but not necessarily because he had to under the law as a real divorce settlement.

I don't care enough to look up any real 18th century statutes since I don't anticipate ever acquiring a second husband there, but book Ned does advise settling generously with Laoghaire to avoid a public trial on bigamy and defrauding charges.  That suggests to me that this could have been a huge legal headache had Laoghaire truly wanted to pursue it.

[AD55]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I hope I don't jinx it, but I want the actress who plays Jenny to never ever leave the show. She's bloody fantastic; I think the chemistry between her and Sam is helped by the fact that they were friends in real life before they were cast for this series.

THIS times infinity.

[Summer]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Thanks @Nidratime. Here's hoping they'll avoid all the racially offensive shit.

I'm thinking they will tone down the Mr. Willoughby character a lot, maybe even to a small bit part just based upon what they did to the Geneva scene and TPTB wanting to avoid fan backlash.....

[DittyDotDot]

3 minutes ago, Summer said:

I'm thinking they will tone down the Mr. Willoughby character a lot, maybe even to a small bit part just based upon what they did to the Geneva scene and TPTB wanting to avoid fan backlash.....

I think it will be much better on screen because what we see of Mr. Willowby in the book is from Claire and Jamie's POV. I think it will be easier to see Mr. Willowby as a full-fledged character when we get to actually see him.

[AD55]

12 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think it will be much better on screen because what we see of Mr. Willowby in the book is from Claire and Jamie's POV. I think it will be easier to see Mr. Willowby as a full-fledged character when we get to actually see him.

That's what I've been thinking, too, DittyDotDot. Showing that prejudice exists, and is practiced by characters we like, is different from making the victim of prejudice a figure for ridicule, as the book does, even if unintentionally. I don't want to be invited as a viewer to be complicit in the prejudice, as would be the case if J&C's stereotyping of Mr. Willowby is normalized by the way the character is portrayed, if that makes sense. The issue is going to be that there's so much to cover that the showrunners may choose not to engage in such subtleties. If they don't, any backlash they receive will be justified.

Edited October 16, 2017 by AD55

[Eureka]

3 hours ago, Summer said:

I'm thinking they will tone down the Mr. Willoughby character a lot, maybe even to a small bit part just based upon what they did to the Geneva scene and TPTB wanting to avoid fan backlash.....

Exactly what I am hoping. He can teach Claire acupuncture and go his merry way.

[Atlanta]

39 minutes ago, Eureka said:

Exactly what I am hoping. He can teach Claire acupuncture and go his merry way.

And 'healthy balls.' Bahahahah!

[toolazy]

7 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Oooh, any tips or secrets on how you did that?  I have to use my Fire Stick. 

 

7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

If you have a bluray player, that allows you to do so. Just turn it on, scroll down until you see Amazon and click on it. You'll have to register the internet information on your teevee. I'd suggest doing it via your 'puter on Amazon's site, because the format is so not user friendly on the teevee.

Yep, it was with my bluray player but even that didn't work a few weeks ago. 

[WatchrTina]

I have a theory about the whole Jamie-married-Laoghaire-and-doesn't-tell-Claire kerfuffle.  I think it serves two narrative purposes.

1. It's completely unreasonable to assume that Jamie would never marry again.  He's a fine specimen of a man and he's human and he's loving and kind and he likes sex.  Of course he's going to re-marry.  Now imagine if he had married a nice, kind, open-hearted woman like Mary MacNab.  Then where would we all be when Claire came back?  There would be mixed feelings all around.  We'd hate to see a nice person hurt by the reunion of our central couple.  Ergo, Jamie has to marry someone we don't like -- someone we don't mind seeing humiliated when Jamie returns to Lallybroch with his beloved. Enter Laoghaire, stage left.  Jamie marrying her makes perfect sense when you look at it through that plot-necessity filter.  The thing I have to scoff at is the notion that Laoghaire did not respond to Jamie in bed.  Seriously?  He was her childhood crush and he kens what to do in bed.  How on earth did they end up stuck in the bad sex zone?  I know the book blames it on her two abusive prior husbands (with a side-order of Jamie always thinking about Claire) but I always thought that bit reeked to high heaven of unrealistic plot-necessary nonsense.  Still, that it my theory as to why it was Laoghaire that Jamie married.
2. The OTHER reason that I think Laoghaire enters the story at this point (and the plot-necessary reason why Jenny rats Jamie out to Laoghaire) is that without the whole fracas surrounding Laoghaire barging in on Jamie & Claire, and Claire leaving, and Jamie getting shot, and Young Ian bringing Claire back, and Claire saving Jamie with the penicillin, and Ned Gowan negotiating a settlement -- without all that distraction someone clearly would have asked the question, "So.  Claire.  Where the fuck have you been for 20 years?"  That question gets pushed to the side by all the Laoghaire-related ruckus and then once it's finally settled Claire and Jamie (and Wee Ian) have to go off to the island of Jacobite treasure (because of what Jamie now owes Laoghaire) and from thence they are off on their high seas adventure.  No one ever gets the chance to really call out Claire on the holes in her story.  It's noteworthy that the next time Jamie and Claire are back at Lallybroch they do end up confessing to Ian and Jenny that Claire is a time-traveler because there is NO WAY Jenny was not going to finally demand from Claire an explanation of her 20-year absence.

Edited October 17, 2017 by WatchrTina
Why use "fracas" twice when you can say "kerfuffle" at least once.

[Nidratime]

Quote

It's noteworthy that the next time Jamie and Claire are back at Lallybroch they do end up confessing to Ian and Jenny that Claire is a time-traveler because there is NO WAY Jenny was not going to finally demand from Claire an explanation of her 20-year absence.

I don't recall this. Must be a book I haven't read yet.

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I don't recall this. Must be a book I haven't read yet.

I believe it's Echo in the Bone.

[Nidratime]

Yep, haven't read it yet. Interesting. I thought Jamie and Claire never went back.

[lianau]

On 17.10.2017 at 4:05 AM, WatchrTina said:

I have a theory about the whole Jamie-married-Laoghaire-and-doesn't-tell-Claire kerfuffle.  I think it serves two narrative purposes.

1. It's completely unreasonable to assume that Jamie would never marry again.  He's a fine specimen of a man and he's human and he's loving and kind and he likes sex.  Of course he's going to re-marry.  Now imagine if he had married a nice, kind, open-hearted woman like Mary MacNab.  Then where would we all be when Claire came back?  There would be mixed feelings all around.  We'd hate to see a nice person hurt by the reunion of our central couple.  Ergo, Jamie has to marry someone we don't like -- someone we don't mind seeing humiliated when Jamie returns to Lallybroch with his beloved. Enter Laoghaire, stage left.  Jamie marrying her makes perfect sense when you look at it through that plot-necessity filter.  The thing I have to scoff at is the notion that Laoghaire did not respond to Jamie in bed.  Seriously?  He was her childhood crush and he kens what to do in bed.  How on earth did they end up stuck in the bad sex zone?  I know the book blames it on her two abusive prior husbands (with a side-order of Jamie always thinking about Claire) but I always thought that bit reeked to high heaven of unrealistic plot-necessary nonsense.  Still, that it my theory as to why it was Laoghaire that Jamie married.

I think that's Jamie's explanation , we later learn how mechanical about sex Jamie was with Laoghaire when Jenny mentioned in a letter that Laoghaire  has a new partner and Jamie can't understand why he's jealous and then sort of mistakes Claire for Laoghaire.

 

On 17.10.2017 at 2:29 PM, Nidratime said:

I don't recall this. Must be a book I haven't read yet.

It comes with the advice to the Murray child working for Jared (don't ask me which one) to start transferring assets and Jared's  wine business to Britain before the French go down the head chopping road .

[Summer]

I really hope the show skips that part in the book where Jamie yells at Claire for choosing the name Brianna and something about how she pronounces it wrong or something like that... It was shortly after their reunion and I always thought it was out of place and kind of mean of Jamie....

[toolazy]

I find that I cannot wait to read the non-book readers' reactions to the nautical farce coming up in the next few episodes.  I imagine that it will mostly mirror my own "WTF is this fuckery?" reaction when I first read Voyager.  I mean, I've come around and I don't hate most of it but still, it was all extremely unexpected and often ridiculous.  

[DittyDotDot]

40 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I find that I cannot wait to read the non-book readers' reactions to the nautical farce coming up in the next few episodes.  I imagine that it will mostly mirror my own "WTF is this fuckery?" reaction when I first read Voyager.  I mean, I've come around and I don't hate most of it but still, it was all extremely unexpected and often ridiculous.  

Ain't that the damn truth! I do find it amusing how Voyager was so exasperating for me when reading it the first time, but now I think it might be my favorite book. And, that's not because the other books are terrible, either. This series is just weird! ;)

1 hour ago, Summer said:

I really hope the show skips that part in the book where Jamie yells at Claire for choosing the name Brianna and something about how she pronounces it wrong or something like that... It was shortly after their reunion and I always thought it was out of place and kind of mean of Jamie....

I didn't think he yelled at her, but didn't understand why she chose the name. Later in, I think Drums of Autumn, Duncan is also taken back by the name and Jamie explains that the way she pronounces it is some derogatory word in Gaelic.

Edited October 19, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[theschnauzers]

On 10/17/2017 at 7:29 AM, Nidratime said:

I don't recall this. Must be a book I haven't read yet.

IIRC, Jamie went back twice. The first time to bring Young Ian home and get Jamie’s printing press, and the second to escort the remains of a British General named Fraser back for burial. Can’t remember whether it was in Voyager or later, but I do recall they went and got reading spectacles for both of them in Edinburgh.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, theschnauzers said:

IIRC, Jamie went back twice. The first time to bring Young Ian home and get Jamie’s printing press, and the second to escort the remains of a British General named Fraser back for burial. Can’t remember whether it was in Voyager or later, but I do recall they went and got reading spectacles for both of them in Edinburgh.

That's all in Echo in the Bone. The one and only trip they take back to Scotland--so far--is the one where they escort the General's body and then go on to Lallybroch with wee Ian. That's also when they retrieve Jamie's printing press and they get the spectacles.

Edited October 19, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Atlanta]

28 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Ain't that the damn truth! I do find it amusing how Voyager was so exasperating for me when reading it the first time, but now I think it might be my favorite book. And, that's not because the other books are terrible, either. This series is just weird! ;)

I didn't think he yelled at her, but didn't understand why she chose the name. Later in, I think Drums of Autumn, Duncan is also taken back by the name and Jamie explains that the way she pronounces it is some derogatory word in Gaelic.

Apparently a bree or whatever is Gaelic for a disturbance.

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

Apparently a bree or whatever is Gaelic for a disturbance.

That's right. I knew it was something "bad," but couldn't remember what it was. Ironically, Bree does cause a huge disturbance in their lives when she first shows up. ;)

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

That's right. I knew it was something "bad," but couldn't remember what it was. Ironically, Bree does cause a huge disturbance in their lives when she first shows up. ;)

But the Gaelic pronunciation sounds like “Breeena,” so that doesn’t make sense. Gabaldon spelled it out like “Br’eena” or something like that.??

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But the Gaelic pronunciation sounds like “Breeena,” so that doesn’t make sense. Gabaldon spelled it out like “Br’eena” or something like that.??

Right, but Claire calls her Bree for short.

[auntlada]

On 10/16/2017 at 1:10 PM, Nidratime said:

No, I think there's a difference there. I never saw Claire as a bigamist because, no matter what time she was in, her other husband did not exist and could never exist in that time period. It's true that Claire also "did not exist" when Jamie married Laoghaire, but *she could've existed* and now does. For all Jamie knew, Claire could've come back at any time during his marriage to Laoghaire.

I too, have no idea how long a person had to be missing before they were considered legally dead or what would happen if someone returned who had been declared so. Does Claire have to go to the courts and have herself declared alive!? We know she doesn't do that, and they merrily just resume their married life, so....

That is roughly what Brother Anselm told Claire, that her marriage to Jamie actually predates her marriage to Frank, even though for her it doesn't. And by the year she married Frank, Jamie was dead.

[Clawdette]

Once positive that the television series has over the book for me is that there simply isn't enough time for the endless dire/stressful/life-threatening/frustrating/unfeasible situations that befall Jamie and Claire.  When I read the books I was weary of the succession of calamities and when I finished Drums, I had to talk myself into going forward.  It was the same for each successive book.  Now, mind you, it didn't take more than a day or so before I relented and download the next tome.  But I used to mutter to myself, "Does every damn thing have to happen to them?!"  And, I answered, "Apparently so."

While I love the saga, I won't mind missing some of the Sturm and Drang.  

[WatchrTina]

On 10/19/2017 at 8:39 PM, Clawdette said:

"Does every damn thing have to happen to them?!"  And, I answered, "Apparently so."

I understand what you are saying and it's a common complaint in serial fiction (think about all the shit that the Starship Enterprise has landed in over the decades -- that ship is a disaster magnet.)  But whistling past all that is part of the reader/author contract.  In order to enjoy this book (and virtually any book in the action/adventure/science fiction/fantasy genre) there has to be a "willful suspension of disbelief."

That being said . . . there are limits and this book pushes them.  I've called the second half of Voyager a "French Farce" and I stand by that characterization because the high-jinks on the high seas (and everything involving the excisemen that precedes it) remind me so much of a play where actors keep running on and off stage and in and out of doors, just missing one another, while the audience looks on and laughs.

But now I want to take a moment and applaud the underlying genius of this book because virtually ALL of the crazy stuff in this book is in service of two goals:

1. Reunite Jamie and Claire
2. Relocate Jamie & Claire to America with enough established supporting characters to populate the next story (including reestablishing contact with Lord John and bringing the existence of William to Claire's attention).

I don't think anyone has any complaints about how Diana pulls off item 1.  The search by the Scoobies, Jamie's years in hiding, then in Aurdsmuir, then at Helwater -- it's all wonderful reading.  Jamie doesn't get shipped off to America with his men because that would over-complicate item 1.  Claire needs to find him in Scotland.  But having done that -- then what?  They settle down in Edinburgh and live happily ever after?  Well THAT would kill the story.   So what was going on in history at this time?  A mass-migration of Scots to America, that's what.  Perfect, let's put Jamie & Claire on a boat to America.  Thus, Item 2

 But wait, Jamie has crippling sea-sickness AND family he loves in Scotland as well as a thriving business -- two really if you count the smuggling -- and employees and business colleagues who depend on him.  What on earth would motivate him leave?  Nothing short of a family obligation -- nothing less than a mission to find and rescue a kidnapped child would put Jamie on a ship to America.  So Ian has to be kidnapped.  In order for Ian to be kidnapped there has to be reason why Jamie doesn't make the swim to the island himself as usual.  So Jamie has to be injured.  Okay shot.  Who would shoot Jamie?  Who do we have who is a villain? Oh yeah, Laoghaire.  Why would she shoot him?  Oh, he married her and then returns to Lallybroch with Claire. Oooooh, that'll work.

I have less clarity about the whys and wherefores of the "Island Adventures" but  we could have a terrific debate about whether everything that happened was necessary to move the plot to its ultimate goal of washing Jamie and Claire up on that storm-tossed beach in America.  I'm sure the series writers had to have that very discussion in order to cut out some of the more seemingly Byzantine plot lines.  But if you ask yourself, well why did THAT have to happen I think you'll find that nearly "every damn thing" that happens to them is in service of accomplishing that second goal.  I have to admire all that Diana accomplished in this book.  I will also buy some good whisky to help get through calamities to come.

Edited October 21, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

I know one scene won't probably make it next season, even though I found Jamie's reaction hilarious. They'll probably cut it, like they did with Jamie's shock over Claire waxing her legs and..."OXTERS!!!!" in Dragonfly.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I have less clarity about the whys and wherefores of the "Island Adventures" but  we could have a terrific debate about whether everything that happened was necessary to move the plot to its ultimate goal of washing Jamie and Claire up on that storm-tossed beach in America.

I am very curious about how much of that hallucinogenic drug trip ;-) makes it on the screen -- both Claire's involvement with the "priest," mother in law, and naturalist and all the weird stuff involving the escaped slaves on Jamaica and the sister of the Reverend, let alone the stuff in the cave! Gah! What makes me doubly curious is that many of those developments are being tackled by the new writers and directors. Episodes 7 - 12 are all written by the newest members of the team, so I'm hoping they (and the new Directors) get all the characters right and we'll all be praising their worthy efforts!

[theschnauzers]

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

I am very curious about how much of that hallucinogenic drug trip ;-) makes it on the screen -- both Claire's involvement with the "priest," mother in law, and naturalist and all the weird stuff involving the escaped slaves on Jamaica and the sister of the Reverend, let alone the stuff in the cave! Gah! What makes me doubly curious is that many of those developments are being tackled by the new writers and directors. Episodes 7 - 12 are all written by the newest members of the team, so I'm hoping they (and the new Directors) get all the characters right and we'll all be praising their worthy efforts!

My impression of how the writers’ room works for Outlander is that it’s very much collaborative in plotting out the episodes and it vetting scripts once there is an initial draft. I fully expect some things will be there to show how Jamie and Claire arrived on the American mainland, such as tracking Young Ian’s capture, the slave revolts, and their stay with the priests, as well as the hurricane.  Almost all of which made filming in Cape Town on the retired Black Sails sets a very sound decision.

I highly suspect the new writers and directors will have read the series, I can’t even imagine their working on Outlander if it were otherwise. (David Berry said that he read Voyager and the Lord John novellas when he was cast before he filmed his first scene. He didn’t have time for more than that,)

[toolazy]

Ron Moore & Maril Davis have said that they like to keep it about half and half - half the writers have read the books and the other half have not.  That way they can make sure they hit the beats that readers expect but also make sure the story works for non-readers.

[Eureka]

19 hours ago, toolazy said:

I find that I cannot wait to read the non-book readers' reactions to the nautical farce coming up in the next few episodes.  I imagine that it will mostly mirror my own "WTF is this fuckery?" reaction when I first read Voyager.  I mean, I've come around and I don't hate most of it but still, it was all extremely unexpected and often ridiculous.  

This is why overall Voyager is my least favorite book. No patience for the convoluted storylines.

[Eureka]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I know one scene won't probably make it next season, even though I found Jamie's reaction hilarious. They'll probably cut it, like they did with Jamie's shock over Claire waxing her legs and..."OXTERS!!!!" in Dragonfly.

Maybe I'm being dense but can't think of what scene you mean. Please share.

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 minutes ago, Eureka said:

Maybe I'm being dense but can't think of what scene you mean. Please share.

When they arrive in North Carolina, and are near the river, where Jamie has decided to wash up (fuzzy on those details), and approaches Claire, who is on the bank? rock? Masturbating.

[Eureka]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

When they arrive in North Carolina, and are near the river, where Jamie has decided to wash up (fuzzy on those details), and approaches Claire, who is on the bank? rock? Masturbating.

Ah, yes I remember that scene. Thank you. I think she's on the rock. I don't remember him being shocked about it, but more amused and then turned on.

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Eureka said:

Ah, yes I remember that scene. Thank you. I think she's on the rock. I don't remember him being shocked about it, but more amused and then turned on.

No, he wasn't as shocked as he was when he realized Claire waxed her legs and underarms, but I do recall being amused at him being slightly taken aback when he saw Claire on the rock. And yes, he was turned on. Which is why we probably won't see it.

[BryroseA]

6 hours ago, Eureka said:

This is why overall Voyager is my least favorite book. No patience for the convoluted storylines.

Yeah, I've re-read the first half (up to the reunion and then skipping to some of the Lallybroch scenes) umpty dozen times, but only read the second half once. I can't quite bring myself to wade through all of that again. It should make the second half of this season more surprising to me!

[dustoffmom]

I've always liked Voyager the least of all of them, from the first time I read it till the last time, which was 8th I believe.  I have reread the entire series prior to each new release, but always have to make myself when it comes to Voyager!

And I recall the shaved your oxters! scene from Dragonfly.  She has spent the day with some of the ladies of Versailles and they all got beautified, so to speak, and that night Jaime was horrified at what she had done.  No?  Feel free to correct my memory.

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, Eureka said:

Ah, yes I remember that scene. Thank you. I think she's on the rock. I don't remember him being shocked about it, but more amused and then turned on.

Also, we've already done Claire diddling herself so they might not want to go back to that well.  

[lianau]

I'm sort of dreading the next episode because I'm sure there will be a lot of sex in it and I'm a tv sex scene prude. 

[AD55]

10 hours ago, lianau said:

I'm sort of dreading the next episode because I'm sure there will be a lot of sex in it and I'm a tv sex scene prude. 

I'm not a tv sex prude, but I am kind of over [*unpopular opinion incoming*] the C&J sex scenes. I find myself getting bored.

On 10/19/2017 at 9:39 PM, Clawdette said:

Once positive that the television series has over the book for me is that there simply isn't enough time for the endless dire/stressful/life-threatening/frustrating/unfeasible situations that befall Jamie and Claire.  When I read the books I was weary of the succession of calamities and when I finished Drums, I had to talk myself into going forward.  It was the same for each successive book.  Now, mind you, it didn't take more than a day or so before I relented and download the next tome.  But I used to mutter to myself, "Does every damn thing have to happen to them?!"  And, I answered, "Apparently so."

While I love the saga, I won't mind missing some of the Sturm and Drang.  

Ditto. I was leafing through the books looking for something the other day and was reminded that Claire and Jaime are at death's door at least once, and usually more than once, per book.

 

23 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I understand what you are saying and it's a common complaint in serial fiction (think about all the shit that the Star Ship Enterprise has landed in over the decades -- that ship is a disaster magnet.)  But whistling past all that is part of the reader/author contract.  In order to enjoy this book (and virtually any book in the action/adventure/science fiction/fantasy genre) there has to be a "willful suspension of disbelief."

 

I agree with this, and it's one reason I like that some of the focus is off Claire and Jaime in the later books. At least the disasters get spread around.  Also, my ability to go along for the ride is definitely influenced by whether the scenarios are so contrived (e.g., the justly maligned Roger and the Mohawks travesty) that they take me out of the story. I always think of Twain's rules for writing: "They require that the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable."

Edited October 21, 2017 by AD55

[Nidratime]

I was trying to find an explanation for why Diana had originally called her first book Cross Stitch and came upon this 2014 interview with National Geographic, in which she explains her concept of Outlander time travel, which kind of involves cross stitching. Interesting little article.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140808-outlander-scotland-orkney-islands-stonehenge-neolithic/

 

Quote

 

In the Outlander universe, how did you make time travel seem plausible?

If you're going to write time travel stories, you have to sort of figure out how does time travel work in this particular universe that I'm dealing with.

There are lines of geomagnetic force running through the Earth's crust, and most of the time these run in opposing directions—forward and backward. In some places they deviate and will cross each other, and when that happens, you kind of get a geomagnetic mess going in all different directions. I call these vertices.

Essentially, it could be possible to have something like this nexus of crossing lines to create a little time vortex. And if you could have a person whose sensibility to geomagnetism is sufficiently advanced so that they can not only detect this but enter into it in some way, then you have a plausible way of time travel.

So if prehistoric people noticed that every so often when people crossed that particular patch of grass, they disappeared, it would cause considerable consternation, and they might think it worthwhile marking that spot. So that might be the reason why the stones are there, and why they're set up the way they are, as in, "People tended to disappear on the winter solstice when they step over here, so don't do that!"

I will have to do a write-up called the Gabaldon Theory of Time Travel.

 

[theschnauzers]

It should be pointed out that the first novel wasn’t called Cross Stitch in the U.S. only in the U.K.

[Dejana]

4 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

It should be pointed out that the first novel wasn’t called Cross Stitch in the U.S. only in the U.K.

The UK publisher considered the Outlander title unsuitable for the market, for some reason.

[toolazy]

40 minutes ago, Dejana said:

The UK publisher considered the Outlander title unsuitable for the market, for some reason.

I thought it was a conflict with another book titled Outlander.  

[Dejana]

15 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I thought it was a conflict with another book titled Outlander.  

Diana explains the UK/US title difference in her website's FAQ. It's actually the reverse of what I thought:
 

Quote

What is Cross Stitch?

Cross Stitch was my original title (it was a play on “a stitch in time”), and the Brits liked it. The Americans said “It sounds too much like embroidery, can you think of something more….adventurous?” so I did—OUTLANDER (I thought of calling it “Sassenach,” but they said, “No.  Nobody can pronounce it, and since they can’t pronounce your name either…). Also, when I wrote it, I had in mind that it was one book–and knew only enough about it to be pretty sure that Claire would “cross” not once, but twice– future to past, past to future–which would make an X, which is the basic embroidery cross stitch. It also had to do with Claire’s occupation–that of a healer.  Lots of meanings, but overall, not really a good title, I don’t think.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Dejana

[WatchrTina]

On 10/14/2017 at 0:51 AM, WatchrTina said:

I have such a strong mental picture of that moment.  Dear show-runners: DO NOT FUCK IT UP.  I am certain there are going to be a ton of amazing Jamie/Claire moments in the next episode but I have always loved my mental image of Jamie, still reeling from the shock of Claire's return, being presented with photographs for the first time ever -- first in black and white and then in COLOR -- and having to subdue his wonderment at these magical windows into another time in order to deal with the shock of seeing, of actually SEEING, his child grow up before his very eyes.

They better get it right.

Alas. they fucked it up.

Now don't get me wrong.  I loved this episode (306, A. Malcolm).  LOVED it.  I'm going to spend the next hour writing about how much I loved it.  But that wee moment -- where Jamie sees his daughter for the first time and then (in the book) "goes quietly to pieces" was sacrificed in order for Jamie to choose that moment to tell Claire about the existence of William.  In fact, more time is spent on camera with Jamie telling Claire about his son by another woman than is spent on Claire telling Jamie about THEIR child.  They even chose that moment to throw in a bit of dialog about Jamie's glasses and Claire explaining what a camera is instead of just SHOWING us Jamie's reaction to the miracle of being able to see his daughter.  Boo.  Hiss.  I am not best pleased.

But the rest of the episode was AWESOME so I'll get over it.

Edited October 27, 2017 by WatchrTina