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

[mybabyaidan]

So I watched the behind the scenes of the wedding episode.  And even if the fainting scene was in the script, there is no way Cait would have physically been able to do it in that dress.  She needed to be propped up at points, I doubt it would have been easy to lay down in it.

 

Still bugged we lost that scene, but maybe we'll get a different thing special to them that supplies symmetry for when they are reunited in Voyager.

 

I also wanted to put it out there that I actually LIKE (or maybe just don't mind) book Frank but am nervous at how much airtime he is going to get in the mid season finale.   I need a good Claire/Jamie fix to lead into a 6 month drought.  :(  I don't need a shit ton of Frank exposition.

[annlaw78]

I don't need a shit ton of Frank exposition.

I have a feeling the Frank scenes may just be Claire's guilty imaginings about what he's going through, while she's playing house with Jamie.

[Tif]

So, I'm trying to figure out of Willie in the show is the same Willie Coulter that catches Jamie and Claire the night before Culloden.

[Rekilt]

The previews to me looks like Frank told the police, after reporting Claire's disappearance, that a Scotsman (Jamie's ghost) was staring at Claire and the police have decided Claire must have run off with the Mysterious man. Then a woman approaches Frank tells him she has answers and to meet her in some dark alley (which isn't suspicious at all) and when Frank goes to meet her, he is attacked. He probably fights back and does something very brutal to show that he is related to Black Jack and could easily become a bad person but due to choices and possibly having a good woman like Claire in his life, he stays being an upstanding person.

Thus showing that it's our choices that makes us good or bad. That Frank loves and needs Claire in his life. And keeps us the viewers invested in the Frank and Claire relationship.

Either that or I have an over active imagination.

[Tif]

Or both! :)

My own speculation was along the same lines as yours.

[ohhellsyeah]

I think they've done enough to make Frank's character sympathetic. There are people who are actually on Team Frank and that just seems kind of mean. They're gonna be disappointed.

[morgan]

I lent my book to my friend who is taking way too long with it.  Can someone here who has the book tell me if they refer to the British as the redcoats in the book?  That point is driving me nuts every time they say it because I had a history teacher who drove home to us (way back when) that they weren't called redcoats during that time, they were called, "regulars" or "lobsterbacks."  That it was later that redcoat was referred to. 

[absnow54]

I just ran a search on my kindle version, and they refer to them as "redcoats" quite often (33 times). They also use "lobsterback" at times too (only 3 though).

Edited September 26, 2014 by absnow54

[ohhellsyeah]

I remember them calling them lobsterbacks in the books.

[islagirl]

So, I'm trying to figure out of Willie in the show is the same Willie Coulter that catches Jamie and Claire the night before Culloden.

I was thinking the say thing.  Willie is clearly Dougal's man; I figured he and Willie Coulter who pops up in DiA are one and the same.  I love these minor characters being more prominent - there are so many layers to this world!

[Tif]

I was thinking the say thing.  Willie is clearly Dougal's man; I figured he and Willie Coulter who pops up in DiA are one and the same.  I love these minor characters being more prominent - there are so many layers to this world!

The only thing that gives me pause is that I pictured Willie in DiA as older than what is being portrayed on the show.  However, I don't think there was anything in DiA that gave away Willie's age.  I just figured Dougal's men were more closer to his age than Jamie's, if that makes sense.  

[peacefrog]

In the books I think I remember that it is clear that Angus is Colum's man and Rupert is Dougal's, right? They kind of downplayed that in the show. Seems like they both are team Dougal. I can't remember what happened to Angus? The last I remember in DIA he was with Colum when he died. Did we ever learn his fate? Died at Culloden?

I think I saw DG answer on her Facebook feed awhile ago that she does not know if Willie is that Willie, but she told them that if they(writers) were smart they would make it so.

DIA has a lot of deaths come to think of it!

Edited September 26, 2014 by peacefrog

[Tif]

In the books I think I remember that it is clear that Angus is Colum's man and Rupert is Dougal's, right? They kind of downplayed that in the show. Seems like they both are team Dougal. I can't remember what happened to Angus? The last I remember in DIA he was with Colum when he died. Did we ever learn his fate? Died at Culloden?

I think I saw DG answer on her Facebook feed awhile ago that she does not know if Willie is that Willie, but she told them that if they(writers) were smart they would make it so.

DIA has a lot of deaths come to think of it!

Yes, in the book Angus had a different role.  He was Colum's caregiver and fists, so to speak.  In the show, it looks like they removed that aspect and had Colum be a little more self sufficient.  It will be interesting to see in Season 2 who Colum has with him at the church when he talks with Jamie and Claire.  

I don't know that we found out what happened to Angus.  I assumed he died at Culloden as well.  

It would be smart of the writers to make Willie in the show Willie Coulter.  

I am rereading Drums of Autumn right now and I think I can understand why non book readers don't feel Jamie as much as most of the book readers.  Jamie is the sum of his parts.  I'm not meaning in the naked way, well not mostly anyways.  But I digress.  :)

Most book readers have read more than just the first book and picture the totality of Jamie, so far as much as we have been told through the books, every time we see him.  Non book readers have only seen what's been shown thus far and sadly, that hasn't been as much as the books even at this point.  

Jamie is flawed and he knows it and he is gracious in his flaws, but he is good.

[peacefrog]

I am rereading Drums of Autumn right now and I think I can understand why non book readers don't feel Jamie as much as most of the book readers.  Jamie is the sum of his parts.  I'm not meaning in the naked way, well not mostly anyways.  But I digress.  :)

Most book readers have read more than just the first book and picture the totality of Jamie, so far as much as we have been told through the books, every time we see him.  Non book readers have only seen what's been shown thus far and sadly, that hasn't been as much as the books even at this point.  

Jamie is flawed and he knows it and he is gracious in his flaws, but he is good.

Excellent point Tif. He is such an eager puppy in the first book but the base of who he becomes is there but it is not apparent yet without hindsight. I did not like DIA as much as some but I do love how his character is subtly matured. He keeps his optimism but there is a gravity to him that is not there in Outlander.

[mybabyaidan]

Yes, in the book Angus had a different role.  He was Colum's caregiver and fists, so to speak.  In the show, it looks like they removed that aspect and had Colum be a little more self sufficient.  It will be interesting to see in Season 2 who Colum has with him at the church when he talks with Jamie and Claire.  

I don't know that we found out what happened to Angus.  I assumed he died at Culloden as well. 

 

 

 

Weren't we introduced to Angus' son in Ardsmuir prison?  I vaguely remember it being mentioned that Angus Sr had died at Culloden.  But I only read that book once, so I am foggy on details.  I believe he is the lad that Jamie takes the flogging for when the guards find a scrap of tartan.  Feel free to correct me, it's been a while.

[Tif]

Weren't we introduced to Angus' son in Ardsmuir prison?  I vaguely remember it being mentioned that Angus Sr had died at Culloden.  But I only read that book once, so I am foggy on details.  I believe he is the lad that Jamie takes the flogging for when the guards find a scrap of tartan.  Feel free to correct me, it's been a while.

 

Ohhh maybe, but I'm not sure that's the same Angus.  Angus Mhor is in the book, but I don't know if it's Angus Mhor Mackenzie.  

I will go look up in Voyager.  

Well in "Voyager", they are talking about the new Governor of Ardsmuir (Lord John) and someone says, "Aye, he's a bittie fellow, smaller than wee Angus."  Angus had been twelve when he fought beside his father at Culloden.  He had spent nearly half his life in Ardsmuir and in consequence of the poor fare of prison, had never grown much bigger.  

I'm going to look to see if there's references in Dragonfly in Amber on the list that Claire gives Roger to look up the men to see what happens to them.  

Edited September 26, 2014 by Tif

[nodorothyparker]

Most book readers have read more than just the first book and picture the totality of Jamie, so far as much as we have been told through the books, every time we see him.  Non book readers have only seen what's been shown thus far and sadly, that hasn't been as much as the books even at this point.

 

This is why I think reducing how much we've seen of Jamie up to this point has hurt how the character is coming off.  Sure, the wedding still came pretty much out of the blue in the book but we already knew a fair bit about him and how his mind works.  We'd seen enough of the developing friendship with Claire that when he gives "I'd have missed talking to you" as one of his reasons for agreeing to marry her, you understand what he means.  Small things like taking away his fight with the guys in the tavern who're disparaging him for his scars or answering Claire when she asks if he's going to keep letting Dougal use him by shrugging it off with "well, he's my uncle, whattya gonna do?" instead of the book answer of "For now" make him seem like more of a lightweight Dougal can push around than someone who's young but understands very well just how the game is played and what he needs to do to survive it.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm enjoying a lot about the character we're seeing onscreen.  But at times he's felt almost neutered.  That's one reason why I loved loved loved that they showed him laying out his three conditions to get married and laughing about how much he was aggravating Dougal instead of just mentioning them in passing as they were in the book.  That's the Jamie we know, who's often able to outthink an opponent and can be pretty inventive at getting things done.

Edited September 27, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Dejana]

I think they've done enough to make Frank's character sympathetic. There are people who are actually on Team Frank and that just seems kind of mean. They're gonna be disappointed.

 

I've been wondering if the writers are building up Frank a bit too much in this series, which will make some less willing to like Claire once she chooses Jamie. I get it, because if Frank is too boring and she's able to build an interesting life for herself in the 1740s, then there's little investment for viewers to watch her try to get back to her own time. Going into it, between the fact that there are (at least) eight books in the series, and the dilemma (woman torn between present and the past), you would think that it is pretty clear which side Claire will end up choosing. Maybe in a one-off story, it would be more of a mystery. OTOH, maybe the unspoiled think Frank is going to somehow time-travel, too. I guess the writers know what they are doing here.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Dejana

[absnow54]

Oh man. When they cut from the post-scrimmage rally when Jamie and Claire were supposed to do it on a rock to Frank playing James Bond, I almost threw a can at my TV. I think the cuts to 1940 really killed all the momentum of the Highland scenes. There was so much disconnect from Claire's attack because they cut away half way through it. I thought that was a really poorly done change.

 

Thanks for leaving Willie in the copse with Claire though!

[Tif]

I didn't like the Frank flashforwards other than the one with the first one at the police station and then him at the stones. I felt his grief and it was beautifully fine juxtaposed with Claire.

I too, felt it messed up the flow of episode with the Highlanders and the bonding between Jamie and Claire. And I'm not necessarily meaning the horizontal kind. Lol

I did yell, "ROGER!" when the wee lad was on the screen. I scared my husband.

I loved Hugh Munro.

That brief shot at the end after the credits, I think I know what that is supposed to be.

[bluebonnet]

Oh damn, I got up before the credits finished.  Now I'll have to rewatch.  lol

 

I'm still really missing those conversations between Claire and Jamie.  I'm enjoying the show but this was the first time I lost a tiny bit of confidence in the adaptation process.  There is still really no relationship between Claire and Jamie beyond the physical.  They know a tiny bit about each other's families and some extra stuff.  But for the viewer, Jamie continues to be a near blank slate to Claire.  All this Frank stuff is ok, but it's not really balancing out well when it comes to Claire eventually making a decision.  So far, she's been prevented from going back through the rocks but we all know there will come a time when she's given a choice without any obstacles or interruptions.  They have a lot of catching up to do in order for the audience to understand why she chooses to stay.  Hot sex, cute ass, and a hero complex just isn't enough when compared to all this stuff we've learned of Frank and Claire's relationship with him.  

[Tif]

I agree with you about this episode's adaptation. What makes Jamie and Claire's relationship in the book are really the little conversations that happen up to this point. You can understand Claire's struggle more in the book.

There has to be more shown between Jamie and Claire prior to the decision Jamie makes after rescuing her from the witch trial.

I will have to watch again.

[bluebonnet]

Even in the book at this time, I was already torn about Claire taking off for the rocks because the relationship felt real.  I understood why she wanted to go back to her own time, but I also sincerely believed she'd be heartbroken over leaving Jamie.  There was no feeling of that here.  All I felt was that she's better off gone and she and Frank have just as good of a sex life, if not better since they have an intimacy between them due to having a real relationship.  I still wasn't 100% on board with Claire choosing to stay, but at least it felt real.  The pacing for their relationship is going to be way too fast since there's the strapping and then right back to Castle Leoch where Claire realizes she has real feelings for Jamie when he goes off for the ring....but uh, there's no real foundation there before the strapping.  Yeah, he's 'saved' her, but Claire is too strong to be swooned over someone with a savior complex.  I'd start to lose respect for her as a character if they don't pace it well and make it so that the entire foundation of their relationship is all built on him saving her - first by marrying her, then with BJR, then with the witch trial.  There has to be some significant stuff in between.  

[thingamajig]

I realize this is minor, but I'm bummed that they cut the bit where Claire vandalizes BJR's office.

[WatchrTina]

 

For the second half of the season, I'd be deeeeelighted to never see another rape, attempted rape, or threat of rape.

The quote above is from the PreviouslyTV recap.  Oh dear are they going to be disappointed when we get to Wentworth prison.  But at least Claire's done with sexual assault for the season (I think). Imprisonment in a hole in the ground, lashing, and near-burning-as-a-witch yes.  But no more sexual assault (and no do NOT bring up the rough make-up sex back at Leoch right now -- I'm not in the mood -- I'm traumatized by the coming hiatus -- I will cut a bitch if someone calls that rape.)  

 

I could not stop thinking about this forum while I watched because it's almost as if they were reading our earlier concerns.  Claire wasn't left alone in the glade after all (yay, Willie got something else important to do).  I also liked the condensing of time so that she sees Craigh na Dun while she is still reeling from an attempted sexual assault AND her first "kill." It makes her fleeing to the stones totally understandable without me having to hate her for running out on Jamie.  Plus, in the show timeline it has only been 3 days since the wedding, right?

 

I liked all the FrankBacks (a.k.a FlashForwardBacks) letting us know what was going on with Frank, even though they are not canon.  But I do wonder about the non-book-readers.  I'm TeamJamie all the way (sorry Frank) but it will be interesting to watch the reactions in the episode threads from the unsullied because the show is making Frank a much more credible threat to Jamie's happiness than he was in the books.

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina

[CatMack]

I'm also really concerned about the compressed honeymoon and what it means for the strapping scene.  That's a whopper of a scene to get through and not turn a modern audience against Jamie, but on top of what happens in the book they've now created an even worse situation on the show - they compressed the timeline so now they haven't had as much time to talk and get to know each other, they aren't as close, and oh yeah they put the attempted rape/possibly actual rape (not sure how the show is playing it, it was vague how far he got before she knifed him) on the same day that she's captured and nearly raped again.  And now Jamie's going to rescue her and beat her the same night after all she's been through?  I think audience members who don't know the books are going to have a HUGE problem with the next episode, and I won't really be able to blame them (it's been pissing off book readers long enough). 

 

For the sake of everything I know comes for them later, I will keep with the show through however they adapt the next section of the book, which is amongst the most problematic of the series.  But yeah, my confidence is shaking just a little here. 

[Nidratime]

I have to wonder ... could Claire have gotten through the stones at this point? Don't you have to go during certain days?

[Glaze Crazy]

I don't know if I should say this here or in the unpopular opinions thread but I really like all the changes, adaptations and additional storylines that have been done so far.  After 20 years with these books I'm enjoying that both new stuff and more character story (Frank) keep me fascinated with this very familiar story.  Although I also enjoy that some of the dialogue and scenes are direct from the book also. 

 

That was a great place to break it off for the 1/2 season but they kind of spoil the outcome with the shot of Claire and Jamie huddled together while the "returning April 4 2015" title card shows up.  I guess he gets her away from BJR, huh? 

 

I was kind glad to see them consolidate (or skip) all the sexytimes scenes all over the countryside in the days after the wedding, even though I did miss Dougal's comment to Jamie, comparing him to a worn-out stag in rutting season.  That was a good line to go with the deserter calling Jamie a rutting bastard.  I still feel like Claire is not as invested in Jamie yet since she automatically headed for the stones when she saw them and that's how I want to feel about her right now.  I'm not ready for her conflict about her two marriages, I want her to still be trying to get back to Frank.  I also liked how she almost got there and was captured by the redcoats.  Now it's not only the Mackenzies who are (unknowingly) thwarting her attempts but the English now too.

[nodorothyparker]

That could have done with half as much Frank and still gotten the idea across.  The two of them thinking they were hearing each other across the stones was really poignant, but the story otherwise dragged and made the entire episode feel really choppy.  I think the whole point of the woman in the bar luring Frank was supposed to show us the Black Jack in him, but it didn't really work for me and just felt like even more filler.

 

The Grant fight and aftermath and the following fight teaching scenes are among my favorites in the book and they really felt underdeveloped and chopped because again we had to keep cutting back to still more of Frank STILL missing Claire.

 

I could also do with half as much attempted rape.  Yeah, I know both were in the book but they weren't literally separated by maybe 10 minutes there.  Thanks for reminding me about one of the things I like least about the book series, show.  At least the show was smart enough to realize how utterly dumb it was in the book to go off and leave Claire alone in the woods and fixed that.  And damn if it wasn't Willie wandering off to go take a dump after all.  I believe I even called that.

 

I'm going to have to echo what I said yesterday and bluebonnet is saying here.  I feel like I'm rooting for Claire and Jamie because they're THE couple from the books and I'm supposed to want to.  They have some really great chemistry and what little we've been given is wonderful, but it's all been so truncated and we've still seen so little of Jamie the man that especially with all the extended Frankapalooza that it's coming across as a hard sell.  They've simply cut too much out of the friendship going into the marriage and now too much out of the honeymoon where they got to really know each other as husband and wife.  I'm starting to really question whether they're going to be able to come out of the strapping scene and everything leading up to the trip back to the stones to make her choice to truly make that choice a credible one.

[annlaw78]

 

I'm also really concerned about the compressed honeymoon and what it means for the strapping scene.  That's a whopper of a scene to get through and not turn a modern audience against Jamie, but on top of what happens in the book they've now created an even worse situation on the show - they compressed the timeline so now they haven't had as much time to talk and get to know each other, they aren't as close, and oh yeah they put the attempted rape/possibly actual rape (not sure how the show is playing it, it was vague how far he got before she knifed him) on the same day that she's captured and nearly raped again.  And now Jamie's going to rescue her and beat her the same night after all she's been through?  I think audience members who don't know the books are going to have a HUGE problem with the next episode, and I won't really be able to blame them (it's been pissing off book readers long enough).

For all the time that the show had in the first 7 eps, I agree the relationship between Jamie and Claire doesn't have the substance to it yet to make some of the scenes to come work.  Frankly, Claire and BJR have had more significant conversations than Claire and Jamie.  Right now, it just seems like Claire likes bonking Jamie, which, fair enough.  But I feel like we've only seen snippets of Jamie, in order to cram in more stuff with the Randall boys, which, ugh.  

 

When Jamie left Claire, she was a mess, in shock, and I think he at least thinks she was just raped.  He was feeling terribly ashamed, tormented, and guilty when he left her.  For him to then do the whole spanking thing just makes him look like an insensitive clod.  Plus, how does Willie know where the Brits snagged her from?  For all he knew, she was still in the woods when they snatched her.  

 

 

That could have done with half as much Frank and still gotten the idea across.  The two of them thinking they were hearing each other across the stones was really poignant, but the story otherwise dragged and made the entire episode feel really choppy.  I think the whole point of the woman in the bar luring Frank was supposed to show us the Black Jack in him, but it didn't really work for me and just felt like even more filler.

Agreed.  The scene with Frank at the Stones was beautiful and could stand on its own without a bunch of other scenes involving Frank's getting tetchy with the police, leering at "Sally" (clearly thing she's a whoooore), beating up "Sally's" mates, choking Sally, and sneering at Mrs. Graham.  None of those scenes really made Frank more sympathetic, or added to the main plot of the show, which, frankly, is happening with the Highlanders, not Frank.  

Edited September 28, 2014 by annlaw78

[insubordination]

Even though I wanted to get to the rest of the story, I liked the added Frank stuff and I actually think it makes Claire's dilemma more interesting I can understand people being 'Team Frank'. Jamie hasn't been fully drawn yet and nor has their relationship.  Claire is still married to Frank and this episode showed that.

 

The back and forth was distracting because I was in suspense and it kind of ruined it. I wanted the Frank scenes as a bonus feature or something. I'm sure they've come to an end now anyway until Claire gets back to him.

 

How could Jamie strap Claire after all she's been though today? It would be unusually cruel to have her attacked by Jamie against her will.

 

Maybe (as someone mentioned)  they're going to make Dougal order him to (under the threat that he'll do it himself) with a side of Jamie being upset that she left him. Why haven't they talked about her first husband before or since the wedding?

 

If Jamie is amused at hitting her though, he could even lose me as a supporter.  I want it to hurt him to do it and I think that's in line with his on-screen character. After all, he's been beaten himself. Personally, I'd think I'd rather they leave it out.

Edited September 28, 2014 by insubordination

[WatchrTina]

 

Plus, how does Willie know where the Brits snagged her from?  For all he knew, she was still in the woods when they snatched her.

He'll see her get snatched up.  Jamie sent someone back to the glade in the book and he sees Claire get taken by the redcoats after she has clearly left the glade under her own steam so I assume the show will do the same with Willie.

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina

[annlaw78]

 

If Jamie is amused at hitting her though, he could even lose me as a supporter.  I want it to hurt him to do it and I think that's in line with his on-screen character. After all, he's been beaten himself. Personally, I'd think I'd rather they leave it out.

Seriously -- has no one heard of faking it?  They're behind a closed door.  No one needs be the wiser.  Just like with the "consummation" -- no one downstairs knows what happens, Claire and Jamie just came out undressed.  How many times will intelligent adults do things that purportedly don't want to do behind closed doors... to satisfy the requirements of people outside the room.  Figure it out!

[bluebonnet]

I've rewatched the episode.  I'm now sort of glad I didn't do the marathon today because I think I would be even more underwhelmed.  I've absolutely loved the adaptation, but in my opinion, this episode has served to weaken some of the story they've already told.  I was totally ok with less Jamie, fewer conversations.  I had a lot of confidence.  I thought this would be the episode where a lot of that talking would happen.  Instead, we just get some high school excessive hand holding.  As several of you have mentioned, it's going to be fucking terrible when they start up again in April with Jamie strapping her on the same day all this other shit happened.  There's so little substance to this relationship- which wasn't a problem until now- that I can no longer imagine how Claire would decide to see things from Jamie's POV and choose to forgive and move on from it.  She can now say that she thought she heard Frank's voice and she was so distraught that she ran to it.  But then if the Frank conversation comes up before or after the beating, it would come off terrible.  And not just for Jamie.  Assuming they do it similar as it's done in the books, I wouldn't be able to recognize Claire if she moves on and forgives Jamie.  There just isn't any sort of foundation to their relationship at all.  

 

Show!Jamie is starting to look like one of those smooth talking charmers.  He says and does the 'right things', has 'trumped up charges' against him (yeah, we know the charges are bullshit but still, irl you hear that and you roll your eyes because everyone says "i didn't do it"), is a virgin who mysteriously knows how to give a woman a vaginal orgasm....seriously, he's looking like a fraud!  That lack of substance is starting to grate.  

 

One thing I didn't notice in the books but was really noticeable here is the whole legal mumbo jumbo.  So apparently if BJR takes Claire, it's illegal and basically a declaration of war on Clan Mackenzie.  But then a group of English soldiers just straight up arrested her, and will basically suffer no consequences for it.  On screen it makes the entire forced marriage look completely pointless.  They could have faked the marriage, could have pretended to have sex, could have just had Claire say that she was already married and her husband was at Craigh Na Dunn and if they would please take her there she'd be out of her hair and then smirk while they freak out when she disappears in thin air.  

 

Ugh, I'm making myself more annoyed writing all this out.  I might need to stop thinking about this show now that it's on hiatus because I do like it and I want to keep liking it and this overthinking things is putting a damper on it.  

[annlaw78]

 

One thing I didn't notice in the books but was really noticeable here is the whole legal mumbo jumbo.  So apparently if BJR takes Claire, it's illegal and basically a declaration of war on Clan Mackenzie.  But then a group of English soldiers just straight up arrested her, and will basically suffer no consequences for it.  On screen it makes the entire forced marriage look completely pointless.  They could have faked the marriage, could have pretended to have sex, could have just had Claire say that she was already married and her husband was at Craigh Na Dunn and if they would please take her there she'd be out of her hair and then smirk while they freak out when she disappears in thin air.

Yeah, really good point.  What, exactly, did the marriage afford her, by way of protection?  BJR doesn't give a fig she's purportedly a Scot now, and in fact takes that as an excuse to treat her worse.  

 

The show is also wildly inconsistent in its depiction of the place/time.  In the first ep, it seems like it was open war between the MacKenzies and the Brits, and every man who saw Claire was a would-be rapist. Then things simmered down and were cute and picturesque at Leoch.  Then, in the gathering, Claire's assaulted like 4 times in the space of an hour.  Then, they go on the magical mystery tour of the Highlands to collect rent, and things are again picturesque and lovely, culminating in My Big Fat Scot Wedding.  And now we're back to every man trying to rape Claire, friends saying "hello" by shooting arrows at Claire's head, brigands skulking around to steal and possibly rape.  It's like they cram the violence of three episodes into one, every third episode or so.  Here's an idea, Jamie: if you've promised Claire she's nothing to fear when you're around, and then married her to protect her, and all hell is breaking loose and she's liable to be raped at any moment -- GET HER BACK TO LEOCH.  Better yet, tell Colum and Dougal it's a terrible idea to take her on the road with them in the first place.  

[wafflesfriendswork]

After the way that the show is condensing the timeline and cutting out the extended honeymoon scenes in the book, I'm starting to think (and really hope) that they'll skip or greatly alter the strapping scene in the book.  Also, watching it again now, it does seem like they're setting it up so that Jamie (and probably poor Willie too) will feel extremely guilty for leaving her behind.  That could just be wishful thinking on my part.  But there's also this Ron Moore interview he did with EW about the mid-season finale:  

 

In “Both Sides Now” we see Frank’s hunt for Claire—something we’re not privy to in that first book. When you create new threads like this, do you talk with Diana Gabaldon or just dive in?

We just kinda jumped in. We kept Diana in the loop, and she saw scripts and dailies and cuts, and she’ll comment back from time to time, and she’s been very generous and very free to say, “You know what? I’m the author, you guys are the TV writers, you do what you do, and I’ll just trust that you don’t destroy my book.” And that’s kind of the attitude that we’ve taken. We try to honor the book, and we try to preserve the spirit of it, and we try to stick as close to the storyline as we can, but it is an adaptation, and we are adapting it for another medium. It has different requirements, so we embellish on things and we change things around, but we’re always at pains to get back to where the story goes.

 

That gives me a little more hope, too, that they'll forego the strapping scene.  

Edited September 28, 2014 by wafflesandcupcakes

[WatchrTina]

The strapping scene was one of Sam's audition scenes so I'm guessing no -- we're gonna see it.

[wafflesfriendswork]

Damn.  Okay, well, there goes that idea.  Still some hope that they might alter it or reframe it somehow.  Otherwise, it's going to be such a mistake for them to have crammed so much into one episode and essentially have her be raped/nearly raped twice in one day/episode then beaten by Jamie the very next day/night.  Although, the long hiatus might help to separate that in the viewers' minds.  

[annlaw78]

The strapping scene was one of Sam's audition scenes so I'm guessing no -- we're gonna see it.

For a show that started out with so much unique potential with a strong, female lead, I'm a bit disappointed we're left off with that heroine exposed, bound, and about to get raped (yet again), to be saved by the man. If they open next season with the man "punishing" her for disobeying him (as if what she went through with BJR weren't enough)... good luck with that!

[Kiwi]

The Grant fight and aftermath and the following fight teaching scenes are among my favorites in the book and they really felt underdeveloped and chopped because again we had to keep cutting back to still more of Frank STILL missing Claire.

 

 

Those are two of my favourite bits from the book too. I loved the description of the men getting into place for the fight and Claire becoming aware of it, then realising Murtagh was guarding her. That whole scene was too fast and the camera work made it hard to follow what was happening. I also Loved the part where they taught her to fight, I wish it had been longer and closer to the book. It was Claire really bonding with the highlanders but it was so fast I didn't get it.

 

One issue I have with the books is all the rape/attempted rape, I realise it was a different time and all, but surely it wasn't that bad! I was hoping the show would tone it down.

 

I am sure I read somewhere that the strapping scene will be in the show, I didn't like it in the book and choose to forget it happened so am not looking forward to it. It came across as out of character for Jamie to beat her no matter what the times dictated. As a lot of you have pointed out they have not built up Claire and Jamie's relationship sufficiently enough to this point for me to see them recovering after something like that. I do trust Ron Moore (he gave us BSG after all) but I am slightly worried at this point.

[caligirl50]

So who was was watching Claire through the window in the square? 

[ohhellsyeah]

I don't have anything fresh to add other than I have been concerned with the lack of character development for Jamie since the 4th or 5th episode. I have liked all the other changes that have been made but now I don't know how choosing Jamie makes any sense. Especially with the strapping scene coming up. I think part of the problem is they took the Jamie/Claire relationship for granted and assumed everyone would be on board. Honestly, if I were a non-book reader at this point I would assume Frank/Claire are the end game couple. I worry that there is not enough time to fix this and if Jamie/Claire aren't developed enough that future events on the show simply will not work.

[bluebonnet]

So my mom, my sister and my best friend have asked me about wee Roger.  My mom theorizes that he's going to accidentally fall through the stones, run into Claire and she'll have to come back so that she can return him home.  Sister and bff have decided that Roger is Jamie and Claire's child from the past and that Claire comes back, only several years too early and dies in childbirth, leaving Roger with the Reverend.  Lol

 

One thing this show does really well is make background characters memorable and do it in a way that isn't terribly distracting.  Roger won't continue to be a background character, of course, but his introduction was intriguing enough for people to take notice and want to know more.  I had been bummed that he wasn't introduced when Claire was still around, but this works.  Claire will probably see him when she comes back before Culloden.  

[nodorothyparker]

One thing I didn't notice in the books but was really noticeable here is the whole legal mumbo jumbo.  So apparently if BJR takes Claire, it's illegal and basically a declaration of war on Clan Mackenzie.  But then a group of English soldiers just straight up arrested her, and will basically suffer no consequences for it.  On screen it makes the entire forced marriage look completely pointless.

 

It's a mess to be sure.  I'm getting into fanwanking territory here having had the benefit of the book and time to mull it over, but my understanding is that there was never really anything stopping Black Jack/the redcoats from arresting her if they happened upon her out somewhere and thought a crime had been committed just as there would be nothing stopping them from grabbing Jamie.  But that wasn't what Black Jack was asking.  He was demanding that the MacKenzies bring her to them.  At that point she's English and still subject to English law that she cooperate.  Ned through Dougal tells us that the law says that they cannot be compelled to turn over a Scot and as people under Colum's and the MacKenzies' protection, the English can't really march up to Leoch and demand that they hand her, now a Scot by marriage, or likely Jamie over without starting a war.  But yeah, the elaborate wedding now really seems like a ridiculous amount of effort for a minor point of law.

 

None of this of course really explains why the soldiers would take a seemingly random woman who's doing nothing but standing among rocks prisoner but plot purposes I guess.

 

My only really hope at salvaging this at this point is that by making Willie part of the story of her capture, we'll see what Jamie alludes to in the book that if a man had disobeyed like that he'd also be subject to punishment and how that's a matter of justice in their eyes.  If it's presented as Willie also has to take a strapping for going off and leaving her alone, it at least puts it more into context that Dougal and the rest of the men expect her to take the same.  It's not much, but it's all I got for now.

Edited September 28, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Petunia846]

I've been thinking. I really did appreciate seeing what Frank was going through in this episode, but I also agree with people who've said that it made the 18th century action choppy and it took away from time that could have been spent showing Claire and Jamie bonding (and thus making the choice later have more weight).

 

When I watched the marathon yesterday before the episodes (which I've just been doing every week anyway with On Demand), I was reminded again about how annoyed I was with The Garrison Commander episode. As you guys know (*double checks thread*), in the book that scene was much less involved, just Dougal taking her to Jack, their conversation/interrogation, and then Dougal taking her away. On the show there were all these other British guys who weren't in the book, and all that time that was spent with them insulting Dougal and Claire telling her story and blah, blah, blah.  I never understood the thing Ron kept saying about that episode that they wanted to flesh out that scene because it was something book readers really cared about or remembered (something like that, I forget the actual word he used). I don't know about you guys, but that was never a scene that really excited me or that I was desperate to see portrayed on the show. It was a vital plot point, but it's not like the wedding or the witch trial or something. Anyway, now we're now two episodes past that, and I keep wondering, what was the point of adding those scenes and those characters? I get the point of the one guy who was worried about Claire, but I just don't get the point of the guy with the claret.

 

Combining that frustration with my thoughts on this episode I wonder, could we not have used that time that was spent on the extra British soldiers for the Frank scenes from this episode instead? Then we would have known before the wedding how Frank was feeling about things, which would have made the wedding more heart wrenching, and it would have left more space in this episode for the Jamie and Claire bonding time that will be needed later on.

 

Just a thought. I guess it's easy for us to say they should have done this or that when we're seeing it the way we are, not creating it, but as I've said several times, I just don't understand their logic sometimes. Oh well.

[nodorothyparker]

I got the point of actually showing us a bit of the English occupiers and their attitudes as opposed to being faceless "evil Redcoats" with Black Jack being the only one we ever really meet but just as I think the Frank story in this episode could have been told in less than half the space with just a few scenes, I think the same is true there.  The whole dinner scene dragged on waaaaaay too long.

 

Looking back over this half season, I've really loved a lot of what they've done but now I'm more than a little frustrated by some of the things they chose to waste a lot of screen time on to the detriment of the Claire-Jamie story that is ultimately what propels the entire book and presumably TV series.

[Nidratime]

I did watch the marathon and, since I saw them all condensed in one day, the scenes between Jamie and Claire were fresh in my mind and that did help to balance all the time the show seems to want to give to Frank in order to continue to make people unsure of where this show will go -- although last night it was pretty clear that the show was saying, yes, she's still wants to return and she can easily put everything aside and do so.

[nodorothyparker]

And that's fair at this point.  She and Jamie have only been married a few days and are still getting to know each other. She's also just been through some real unpleasantness.  Now after weeks of fixating on how she has to get back to the stones before getting distracted by the wedding/Jamie, suddenly there they are and there's no one around to stop her except for a boy who wandered away to take a shit in the woods.

 

In the book too, she's getting aggravated with herself for becoming completely consumed by Jamie and not remembering to keep her eye on the prize, so to speak.  Logically it makes sense at this point in the story that she doesn't want to throw away her longstanding husband and "her real life" in her own time for a life in this alien time and place with what she still considers an infatuation with a side of good sex.  The question now is whether they're going to be able to show credibly choosing the other way when the choice comes around again.

[WatchrTina]

 

 

None of this of course really explains why the soldiers would take a seemingly random woman who's doing nothing but standing among rocks prisoner but plot purposes I guess.

My only really hope at salvaging this at this point is that by making Willie part of the story of her capture, we'll see what Jamie alludes to in the book that if a man had disobeyed like that he'd also be subject to punishment

 

I have to agree with you on the grabbing-Claire-seconds-before-she-touches-the-stones thing.  Very dramatic moment but why would they do that?  My fan-wank is that the solders who nabbed her recognized her.  They saw her during episode 106 and Black Jack has given very clear instructions (laced with threat) that she's to be detained if she is spotted anywhere off of MacKenzie lands (or even on MacKenzie lands if she's alone, Jack not being much of a rule-follower.)  As someone in the episode thread said -- the legal loophole only protects Claire as long as she is on clan land -- the MacKenzies can't be compelled to give her up without the consent of the Laird.  But if she's off clan land (and I'm fan-wanking that they left clan land on their way to the meeting with Horrocks -- I don't think Craigh na dun is on their land) she's still vulnerable. 

 

As for the second point -- what a great idea.  If Willie takes a beating for not keeping watch on Claire then that might help the viewers understand why Claire has to take a beating too.  Maybe she'll volunteer for it the same way Jamie does after the John Grey scene in book 2.  But it is more likely that Dougal will demand the beating and even plan to do it himself (the desire to punish her being amplified just a wee bit by his not liking her rejecting his offer on the wedding night) and Jamie will insist that it's his duty as husband to deliver the beating.  That's what happened in The Exile.  But the addition of Willie being punished is a good one.

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

 

Anyway, now we're now two episodes past that, and I keep wondering, what was the point of adding those scenes and those characters? I get the point of the one guy who was worried about Claire, but I just don't get the point of the guy with the claret.

I thought the extended scene with the British officers was to tantalize us by how close Claire came to getting what she wanted, only to have it snatched away by BJR when he successfully goaded her into saying some not-very-politic things in front of the officers.  I also thought it was a correction of a weakness in the book.  I never understood why Dougal would take Claire to BJR voluntarily, as he does in the book -- especially after letting her see the fund-raising (which she figures out immediately in the book.)  But the BJR scene is key as it creates the whole reason for the forced wedding, so it has to stay in the story.  I thought the show revision and everything that takes place in that room was stellar.  First Claire is the belle of the ball and relaxed and happy, then she says the wrong thing (egged on by BJR) and begins to lose her fan club, then she is alone with BJR and the tension just keeps rising until the punch to the gut and then we really know where she stands.  We also got some insight into the lack of respect between the occupying army and the locals, which helps to inform why Dougal is fund-raising for the Stuart.  I thought it was all good and time well spent.

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina