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

[Dust Bunny]

I agree with a bunch of posters that I was underwhelmed by Jamie's photo reaction. I was looking forward to that, as well.

Still, I've developed more grace for my favorite shows. I don't do the "Television Without Pity" thing anymore.

I've always had the "don't let the imperfect get in the way of the good" thing, but it has increased exponentially since the election results on November 8th. I love this show, and I want it to continue as long as possible. Those involved in the show have been patient, engaging, and affirming with a lot of fan reactions, but, understandably, they've had reservations to the more intense fans. I want to create an atmosphere where everyone involved with the show is motivated to stay.

I do agree this episode wasn't perfect. But it was pretty damn good.

[katville]

I agree 100 percent, Dust Bunny.

While I missed having Jamie's emotional reaction to the photos, I still think the episode was beautifully done. One thing that viewers need to step back and realize: they can't make us all happy. Just look at the opinions in the A. Malcolm episode thread - everyone has a different one. Everyone has something different to say, every person has a different scene they wanted to see and each person has a different interpretation of the book. 

The Outlander team has an impossible task. They are taking a beloved and very dense book, with a wide variety of locales and characters who age two decades, and trying to craft it into 13 episodes of television, within budget. It saddens me to read the vitriol that is thrown at them. 

The only thing that I give a side eye to in episode 6 is the inclusion once again of a threat of rape that was not in the book. The books are so rape heavy in the first place, that I cannot for the life of me figure out why they would add to that. I hope there is a good reason for this that will play out or be explained in the podcast.

I just wish the fans would be more reasonable. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

37 minutes ago, katville said:

I agree 100 percent, Dust Bunny.

While I missed having Jamie's emotional reaction to the photos, I still think the episode was beautifully done. One thing that viewers need to step back and realize: they can't make us all happy. Just look at the opinions in the A. Malcolm episode thread - everyone has a different one. Everyone has something different to say, every person has a different scene they wanted to see and each person has a different interpretation of the book. 

The Outlander team has an impossible task. They are taking a beloved and very dense book, with a wide variety of locales and characters who age two decades, and trying to craft it into 13 episodes of television, within budget. It saddens me to read the vitriol that is thrown at them. 

The only thing that I give a side eye to in episode 6 is the inclusion once again of a threat of rape that was not in the book. The books are so rape heavy in the first place, that I cannot for the life of me figure out why they would add to that. I hope there is a good reason for this that will play out or be explained in the podcast.

I just wish the fans would be more reasonable. 

PERFECTLY SAID, @katville! I wasn’t able to express my thoughts without sounding a know it all, but you said it just right.

And I especially agree with the bolded,  considering that Claire actually is raped a few buiks later.

And though we didn’t see Jamie break down, what I did see (and I'll be posting this in the episode thread as well) was him picking up, looking at Bree’s baby picture, looking ahead as if trying to contain his emotions, looking down again, his fingers rubbing it. Then looking up again, before he began looking at the other pictures. I didn’t see him “choosing” Bree over Willie.

[WatchrTina]

I had a couple of books-vs-show thoughts about Ep 306

1. I kind of love the hint they gave us that Jaime nearly ‘fessed up about Laoghaire.  He talks about how he thought he’d “never laugh in a woman’s bed again nor come to one save as a brute, blind with need.”  After Claire replies you can see that he’s starting to tell Claire something but she stops him saying “We don’t have to rush it.”  She essentially gives him PERMISSION not to tell her about the women he turned to over the years out of need -- and that includes Laoghaire.  I think that’s interesting.  Book!Jamie’s failure to come clean about Laoghaire is one of his biggest fuck-ups in the whole series.  I think it’s interesting that the show-runners felt the need to make TV!Claire an unwitting co-conspirator in the cover-up instead of it ALL being Jamie’s fault (with collusion from both of the Ians plus Fergus.)
2. I’ll confess I’m having a hard time reconciling my mental picture of Ian-the-Mohawk from Book 5 and later with the version of wee Ian Murray we’re seeing for the first time today in ep 306.  But I recollect that the actor who portrayed Lancel Lannister in the first season of Game of Thrones (looking quite young and scrawny and, frankly, sexually undesirable with his girly hair) was buffed up and very threatening-looking in later seasons (when he cut his hair and became a religious zealot).  As such, I’m assuming that John Bell is being deliberately costumed and wigged to look young and vulnerable so that the contrast with Ian-the-warrior-brave will be all the more startling in season five. Alas, he's going to have to play this version of Ian for a couple more years before he gets to enjoy the transformation to bad-ass Indian brave.  Oh well, at least he gets a dire wolf wolf/dog hybrid as a companion next season.  That's pretty bad-ass.

Edited October 22, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

Ian's transition to warrior brave starts next season, though it isn't complete until we see him later in the series.  I think that they'll at least show his new hairdo but I don't recall whether or not he's tattooed before C&J leave the Mohawk camp.   Honestly, I skip that part of the book because I can't stand it.  

[thesparkinside]

Oh, I think overall, the writers have done a really good job. They've condensed a LOT of material and done so, for the most part, very gracefully. They've sidestepped some of the issues with the books, like the scene with Genenva and (seemingly) the more racially insensitive stuff with Mr Willoughby/Yi Tien Cho. Naturally, that can create some undesirable knock-on effects, but I think they're clever enough to make it work. My main concerns aren't so much with what that choose to leave out/put in, but sometimes with the execution and what they DO show.

It is going to be hard to pull off Mohawk-warrior Ian; in the books, I believe several years pass, so he grows up, but in the reality for the show, I don't think as much time will pass and the actor won't have the chance to grow into that. [They're already filming next season, where he ends up with the Mohawks . . . ] We'll have to see how they tackle that!

[lianau]

2 hours ago, thesparkinside said:

It is going to be hard to pull off Mohawk-warrior Ian; in the books, I believe several years pass, so he grows up, but in the reality for the show, I don't think as much time will pass and the actor won't have the chance to grow into that. [They're already filming next season, where he ends up with the Mohawks . . . ] We'll have to see how they tackle that!

I don't think it's that much time . We're now in 1766 and Ian is 14 (well the book version ) and he went to live with the Mohawk shortly before Jemmy was born, so 3 or 4 years at most .

[theschnauzers]

20 minutes ago, lianau said:

I don't think it's that much time . We're now in 1766 and Ian is 14 (well the book version ) and he went to live with the Mohawk shortly before Jemmy was born, so 3 or 4 years at most .

Young Ian’s stay with the Mohawks doesn’t even begin until after Roger and Bree arrive in North Carolina and the settlement is started, at least in the books. And Young ian and Rollo have to meet first and bond. So we’ve long enough to go that Young Ian will be between 18 and 20 when that happens.

[Nidratime]

Speaking of sidestepping the book's little landmines, here's an article where Maril Davis talks about how they thought about leaving out Willoughby:

Outlander's Producer Maril Davis: "It Felt Like a Loss" to Omit Mr. Willoughby

https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Outlander-Interview-Quotes-About-Mr-Willoughby-44169033

[DittyDotDot]

12 hours ago, thesparkinside said:

It is going to be hard to pull off Mohawk-warrior Ian; in the books, I believe several years pass, so he grows up, but in the reality for the show, I don't think as much time will pass and the actor won't have the chance to grow into that. [They're already filming next season, where he ends up with the Mohawks . . . ] We'll have to see how they tackle that!

I believe wee Ian is 17 or 18 when he first goes to live with the Mohawks and he's, I think 15 when he gets kidnapped in Scotland. I think they'll probably have to recast wee Ian at some point, but they may not do it until he comes back from the Mohawks. I think they'll need us to see him more adult at that time, but that's two years away and kids grow and mature... .

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, DittyDotDot said:

I believe wee Ian is 17 or 18 when he first goes to live with the Mohawks and he's, I think 15 when he gets kidnapped in Scotland. I think they'll probably have to recast wee Ian at some point, but they may not do it until he comes back from the Mohawks. I think they'll need us to see him more adult at that time, but that's two years away and kids grow and mature... .

Yeah. Wee Ian is 14 going on 15 when we meet him. And it's true some boys do have a growth spurt around this age. Hell, the actor they got to play...Henry? in Once Upon A Time, over the summer hiatus between season one and two? or was it two and three? definitely had a spurt and no longer looked like a little kid. I stopped watching after season three, so I don't know if they recast or not.

And I'm now wondering if they'll have Lottie in a fat suit or keep Geillis thin as she was in her youth. Because I do remember that buik!Geillis had been described as fat in Voyager.

[WatchrTina]

31 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think they'll probably have to recast wee Ian at some point

Oh I doubt it.  John Bell is older than Wee Ian.  He's playing younger like Sam and Claire did in season 1.  John hit his puberty growth spurt during the filming of "The Hobbit" and that was years ago.  They talk about it in one of the behind-the-scenes extras on the DVDs.  When John came back for pick-up shots of the attack on Lake Town they had a real continuity issue because he'd grown several inches that year.

I think John is being wigged and written to come across and young and somewhat gormless -- all the better to see his transformation when he is left with the Mohawk next season ('m expecting to see the haircut) and to set the stage for his unexpected return -- confident and strong (and buffed up I'll bet) -- in season 5.

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I think John is being wigged and written to come across and young and somewhat gormless -- all the better to see his transformation when he is left with the Mohawk next season ('m expecting to see the haircut) and to set the stage for his unexpected return -- confident and strong (and buffed up I'll bet) -- in season 5.

The show gets so much right when it comes to looks and hair/wigs, but they really dropped the ball with Lord John and Wee Ian. And Geillis. When I was watching,  "All Debts Paid" Lord John's wig was brown, and like everyone, I was like WOT??! But at the end, when he drops Jamie off at Helwater, the back of his wig/ponytail is blonde. As it should be. Same with Wee Ian. He should have Jenny's dark hair. Not this blondish mop. And squee!!!! Though he didn't say it in last night's episode,

Wee Ian says "Auntie Claire!" in next week's episode!

It's one of the things I so ADORE about Wee Ian. 

Have they cast Rollo yet? I think they should get a hound like the one that was used in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. Sully's hound, who played a wolf.

[DittyDotDot]

21 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Oh I doubt it.  John Bell is older than Wee Ian.  He's playing younger like Sam and Claire did in season 1.

I understand the actor is older than wee Ian currently is, but he looks years younger than his age and I don't think it's solely due to the wig, myself. I'm not saying John Bell won't be able to handle it--it'll be two years yet and kids that age change a lot in just a few months sometimes--and I don't know if they will recast him, but if they did, the time to do it is when he comes back from the Mohawks. Wee Ian is so changed at that point, Claire and Jamie both barely recognize him.

[Clawdette]

In regards to Lord John's wigs, I believe it was Toni Graphia who said that they put Berry in the blond wig to film his first scene - which was the Helwater delivery scene.  They then decided to go darker, but I can't remember why.  So they started filming with the right look and then abandoned it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

12 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Article focusing on Sam. Nice pictures:

Outlander's Sam Heughan Talks Jamie and Claire's Long-Awaited Reunion
On the cusp of superstardom, the Scottish actor opens up about the print shop reunion, his passionate fans, and getting in—and out—of Jamie Fraser's head.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a13053232/sam-heughan-outlander-season-3-episode-6-interview/?src=socialflowTW

I have issues with this line:

Later, while working as a groomsman at a grand English estate, he fathers a child after

the family’s oldest daughter blackmails him into sleeping with her.

Um, no! Geneva was the younger daughter!

[DittyDotDot]

19 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Um, no! Geneva was the younger daughter!

Geneva may have acted the younger, but I do believe she was the oldest daughter. I want to say Isobel was two years younger in the books.

[FnkyChkn34]

23 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Um, no! Geneva was the younger daughter!

 

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Geneva may have acted the younger, but I do believe she was the oldest daughter. I want to say Isobel was two years younger in the books.

Yes, I always thought Geneva was the older daughter as well.  Also, she's the first that the family is marrying off, and don't they usually do that by age?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Geneva was 17, I think? I always thought she was the younger. And now I'll have to back and verify. Because I'm anal-retentive that way. And also because Isobel did not look 15.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Have they cast Rollo yet? I think they should get a hound like the one that was used in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. Sully's hound, who played a wolf.

I believe I saw a tweet sometime back about Sam or someone in the cast meeting Rollo, so yes, they've cast the dog.

[DittyDotDot]

28 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Geneva was 17, I think? I always thought she was the younger. And now I'll have to back and verify. Because I'm anal-retentive that way. And also because Isobel did not look 15.

When we first meet Isobel in Voyager, I believe she is 14; Geneva is 17 years old when we first meet her and dies at 19, the same age Isobel is when she marries John. The show aged them both up a bit, but I believe Geneva is still the eldest of the two.

[GHScorpiosRule]

52 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

When we first meet Isobel in Voyager, I believe she is 14; Geneva is 17 years old when we first meet her and dies at 19, the same age Isobel is when she marries John. The show aged them both up a bit, but I believe Geneva is still the eldest of the two.

Boy, I'm really batting a 1000 these days, aren't I?

[TaurusRose]

On 10/16/2017 at 2:15 PM, Eureka said:

I love, love, love when they are looking at the photos and you can tell he is so overwhelmed with all this info in such a short time and can't even hold onto to them and then "went to pieces quietly." I am in the camp that DG is a great storyteller but not always a great writer, but boy, that section chokes me up every time.

I agree with the bol part. I broke down and did something I swore I’d never do, read Outlander, the first book. DG’s writing style is bad, really bad. I have no desire to read any of the other books.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, taurusrose said:

I agree with the bol part. I broke down and did something I swore I’d never do, read Outlander, the first book. DG’s writing style is bad, really bad. I have no desire to read any of the other books.

Don't ask me what possessed me to read all the others after the first season. Though I find her writing abominable, the emotional and character beats, are done really well. As my "free form" of posting in each of the buiks relate!

[Atlanta]

The cutest future cast members Woof!

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, Atlanta said:

The cutest future cast members Woof!

 

ROLLO!!!!!!! For some reason, I pictured him with the black and not this gorgeous light brown. And like bebes, do pups need to be twins to play a role, because of labor laws? It's a legitimate question. I'm not being snarky.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

ROLLO!!!!!!! For some reason, I pictured him with the black and not this gorgeous light brown. And like bebes, do pups need to be twins to play a role, because of labor laws? It's a legitimate question. I'm not being snarky.

I don't think it is for labor laws, but more for convenience and working with animals - if a dog isn't listening that day and misbehaving, they can't shoot, but maybe the other is in a better mood so they can proceed with that one.  I suppose that's similar with babies as well.

[Thalia]

I recently read The Scottish Prisoner and it was clear from that book that Jamie knew that Bonnie Prince Charlie was alive and living in Italy, and that he was not the only one.  Thus, Claire's explanation of BPC's escape and current whereabouts in A. Malcolm made me wonder whether this was exposition for the fans, or if the average Scot living in 1766 really did not know what had happened to the Pretender.  Does anyone know? 

[WatchrTina]

I don't know about in the real world but in the book world Jamie certainly knows what became of Prince Charles.  The letter from Jenny that Geneva intercepts and uses to blackmail Jamie into her bed makes mention of aid being sent to Jacobites who escaped to Europe.  That's why Jenny's Geneva's threat to show the letter to her father is so dangerous to Jamie's family. So Jamie's family is still very much aware of the state of the Jacobite cause.  I feel certain that Jamie had learned of the Prince's fate before he left Lallybroch.  Even if he had not, he would surely have heard of it once he was released from Helwater and returned to Scotland.  So yeah, I think that line of Claire's telling Jamie about BPC's fate is in there primarily for the edification of the viewers.

Edited October 26, 2017 by WatchrTina
Because Jenny and Geneva are two completely different people.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, WatchrTina said:

That's why Jenny's threat to show the letter to her father is so dangerous to Jamie’s family.

I think you mean Geneva’s threat, aye??

[Nidratime]

Interview with Ron Moore. Just as I thought, he's not as engaged these days as he was in the beginning, handing over more decision making to Matt and Toni. That's why they're doing most of the episode podcasts now, I'm guessing.

Ron Moore Talks Jamie and Claire’s Reunion, Frank, Fans and the Future of ‘Outlander’

http://variety.com/2017/tv/features/ron-moore-outlander-jamie-claire-frank-starz-1202600154/
 

Quote

 

Though he appreciates the “Outlander” fans — and digresses at length to talk about how women have played key roles in almost every modern-day genre fandom — he’s also glad to be reclaiming his time away from them, at least to a degree. Things are slightly less intense for Moore these days on the “Outlander” front.

“I’m still the showrunner, but a lot of the day-to-day showrunning is done by [executive producers] Matt Roberts and Toni Graphia,” Moore notes. “I’ve delegated more authority to them. Matt is on the ground a lot in the U.K., and Toni is in charge of the writers’ room. And they both report to me and I still sort of oversee the whole production. But I’m not on the front lines like I was.”

“They’re competent, and good, and smart, and they add different things than I would to the production,” Moore says of Roberts and Graphia. “You want your people to take on more responsibility, and you want them to grow within the show, and you give them room to do that. Sometimes you just have to be willing to delegate, and not feel like you’re the only one with the answer.”

 

[WatchrTina]

My favorite quote from the interview above is this one:

Quote

Moore is pretty experienced with the workings of fandoms. 

“It’s like, I killed Kirk and I made Starbuck a woman,” says Moore. “So bring it on.”

Be careful what you ask for Ron . . . 

[koboldin]

Season four speculation from my own crystal ball: book plots get unwieldy, especially as the "we don't say obvious stuff so the plot can advance" takes over.

 

Granted, Claire didn't mention her young historian helper by name - yet - or let on to Jamie the Doughal/Geillis connection, and it doesn't look like she took a picture of the Scoobies researching with her (which, how awesome would that have been, considering how much the tartan-wear Brianna rocked could connect her to Jamie)...

 

The show stones ease the journey via gems, as has been established. No talk of "anchoring" has occurred...

 

What if Lizzie is removed from the story, Brianna and Roger travel together, and if the Bonnet rape occurs, it happens in connection to their sailing on Bonnet's ship to the Colonies? Roger could still end up with First Nations people via him getting sold off by Roger or something. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by koboldin
Hit Post too soon.

[areca]

On 10/27/2017 at 1:24 PM, Nidratime said:

Interview with Ron Moore. Just as I thought, he's not as engaged these days as he was in the beginning, handing over more decision making to Matt and Toni. That's why they're doing most of the episode podcasts now, I'm guessing.
 

It also explains why the quality of the show is falling quickly....  He'd best come back if he wants to save it, IMHO.

Edited October 29, 2017 by areca

[Nidratime]

Quote

It also explains why the quality of the show is falling quickly....  He'd best come back if he wants to save it, IMHO.

Actually, the ratings have been going up this season.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Ron still puts in his ideas, as some of the after the episode interviews with him indicate. He’s just not there in the day to day or writing. Which is typical of him from what I understand he has done on previous shows he’s developed.

[Petunia846]

8 hours ago, areca said:

It also explains why the quality of the show is falling quickly....  He'd best come back if he wants to save it, IMHO.

For what it's worth I have the exact opposite opinion and am quite pleased that he's somewhat distracted. IMHO he's been the biggest handicap to the show so far, often making changes or almost changing things that I absolutely hated or would have hated.

[WatchrTina]

Regarding 307, “Crème de Menthe” -- whoo boy, they changed a LOT.  I knew they’d have to – this section of the book is just frantic with action.  They HAD to simplify things.  But that leaves the door open for a lot of book-vs-show speculation and that’s what this thread is for so here I go.

 

THE CAMPBELLS

I was annoyed on first viewing when Mr. Campbell threw that clearly avaricious glance at Claire’s purse in ye olde apothecary shoppe since it was so out of character for the up-tight clergyman I expected him to be.  I immediately fan-wanked that he saw she had money and decided she must be a very successful healer and thus was eager to have her weigh in on his sister’s case.  But then he clarified that he expected her to help free of charge and I realized that this TV character is very different from his book counterpart.  Mr. Campbell is not a clergyman.  His sister was not traumatized by Jacobites during the war – she’s been this way since childhood.  As such he’s not a religious zealot with an axe to grind and so, I presume, “The Fiend” of Edinburgh is gone from the story.  That raises some interesting questions as to how the big party in the Caribbean is going to play out.  What crime will occur that requires an investigation by the new governor, Lord John Grey?  How will Yi Tien Cho be forced to go on the run?  What role in the island plot-line WILL the Campbell’s play? Time will tell.

ETA: That wealthy patron that they are going to see in the Caribbean?  That is clearly going to turn out to be Geillis Duncan.

 

YI TIEN CHO (MR. WILLOUGHBY)

The other big change is the (apparent) elimination of the whole scene at the shore when Jamie and his band of smugglers try to bring a shipment ashore but are betrayed to the excise-men by Yi Tien Cho (though we don't find out it was him for a LONG time).  BTW that is a plot development that I have always struggled with.  If that is not in the next episode (and it certainly doesn’t look like it from the teaser) then the TV version of Yi Tien Cho is NOT the reason that Jamie has to go on the run.  Presumably the guy with one eye who broke into the print shop and made off with one of the seditious pamphlets is going to be the cause for Alexander Malcom becoming a wanted man. If so, and if Yi Tien Cho is also not going to be falsely accused of being “The Fiend” (see above), is his only significant role in the story that of teaching Claire how to cure Jamie’s seasickness via acupuncture?  I think that may well be the case.  In the book he does come to the rescue at a key point during the show-down with Geillis but he’s only available to do that because he went on the run and has been hiding out with escaped slaves.  If he’s not falsely accused of murder one wonders how he’s going to be in position to fill that role.  The writers have pulled some big threads out of the tapestry.  It will be VERY interesting to see how they repair those holes.

 

IAN’S FIRST TIME

I like the camaraderie between Fergus and Ian as depicted.  Fergus giving him big-brotherly advice on how to woo a bar-maid of easy virtue IS somewhat more palatable to TV viewers than Book!Fergus’ careful selection of a suitable whore to deflower Ian at the brothel – a selection he makes in the manner of a connoisseur of  fine wines recommending a suitable accompaniment to an entrée.  And I guess I like Ian taking her back to the Print Shop, since that’s where he sleeps AND that serves the plot in getting Ian where he needs to be to stop the break-in and (inadvertently) start the fire.  But I’m having a hard time letting go of the scene in the book where poor, pink-faced Ian, with one eyebrow gone, is handed over into the tender ministrations of one of the whores at the brothel.  It’s such a funny scene.  Still, I’ll give the writers props for condensing the whole Ian-follows-the-guy-tracking-the-brandy-and-gets-drunk-in-the-process-and-then-falls-asleep and then-sets-the-print-shop-on-fire story-line.

Edited October 29, 2017 by WatchrTina

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Regarding 307, “Crème de Menthe” -- whoo boy, they changed a LOT.  I knew they’d have to – this section of the book is just frantic with action.  They HAD to simplify things.  But that leaves the door open for a lot of book-vs-show speculation and that’s what this thread is for so here I go.

 

THE CAMPBELLS

I was annoyed on first viewing when Mr. Campbell threw that clearly avaricious glance at Claire’s purse in ye olde apothecary shoppe since it was so out of character for the up-tight clergyman I expected him to be.  I immediately fan-wanked that he saw she had money and decided she must be a very successful healer and thus was eager to have her weigh in on his sister’s case.  But then he clarified that he expected her to help free of charge and I realized that this TV character is very different from his book counterpart.  Mr. Campbell is not a clergyman.  His sister was not traumatized by Jacobites during the war – she’s been this way since childhood.  As such he’s not a religious zealot with an axe to grind and so, I presume, “The Fiend” of Edinburgh is gone from the story.  That raises some interesting questions as to how the big party in the Caribbean is going to play out.  What crime will occur that requires an investigation by the new governor, Lord John Grey?  How will Yi Tien Cho be forced to go on the run?  What role in the island plot-line WILL the Campbell’s play? Time will tell.

ETA: That wealthy patron that they are going to see in the Caribbean?  That is clearly going to turn out to be Geillis Duncan.

 

YI TIEN CHO (MR. WILLOUGHBY)

The other big change is (apparently) the elimination of the whole scene at the shore when Jamie and his band of smugglers try to bring a shipment ashore but are betrayed to the excise-men by Yi Tien Cho (though we don't find out it was him for a LONG time).  BTW that is a plot development that I have always struggled with.  If that is not in the next episode (and it certainly doesn’t look like it from the teaser) then the TV version of Yi Tien Cho is NOT the reason that Jamie has to go on the run.  Presumably the guy with one eye who broke into the print shop and made off with one of the seditious pamphlets is going to be the cause for Alexander Malcom becoming a wanted man. If so, and if Yi Tien Cho is also not going to be falsely accused of being “The Fiend” (see above), is his only significant role in the story that of teaching Claire how to cure Jamie’s seasickness via acupuncture?  I think that may well be the case.  In the book he does come to the rescue at a key point during the show-down with Geillis but he’s only available to do that because he went on the run and has been hiding out with escaped slaves.  If he’s not falsely accused of murder one wonders how he’s going to be in position to fill that role.  The writers have pulled some big threads out of the tapestry.  It will be VERY interesting to see how they repair those holes.

 

IAN’S FIRST TIME

I like the camaraderie between Fergus and Ian as depicted.  Fergus giving him big-brotherly advice on how to woo a bar-maid of easy virtue IS somewhat more palatable to TV viewers than Book!Fergus’ careful selection of a suitable whore to deflower Ian at the brothel – a selection he makes in the manner of a connoisseur of  fine wines recommending a suitable accompaniment to an entrée.  And I guess I like Ian taking her back to the Print Shop, since that’s where he sleeps AND that serves the plot in getting Ian where he needs to be to stop the break-in and (inadvertently) start the fire.  But I’m having a hard time letting go of the scene in the book where poor, pink-faced Ian, with one eyebrow gone, is handed over into the tender ministrations of one of the whores at the brothel.  It’s such a funny scene.  Still, I’ll give the writers props for condensing the whole Ian-follows-the-guy-tracking-the-brandy-and-gets-drunk-in-the-process-and-then-falls-asleep and then-sets-the-print-shop-on-fire story-line.

Regarding Yi Tien Cho - he's still been shown to have weird sexual fetishes (licking her elbow).  So he can still be accused of murdering the woman at the party and go on the run then. Maybe in the show it won't matter who actually kills the woman so they'll just make the real murderer a nobody. 

[thesparkinside]

Also, it's entirely possible Yi Tien Cho will be accused of murder simply because he's an outsider. That would be *at least* as realistic as having him be accused because he has a sexual fetish. People do start blaming outsiders when they lack answers (see: like every witch trial ever).

[WatchrTina]

We've been speculating in the 307, “Crème de Menthe” thread about why Jamie married Laoghaire and how that is going to play out in the TV show.  I decided to bring my response over here.

Book!Jamie does not know the role she played in getting Claire tried as a witch.  I don't think Book!Jamie even knows that Laoghaire left an ill-wish in his and Claire's bedroom.  He just recollects her as the young girl who had a mad crush on him long ago -- one he flirted with and kissed and who was disappointed when he married Claire.  It seems clear that Book!Jamie marries her for three reasons:

1. Jenny was pushing him to marry someone, anyone,
2. Laoghaire had two young daughters who needed looking after, and
3. Jamie thought maybe, just maybe, taking a wife would make his longing for Claire lessen. (Note that third one is PURE speculation on my part but I think it's a reasonable guess.)

In the book the marriage fails in the bedroom.  Jamie is thinking of Claire and Laoghaire knows it.  Laoghaire is actually non-responsive to Jamie in bed (which I find hard to believe but, whatever) and it is hinted that her lack of response is due in part to her having been mistreated by her first two husbands.  Or maybe she's just scared to death of getting pregnant (pure speculation there.)  Or maybe it is just is that she can TELL Jamie is still thinking about Claire and that makes her heart-sick. At any rate, in the book the marriage and its failure does actually make a kind of sense.

The the TV show?  Yikes.  I can't WAIT to see how they are going to pull this off.  TV!Jamie knows about Laoghaire's putting the ill-wish under their bed.  He had to have seen her at the witch trial (she's right there at the head of the crowd following Geillis as she is carried off, while he and Claire are hiding, just before they leave).  I supposed we can fan-wank really hard and say that Claire never actually TOLD him about what Laoghaire did and said during the witch trial and while Jamie noticed her in the crowd, he promptly forgot about it because he didn't ascribe any significance to her being there.  In the immediate aftermath of their escape they were rather caught up in other matters (Claire admitting to being a time-traveler, Jamie taking her to the stones so that she could go back, Claire choosing Jamie, Lallybroch, The Watch, Wentworth.)  In the show we never actually see Jamie & Claire discuss the witch trial. I guess we can pretend that the experience was so traumatic that Claire doesn't want to discuss it and Jamie (always sensitive to her moods) takes the hint and doesn't ask about it.  In season 2 in "The Fox's Lair" Claire calls Laoghaire out on what she did but Jamie does not hear that conversation.  At the end of that episode (after a seemingly penitent Laoghaire has tried to help Claire and Jamie), Claire sends Jamie to thank Laoghaire ("For what I dinna ken").  So maybe this is still going to play out that Jamie really doesn't know what Laoghaire did at the witch trial -- that he only knows about the ill-wish, which Claire appears to have forgiven.  I suppose it could work.

Okay if this is how they are going to play it then I'm going to look forward to that moment when Jamie is told exactly what Laoghaire did at the witch trial.  I don't recall that actually being in the book (and I don't want to pre-read now) but seeing Jamie react to that bit of new information could be fun.

ETA:  Oh I forgot about one more thing.  WAY downstream, in one of the later books, Jamie finds out (via a letter from Jenny) that Laoghaire is carrying on a torrid affair with a crippled man.  This totally gets under Jamie's skin.  It bugs him so much he dreams about Laoghaire and begins making love to Claire in his sleep but Claire knows immediately that he's not thinking of her due to the perfunctory, workmanlike manner in which he  touches her.  (Claire, naturally, gets pissed off and wakes him ups saying "Just WHO do you think are are fucking right now?" -- or words to that effect -- Diana probably wrote it better.) That scene casts an interesting light on Jamie's sex-life with Laoghaire.  Clearly, Jamie didn't bring his A-game to THAT marriage bed.

Edited October 31, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

 

ETA:  Oh I forgot about one more thing.  WAY downstream, in one of the later books, Jamie finds out (via a letter from Jenny) that Laoghaire is carrying on a torrid affair with a crippled man.  This totally gets under Jamie's skin.  It bugs him so much he dreams about Laoghaire and begins making love to Claire in his sleep but Claire knows immediately that he's not thinking of her due to the perfunctory, workmanlike manner in which he  touches her.  (Claire, naturally, gets pissed off and wakes him ups saying "Just WHO do you think are are fucking right now?" -- or words to that effect -- Diana probably wrote it better.) That scene casts an interesting light on Jamie's sex-life with Laoghaire.  Clearly, Jamie didn't bring his A-game to THAT marriage bed.

I like that bit because it shows that Jamie is not necessarily a reliable narrator since in his version he was sexy loving kindness himself and the problems all came from her.  His dream revealed that maybe he wasn't the awesome lover that he thinks he was.  

[Haleth]

8 hours ago, toolazy said:

His dream revealed that maybe he wasn't the awesome lover that he thinks he was.  

This made me laugh.  Typical, no?

[WatchrTina]

Ooooooh, I've just had a good speculation (shower thoughts!)  I was enjoying imagining Claire's dismay when she finds out Jamie married Laoghaire.  I was playing the potential dialog in my head and it came out like this:

Claire: "You married her? HER!? She tried to get me killed! SHE brought me the note saying Gellis was ill.  That's why I was with Geillis when we were arrested.  She TESTIFIED against me at the witch trial!" (Cue Jamie's shocked face.) "She tried to have me burned at the stake.  She even gloated about it, saying she would 'dance upon my ashes.' Of all the people in the world, how could you marry HER?"

Jamie (stammering): "I did'na ken . . . "

Claire:  "And Geillis.  My God, they BURNED Gellis."

Laoghaire:  "No they didn't.  They had to wait because she was with child.  And then later, people did say that it was a fake body they burned in her place.  No, mark my word, that witch got away.  Just like YOU got away.  She WAS a witch.  And so are you!  Look at you standing there, back from dead, come to torment me again."

What to you think?  Will they mention Geillis and hint that she escaped?  I think something like that is going to have to happen. There has to be some call-back to who Geillis was, otherwise her re-appearance later will leave a lot of people going "Wait, who is that?"  I hope they put it in the episode and don't just throw a shot of Gellis into the "Previously on Outlander" section before the episode where Geillis reappears. Things like that always spoil the surprise.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Claire:  "And Geillis.  My God, they BURNED Gellis."

Laoghaire:  "No they didn't.  They had to wait because she was with child.

The wee problem with this line is at the end of "The Search," Dougal told Claire that Geillis had given birth, so she knows that she wasn't burned at the stake when she escaped with Jamie in "The Devil's Mark." I asked somewhere, whether they would put Lotte in a fat suit, considering that Geillis seemed to have put on about 50 pounds when Jamie and Claire see her again in Jamaica, where Wee Ian is being kept.

[FnkyChkn34]

Where do we start a petition to get rid of the new writer who wrote Creme de Menthe?  Season 4 is going to be tedious enough; we don't need her back.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, FnkyChkn34 said:

Where do we start a petition to get rid of the new writer who wrote Creme de Menthe?  Season 4 is going to be tedious enough; we don't need her back.  

She's also got a producer credit. Supervising Producer. To use Jem's phrase: "BLEAGH!"

[chocolatetruffle]

Interesting discussion about Jamie's reasons for marrying Leery. I think, because Claire forgave her and even bonded w/ her a bit during the Fox's Lair, Jamie will likely just put it all aside since a) Claire is dead and b) Leery was a stupid young girl and now she is a grown woman with at least one abusive husband in her rearview. All the other reasons that WatchrTina listed still apply. I also think that Jamie really wants to try to move on and if he can help Leery & her fatherless children, at least it will give his life some purpose.

Looking forward to seeing how they handle this. Anyone know whose writing the next episode (hoping it's Anne K. or Toni G., assuming they are both still around)?

[WatchrTina]

8 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

The wee problem with this line is at the end of "The Search," Dougal told Claire that Geillis had given birth, so she knows that she wasn't burned at the stake when she escaped with Jamie in "The Devil's Mark."

Okay fine -- you made me go back and re-watch that scene.  Here's a transcript.

Right after Dougal offers to "protect" Claire as her husband she says: "What about Geillis? I thought she was your true soulmate. Your star-crossed lover.  Carrying your forbidden child. Both of them, burned at the stake. And here you are -- looking for another woman, her friend, to warm your bed."

Dougal replies,  "We won't talk about Geillis today. This is about you."

And that's it.  No hint that Geillis or the child survived.  

HOWEVER -- Claire later figures out that Roger is descended from Geillis's child (and right now I can't recall HOW she did that) but even if she came to know that Geillis was left alive long enough to deliver her baby, she has no reason to believe the sentence of burning wasn't carried out afterward.  In fact, the sentence WAS carried out afterward -- but Dougal swapped a recently dead body for Geillis.

So I stand by my assertion that when Claire comes back 20 years later, the topic of the Witch Trial and Geillis' death is still a sore subject -- especially since Claire JUST saw Geillis -- only a few months earlier -- back in the 20th century.  Claire failed to stop Geillis from going through the stones -- to her eventual death on the pyre (as far as Claire knows.)  That's probably still weighing heavily on her.  So I still think my proposed dialog (above) could happen.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, shit, @WatchrTina! I could have sworn he said she had birthed a child, and Claire was shocked that he didn’t take said child in! Or, was that in the buik???????

1 hour ago, chocolatetruffle said:

 

Looking forward to seeing how they handle this. Anyone know whose writing the next episode (hoping it's Anne K. or Toni G., assuming they are both still around)?

Anne Kenney is gone.?. I think I read that it’s Roberts who wrote it.

FUCK!!! It’s not Roberts, but another newbie-Joy Blake.

Edited October 31, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule