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

[WatchrTina]

In the book, on the way home after rescuing Roger from the Mohawk, Roger stalks off in fury after an argument with Jamie and then later he makes his own way to Fraser Ridge.  Jamie -- equally furious over the loss of Ian and infuriated by Roger’s failure to immediately commit to staying with Brianna and raising the child she carries -- lets him go.  It’s during Roger’s solo travel that he finds the American stone circle.  I always hated that plot point.  I hated Jamie riding away from the man he just spent all that effort trying to rescue.  But in the book Roger has lived amongst the Indians for a good long while and has acquired woodland skills so I can accept that he might be able to take care of himself. 

In the show (Ep 410), Roger finds the stones after escaping from the Mohawk by himself.  But it’s key to the later story that Ian be swapped for Roger, so I predict that next week the Mohawk will re-capture Roger as he heads south but Jamie, Claire & Ian will turn up right around the same time and the exchange of Ian for Roger will happen.  Then they’ll ride back to the Ridge together (and won’t that be a fun trip?)  Instead of Roger sleeping alone in the partially constructed “big house” back on the Ridge (where Claire tends his infected foot with maggots) I presume there will be scenes of Claire tending to Rogers wounds on the ride back to the Ridge while a deep-seated anger smolders between the two men.  

I rather like another change they’ve made in the show in that it is Ian alone who gave Roger to the Mohawk.  In the book, if I recall correctly, it’s Jamie’s idea.  I like that change because it makes Ian’s decision to offer himself in exchange for Roger all the more justified.  The show also gives us that moment when Brianna tells Ian to stay in the cabin (after Murtagh tactfully withdraws) saying “You’re a part of this too!”  That makes clear to Ian that Brianna holds him responsible for his role.  That’s further motivation for Ian feeling duty-bound to offer himself in exchange.

As much as I hated the cliffhanger ending to Ep 410 I have to say that Roger finding the stones while he is on the run and utterly traumatized certainly ups the ante on his decision. In the book he’s already been rescued when he finds them (during his solo walk to the Ridge – right?) so he’s much less likely to just piss off back to the 20th century and leave Brianna behind though Book!Roger certainly does consider doing that.  TV!Roger’s internal struggle is much more pronounced and its depiction -- Roger's emotional break-down at the stones -- was a good change. (But I still hate the cliff-hanger.)

[Nidratime]

I know she would never admit it, but I wonder if Gabaldon would make any of these changes if she could because they do make much more emotional sense. That's the beauty of this adaptation, other professional writers are able to read the narrative and say ... wait a minute....

[nodorothyparker]

Roger stumbles onto the stones in the book more or less the same way as he did in the show version.  The main difference is that he did have that have terrible exchange with Jamie that he's had some time to obsess over and wonder if there's any point in trying to get back to Bree or just go home to his own time as the opportunity is now suddenly presenting itself.  If I remember correctly he's just about made up his mind that he's staying when the Mohawk catch up with him and drag him away again, which has the potential to look like Claire's big scene at the stones in Both Sides Now.

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

I rather like another change they’ve made in the show in that it is Ian alone who gave Roger to the Mohawk.  In the book, if I recall correctly, it’s Jamie’s idea.  I like that change because it makes Ian’s decision to offer himself in exchange for Roger all the more justified.  The show also gives us that moment when Brianna tells Ian to stay in the cabin (after Murtagh tactfully withdraws) saying “You’re a part of this too!”  That makes clear to Ian that Brianna holds him responsible for his role.  That’s further motivation for Ian feeling duty-bound to offer himself in exchange.

I like this change a lot too for the reasons you've already stated.  It was done well enough that I honestly found myself briefly wondering if Jamie even knew what Ian did with Roger because the look on his face when Ian was telling it could probably go either way.

[AD55]

I'm curious as hell about how they're going to handle Roger's decision. Book Roger gets flack for not immediately declaring his commitment to Brianna and the baby, and I understand why folks are justifiably angry if his hesitancy apparently comes from patriarchal attitudes toward paternity. I read Roger a little differently. One reason I am interested in him as a character and sometimes find him more compelling on an emotional level than Jamie is that he is prey to self-doubts. He usually knows what he should do, and what he should do may even be what he wants to do, but he lacks confidence in his capacity to live up to his ideals and ambitions. I think that's the root of his hesitancy about committing to Brianna and the baby. He doesn't want to muck it up, so he has to obsess about whether he can be a father to Bree's baby in every way that matters. As nodorothyparker said, is there even any point in his trying to get back to Bree? Jamie just knows what he would do.

Roger is also not sure he can be the man he needs to be in the eighteenth century, never mind that he's going to be competing for his wife's admiration, if not for her affections, against the KoM with his "I am what I am and that's all that I am" self-assurance. It's not as though Roger can get a position at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.  One aspect of the paradox that is Bree and Roger's relationship is that Brianna is already poised to thrive practically in the 1700s but has the sensibility of a modern woman, whereas Roger lacks her skill set but occasionally lapses into attitudes that are better suited to the eighteenth than the twentieth century. I reread a few passages from Drums last night and was reminded that Jamie is quite on board with Roger's decision not to tell Bree about the fire, because he was trying to protect her. Claire, on the other hand, is decidedly Team Brianna on how disrespectful a choice that was.

[WatchrTina]

I just saw ep 411 andI really can’t figure out where the Murtagh story-line is going.  As a reader it’s fun to be able to speculate, so here’s a thought.  In the show, Lord John now knows that Stephen Bonnet raped Brianna.  I don’t recall him knowing that in the book.  As such, I predict that Lord John’s newly-acquired antipathy toward Stephen Bonnet is going to come into play AND (since Murtagh and Bonnet are arrested at the same time) I think Lord John is going to be involved in saving Murtagh. 

[toolazy]

22 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I just saw ep 411 andI really can’t figure out where the Murtagh story-line is going.  As a reader it’s fun to be able to speculate, so here’s a thought.  In the show, Lord John now knows that Stephen Bonnet raped Brianna.  I don’t recall him knowing that in the book.  As such, I predict that Lord John’s newly-acquired antipathy toward Stephen Bonnet is going to come into play AND (since Murtagh and Bonnet are arrested at the same time) I think Lord John is going to be involved in saving Murtagh. 

I was thinking something of the sort but as I said in the episode thread, I always skip this bit in the books because it's annoying.  But yes, I think you're right. They've already established that he and Murtagh know each other.  I hope that Murtagh gets over this whole Regulators thing sooner rather than later.  I don't like it.

[mary2013]

44 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I hope that Murtagh gets over this whole Regulators thing sooner rather than later.  I don't like it.

I can't figure out how they're going to deal with Murtagh next season.   Are they going to have him be on opposite sides of Jamie?  And what about the hanging? 

[toolazy]

17 minutes ago, mary2013 said:

I can't figure out how they're going to deal with Murtagh next season.   Are they going to have him be on opposite sides of Jamie?  And what about the hanging? 

I have a feeling that things in the next two seasons are going to drastically diverge from the books.  Claire should have a talk with Murtagh about what's really going to happen and that the Regulators aren't going to be a real factor and that he should save himself for the real war to come.  I wonder how they're going to portray J&C switching sides.  That happens next season, right? It's in the The Fiery Cross?

[nodorothyparker]

The big problem yet again is that Claire doesn't really know anything about the Regulators.  Her knowledge of the Revolution, such as it is, is very Boston and New England centric since that's what she was helping Brianna with in her school work.  She can tell Murtaugh that in the long run the colonists will be successful and push the British out, but she really doesn't have much idea beyond the big battles and main players like Washington and amusingly in the book Benedict Arnold.  Should she tell him to hold off for a couple of years?  Probably, but she really doesn't know, just as she knows that Jamie at some point will have to switch sides but not when specifically.

Roger as a British historian isn't much help either on this front.

[AD55]

In the S04, E11 thread, WatchrTina wrote, "Roger is the ONLY reason that Jamie and Claire have been reunited.  It was Roger who found proof that Jamie didn't die at Culloden.  And it was Roger who found the anachronistic Robert Burns quote in the pamphlet printed by "Alexander Malcolm" -- which told Claire where to go to seek Jamie again.  Jamie owes Roger EVERYTHING."

Among the many things I loath about the Great Misunderstanding is Jamie's fury at Roger that he doesn't immediately tell Jamie that of course, he will stay in the C18th, where he has just gone through a series of horribly traumatic events, and fully commit himself to being a father to a child that may or may not be his. As I have said elsewhere, I think Roger wants to do that but has to sort through his self-doubts (and process what has happened to him). Also, were I Roger, I'd be too angry and proud to give immediate satisfaction to the man who beat the crap out of me and clearly resents me for things beyond my control. I mean, maybe Roger would like it to be clearly his decision and not a knee jerk reaction to Jamie's arrogant bullying. My back would be up even if I weren't half-starved and fighting a bad infection. (I think part of Jamie's bullying has to do with his own guilt about how he mucked things up. It's natural to want to blame someone else. If Roger turns out not to be Jamie's definition of a manly man, he doesn't have to feel quite so bad about his role in the Great Misunderstanding. I don't necessarily blame Jamie for that. Jamie's also been through a lot, including the loss of Ian (MORE GUILT!). We don't always behave rationally.)

Anyhoo, I wonder how that will be handled. The showrunners have already modified the story in that Roger doesn't currently have the information about Bonnet and doesn't know that the man who beat him up is Brianna's father. This shifts the stakes when he arrived at the stones the first time and realized he had a choice to make. We still don't know whether he decided to stay or was snatched by his captors. I think they have to tell us that at some point.

We have only two episodes left, and I don't see how they're going to fit everything in: the raid on the camp, including Roger's killing of one of the Mohawk; Ian's offer to take Roger's place; the resolution of that whole regulator/Bonnet episode the writers initiated (the preview shows a Murtagh rescue is in the works; how much time will that take); the birth of Brianna's child; the return to Frazier's ridge; Roger's angsty wandering through the wilderness. I'm not even counting the whole episode with the priest, which I think has to be cut. 

I think they're going to have to include some version of Roger's perseverating, but it's going to have to be cut short. I hope they give Richard more to do in the next two episodes, as I think he's a fantastic actor. Sophie's acting has improved, and I agree with folks who have suggested her struggles with the accent have had an adverse effect on her acting (you can almost see her thinking, "Watch out for that vowel! Don't pronounce the t in water!"), but I half resented how much time we had to spend with her last episode. A good bit of her time at River Run could have been cut.  Though I'm also always in favor of more David Berry.

 Thoughts on how they're going to handle the next two episodes. I recall nodorothyparker's pointing out that this is typical show Outlander--an overly leisurely build up followed by an unsatisfactory rush to the finish.

[Eureka]

16 hours ago, mary2013 said:

I can't figure out how they're going to deal with Murtagh next season.   Are they going to have him be on opposite sides of Jamie?  And what about the hanging? 

Maybe I am in the minority, but I don’t see any reason why they kept him alive other than because they like the actor. I don’t like this change from the book, so I don’t really care what happens to him. Lol.

 

And as for Sophie, she has gotten better. The one word that bugs me is “anything,” which she still pronounces as a Brit. Which I could kind of hand wave because her character is the daughter of two Brits, but I don’t think that’s what’s really happening here.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Eureka

[nodorothyparker]

4 hours ago, AD55 said:

In the S04, E11 thread, WatchrTina wrote, "Roger is the ONLY reason that Jamie and Claire have been reunited.  It was Roger who found proof that Jamie didn't die at Culloden.  And it was Roger who found the anachronistic Robert Burns quote in the pamphlet printed by "Alexander Malcolm" -- which told Claire where to go to seek Jamie again.  Jamie owes Roger EVERYTHING."

I've thought this too, ever since season 3 made both Claire and Brianna so passive and uninvolved in the hunt for Jamie that they pretty much packed up and went home after hitting ONE dead end.  I realize there was a lot of condensing going on because the showrunners probably assumed we wouldn't be interested in watching characters paw through musty records (although it's quietly involving in the book), but the point is that show Roger did ALL the legwork in making first Claire and Jamie's reunion happen and then pointing Brianna in the right direction to even know where to look for any further record of her parents.  Without him, Claire and Bree would still be sitting in '70s Boston probably still unhappily sniping at each other.  The Great Misunderstanding definitely did need to be pared down and restructured as much as possible to make all of our characters look less stupid and terrible, but you can see where the effort was really made to lessen Jamie's culpability in it, probably because of what he owes Roger for making this family reunion happen in the first place.  I've wondered too as some have in the episode thread how much Jamie even knows about that.  They've repeatedly referred to Roger as a historian, so while I'm sure Jamie is aware that he "helped" in locating him in the archives of history it's highly doubtful Claire ever told him "Yeah, it seemed like a lot of trouble to keep looking, and then there was something about not looking for ghosts someone else told me, and well, long story short, I was pretty resistant to the idea but he kept pushing and pushing the issue and now here we are."

I'm pretty sympathetic too to Roger not being able to immediately give Jamie the answer he wants.  I get where Jamie's coming from after all this time of having (rightly) blamed himself and lost Ian only for Roger to maybe have turned out to be a dud who won't even stick around to mitigate the situation.  He's surely also upset about having to go back home to face Bree empty handed.  But Roger is coming off of months of captivity and ill treatment, some of it from the very same person now angrily demanding an answer Right Now about stuff that's brand new information to him.  He hasn't had months to stew on all this like Jamie has.  Because of the time element of the birth and that it will be another whole book before they come up with their gene theory of time travel that would have allowed them to take Baby Jem back with them, he's basically being asked to give up his whole life in his own time to live as an in-law, again, among the same people who treated him badly.  I can see how he needs a minute or several on that.  I can also see how it's going to be difficult to thread that needle to not have one or both of them looking like complete jerks.

I do wonder how long the show can play the Murtagh is a wanted Regulator story.  I like the show version of the character and it's a perspective that gets short shrift in the books so I'm fine with keeping him around, but it will be a couple of years before there's really much going on on that front other than the militias periodically marching out and the Regulators hastily retreating.  I will be curious to see how the show plays having Jamie and Murtagh on opposite sides because once they're firing on each other, it's going to be a lot harder for them to act like their differing places on the political spectrum don't matter.  I find it interesting how much the actor has talked in interviews about how angry the character is about everything's happened and how taking the early fight against the British is an outlet for that, at least in part because it's something that I don't think the books in characters like Jamie really address adequately.  These guys have a right to be angry about what happened to them and their culture.  They lost their country and years of their lives.  But sometimes Jamie's so busy being magnanimous and making friends with British officers and the like that you don't really get any sense of that.  And to be fair, it's not really front and center so far here either. 

[Quickbeam]

 And what about the hanging? 

I'd pay good money if they would skip that entire plot point. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, Quickbeam said:

 And what about the hanging? 

I'd pay good money if they would skip that entire plot point. 

Especially since they've only barely touched on Roger's singing.  If they do the hanging, maybe they'll do more to establish him as a musician/singer.  

[AD55]

2 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

 And what about the hanging? 

I'd pay good money if they would skip that entire plot point. 

Isn't that in book 5? I wouldn't mind seeing that go either.

Roger has essentially one talent--singing--that makes him appeal to an eighteenth-century populace, so of course DG had to take it away from him. That's not necessarily a bad authorial decision--there can be a benefit to seeing how a character who has been stripped of the thing that forms the core of their identity responds--but DG doesn't IMO do anything interesting with it. It mostly provides yet another impetus for Jamie to tell Roger to "get over it" and be a man. To be fair, I suppose Jamie's sending him off with the astrolabe to survey the Frazier holdings (or whatever--I don't recall all the details) might be seen as Jamie's good faith attempt to show Roger he still has value.

Edited January 15, 2019 by AD55

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, AD55 said:

Isn't that in book 5? I wouldn't mind seeing that go either.

Roger has essentially one talent--singing--that makes him appeal to an eighteenth-century populace, so of course DG had to take it away from him. That's not necessarily a bad authorial decision--there can be a benefit to seeing how a character who has been stripped of the thing that forms the core of their identity responds--but DG doesn't IMO do anything interesting with it. It mostly provides yet another impetus for Jamie to tell Roger to "get over it" and be a man. To be fair, I suppose Jamie's sending him off with the astrolabe to survey the Frazier holdings (or whatever--I don't recall all the details) might be seen as Jamie's good faith attempt to show Roger he still has value.

 

Yes, the hanging happens in Book 5. Isn't Roger more drawn to the ministry after losing his singing voice? Helping others spiritually gives him a sense of purpose and an identity in the 18th century, as he struggles with feeling useless at home next to Earth Mother/Huntress/Artiste Extraordinaire Bree.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Dejana

[AD55]

1 hour ago, Dejana said:

Yes, the hanging happens in Book 5. Isn't Roger more drawn to the ministry after losing his singing voice? Helping others spiritually gives him a sense of purpose and an identity in the 18th century, as he struggles with feeling useless at home next to Earth Mother/Huntress/Artiste Extraordinaire Bree.

I think that's true. IIRC, Jamie warms to Roger more when he enters the ministry. I think Roger's failings become more tolerable and explicable to Jamie once Roger becomes "a professional man of peace," as a minister can't be expected to go around dispensing vigilante justice.

[WatchrTina]

There is a scene that I really HOPE they filmed.  I recollect in the book that after Roger finally recovers from his injuries (after he is rescued), he and Jamie finally "step outside."  Claire and Brianna  (who remain inside the cabin) can hear the sounds of blows landing as the two men finally work out their mutual frustrations with one another via a bare-knuckle brawl.  Claire attributes the interlude to "testosterone poisoning."  I always loved that moment.  It was so REAL.  And for me, it signals the beginning of Jamie and Roger's journey towards forgiveness and, ultimately, mutual respect and friendship.

Edited January 15, 2019 by WatchrTina

[Noneofyourbusiness]

11 hours ago, AD55 said:

Don't pronounce the t in water!"

Huh? Is this some thing where the British think we Americans don't pronounce the t in "water"?

[ruby24]

6 hours ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Huh? Is this some thing where the British think we Americans don't pronounce the t in "water"?

I think the way we say it it sounds more like a d.

[Nidratime]

How an American pronounces water (or any word) depends on what region of the country they grew up.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I think the way we say it it sounds more like a d.

Slightly, but it's still recognizably a t.

[Haleth]

12 hours ago, Dejana said:

Earth Mother/Huntress/Artiste Extraordinaire Bree.

You forgot brilliant engineer.  

9 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

There is a scene that I really HOPE they filmed.  I recollect in the book that after Roger finally recovers from his injuries (after he is rescued), he and Jamie finally "step outside."  Claire and Brianna  (who remain inside the cabin) can hear the sounds of blows landing as the two men finally work out their mutual frustrations with one another via a bare-knuckle brawl.  Claire attributes the interlude to "testosterone poisoning."  I always loved that moment.  It was so REAL.  And for me, it signals the beginning of Jamie and Roger's journey towards forgiveness and, ultimately, mutual respect and friendship.

 

Nothing says mutual respect like two men beating the crap out of each other.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Haleth

[nodorothyparker]

I swear by all that is holy that if the show has Claire utter that asinine line about testosterone poisoning I will throw something.  Gabaldon might as well have been saying "Yes, I know this entire story I dragged out for hundreds of pages was beyond stupid and makes these characters you love look stupid, but it got the ending I wanted.  So there."

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I swear by all that is holy that if the show has Claire utter that asinine line about testosterone poisoning I will throw something.  Gabaldon might as well have been saying "Yes, I know this entire story I dragged out for hundreds of pages was beyond stupid and makes these characters you love look stupid, but it got the ending I wanted.  So there."

And I hate that term. With the heat of a thousand million gazillion nuns.

[nodorothyparker]

I hate it too.  Show Claire seems to have a lot less patience for male nonsense, so here's hoping that bears out.

[WatchrTina]

Huh.  Well this is interesting.  Three people who regularly post here (and whose opinions I frequently share and always respect) all have a completely different reaction to the Jamie-and-Roger-step-outside scene in the book.  That's fascinating.

Since I'm not a guy and I've never actually hit anyone to settle a score I can't say from first-hand experience that what Jamie and Roger do is psychologically legitimate.  But from my view on the sidelines I sure think that scene rings true.  I saw in the most recent episode how tortured Jamie is feeling right now.  He's upset about what he did to an innocent man but also angry about the lies-of-ommission that led to the "great misunderstanding."  Add to that his future dismay at having to swap Ian for Roger and his deep-seated feeling that Roger should never have left Brianna alone and undefended and, yeah -- that's a lot of smoldering resentment. And Roger's gratitude at being rescued can't exactly be robust given that Jamie is the person who beat him and caused him to be sold into slavery in the first place.  Maybe in the 21st century those mutual resentments could be settled by some well-orchestrated family therapy sessions.  But in the 18th century?  Jamie giving Roger the opportunity to return some of the blows he took at Jamie's hands feels period-correct, as does Jamie's need to vent his anger for Roger's "true" crime (that of leaving Brianna unprotected in the first place).  It works for me.  I assume the fight was cathartic and that afterward, while they still remembered what happened, they were able to set those feelings aside and focus on what they shared -- primarily love for Brianna and a desire to do right by her and the baby.

Edited January 16, 2019 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Huh.  Well THIS is interesting.  Three people who regularly post hear (and whose opinions I frequently share and always respect) all have a completely different reaction to the Jamie-and-Roger-step-outside scene in the book.  That's fascinating.

Since I'm not a guy and I've never actually hit anyone to settle a score I can't say from first-hand experience that what Jamie and Roger do is psychologically legitimate.  But from my view on the sidelines I sure think that scene rings true.  I saw in the most recent episode how tortured Jamie is feeling right now.  He's upset about what he did to an innocent man but also angry about the lies-of-ommission that led to the "great misunderstanding."  Add to that his future dismay at having to swap Ian for Roger and his deep-seated feeling that Roger should never have left Brianna alone and undefended and, yeah -- that's a lot of smoldering resentment. And Roger's gratitude at being rescued can't exactly be robust given that Jamie is the person who beat him and caused him to be sold into slavery in the first place.  Maybe in the 21st century those mutual resentments could be settled by some well-orchestrated family therapy sessions.  But in the 18th century?  Jamie giving Roger the opportunity to return some of the blows he took at Jamie's hands feels period-correct, as does Jamie's need to vent his anger for Roger's "true" crime (that of leaving Brianna undefended).  It works for me.  I have to assume that fight was cathartic and that afterward, while they still remembered what happened, they were able to set those feelings aside and focus on what they shared -- primarily love for Brianna and a desire to do right by her and the baby.

Don't get me wrong--I don't have an issue over Jamie and Roger fighting. I have issue with the term "testosterone poisoning." Men fight. Be it with their hands, or guns (duels) or swords (duels) from years past. I can read and watch a show set 200, 400 years in the past and not have my 21st century sensibilities/lens get in the way and view it from that perspective. It's the same thing that happened when Jamie spanked Claire. Yeah, yeah, in the buik Claire states that Jamie "beat her within an inch of my life" yet he didn't pummel her or break her bones. He just walloped her ass. And she fought him all the way. I had no issue with that, but a lot of people did. It's the same with this week's episode--when it comes to parenting. Would Jamie have been able to be an equal partner as a parent had Claire stayed? Considering that in the 18th Century, it was the mother that did the parenting? and Fathers, the disciplining? I've read comments that give me the impression, those thoughts and opinions are coming through the modern 20th/21st century lens. So I'm staying mum.

Would we call women fighting estrogen poisoning? So I'm hoping that "testosterone poisoning" isn't used, but I doubt I'll get my wish. Because these writers often pick and choose the WRONG things to leave in and don't give the viewers who are buik readers, some of the more important emotional beats that would explain why Claire or Jamie would do or say something.

This isn't a series where all characters just talk things out in a civilized manner and nothing physical happens.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't have an issue with them clearing the air.  I'm even mostly indifferent to it coming to blows as Roger definitely owes Jamie one or four after everything that's happened.  It's the idiotic line in the mouth of our primary narrator, who's supposed to be the comparatively modern voice of reason, to cap pages and pages of blatant stupidity that make all of our characters look smaller that I mind.  The show has at least improved on the Great Misunderstanding where it could and can improve on this by at least dropping the line because show Claire is even less inclined than book Claire to endorse a "boys will be boys" male nonsense sort of thing. 

[AD55]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

How an American pronounces water (or any word) depends on what region of the country they grew up.

Well sure. But the Brits do struggle with understanding  at least some of the American pronunciations of water. Similarly, they complain that when they order water in US restaurants, they get blank stares. I used to work for a UK-based company, and this came up occasionally. In many parts of New England, you don't hear the t. You hear something resembling a d. Sometimes the consonant gets almost completely elided.  Here's an informal blog post on the subject by a linguist:

https://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-so-difficult-about-water.html

I saw an interview with Jamie Bambur when he was filming Battlestar Galactica in Canada. He said he would sometimes have to say water a couple of times, but his young daughters pronounced it differently depending which country they were in. He said humorously that they were bilingual in the most pointless way ever.

Again, this is not to ignore the very wide variation in pronunciations within the US and within Britain.

[toolazy]

It DG was writing that book today, she might call it "toxic masculinity." Kind of the same concept . 

[AD55]

45 minutes ago, toolazy said:

It DG was writing that book today, she might call it "toxic masculinity." Kind of the same concept . 

The difference I would point to is that "testosterone poisoning" describes something that is poisonous to the man. It causes him to do things and implies he has little or no control when testosterone infects him. If testosterone "causes" him to be aggressive toward others, the emphasis is still on what it does to the man. What happens to the victim is a side effect. The abused person is collateral damage. In fact, women might even be accused of causing testosterone poisoning if they "make" a man angry, thus triggering a surfeit of testosterone to infect him.  He couldn't help himself! Women in abusive relationships try very hard not to trigger their abusers. They feel responsible for the abuse. The man can't help himself. In many ways, society supports this.

Toxic masculinity shifts the emphasis by encompassing the danger a particular form of masculinity poses to others. Toxic masculinity is descriptive, rather than endemic to men, as testosterone is (I'm talking about how the term is used; the physiology of gender is way more complicated, of course). Men (again, to simplify) can express masculinity in different ways. Not all of those ways are toxic. It implies agency on the part of the man, and the characterization itself is used to describe something that is systemic, as opposed to applying simply to individual men. Addressing it at that level is like throwing a pea at an elephant. It's learned behavior that is supported and endorsed by the societal structures that have been put in place, in much the same way that racism is. Testosterone poisoning is something a man can't be expected to control. It can't be condemned. It just is. Claire's comment suggests that it's even kind of humorous how the poor lads are at the mercy of their physiology. It doesn't matter where they are or what century they were born into. I call bs on that.

[toolazy]

Jon Gary Steele, the set designer, just tweeted that they've started construction on the Big House.  

[Ziggy]

50 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Jon Gary Steele, the set designer, just tweeted that they've started construction on the Big House.  

I was hoping for the Big House!

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I was hoping for the Big House!

It's going to be a freaking palace.

Edited January 23, 2019 by toolazy

[Petunia846]

On 1/23/2019 at 12:02 AM, toolazy said:

It's going to be a freaking palace.

For real! (Based on how over the top all the other colonial sets are this season.)

[toolazy]

7 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

For real! (Based on how over the top all the other colonial sets are this season.)

Not just this season.  Lallybroch is MUCH fancier than it should be.  In the book it's more of a farm house than a manor house and in the show it's a freaking mansion practically. 

[WatchrTina]

Here's something to look forward to next season.  Poor Roger has spent his entire time in the 18th century dressed in those unfortunate sailor culottes or in the increasingly-filthy outfit he was wearing during the whole Mohawk escapade.  Jocasta probably has a whole closet full of menswear left over from her three husbands.  Here's hoping Roger gets to go shopping in her closet and we finally get to see him in some flattering 18th century garb. 

[fishpan]

On 15/01/2019 at 12:07 AM, AD55 said:

Isn't that in book 5? I wouldn't mind seeing that go either.

Roger has essentially one talent--singing--that makes him appeal to an eighteenth-century populace, so of course DG had to take it away from him. That's not necessarily a bad authorial decision--there can be a benefit to seeing how a character who has been stripped of the thing that forms the core of their identity responds--but DG doesn't IMO do anything interesting with it. It mostly provides yet another impetus for Jamie to tell Roger to "get over it" and be a man. To be fair, I suppose Jamie's sending him off with the astrolabe to survey the Frazier holdings (or whatever--I don't recall all the details) might be seen as Jamie's good faith attempt to show Roger he still has value.

See I took Jamie getting land from Tryion in Roger's name was Jamie trying to give Roger something as restitution for the hanging and Jamie being okay with Roger going out with the astrolab was Jamie figuring that Roger would bond to his land.  But as Roger said what the hell is he going to do with the land, and what he was going to do end of.

 

Though I get the feeling that they may change the semantics about hanging comes about (dropping the grandmother thing) and make it more about Murtagh's regulators.

[fishpan]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Here's something to look forward to next season.  Poor Roger has spent his entire time in the 18th century dressed in those unfortunate sailor culottes or in the increasingly-filthy outfit he was wearing during the whole Mohawk escapade.  Jocasta probably has a whole closet full of menswear left over from her three husbands.  Here's hoping Roger gets to go shopping in her closet and we finally get to see him in some flattering 18th century garb.

Though am waiting for when they do stick him in 18th century garb him commenting in missing proper long trousers and Jamie being confused about it.

[RyeNeat]

I found this forum seeking like minds about a massive character development divergence between the books and shows. Yet I haven’t really seen it mentioned here. Has anyone noticed that book and show Roger are completely different and that almost every edit/change the writers make from book Roger leads in a single direction?  He’s no longer strong, capable, masculine, or daring.

Here’s an incomplete list:

Book: Roger arrives in Boston to see Bree and her friend says “he looks like a pirate”

Show: Roger arrives in Boston looking like a dowdy tweed catalog model

Book: Roger leaves Brianna in Wilmington to steal stones from a dangerous pirate and succeeds 

Show: Roger’s feelings are so wounded by a fight with Brianna that he leaves her alone in the 18th century and is unable to crawl back to her because he is forced/scared in to further shipboard service, for which he politely ASKS for gems as payment

Book: Roger shows up on the ridge and is blindsided by Jamie’s attack, but gives nearly as good as he got  

Show: Roger is beaten to a pulp and doesn’t get a blow in - looks like an unaware weakling

Book: Roger makes it through the mowhawk gauntlet and teases them, delighting the crowd. Has no bearing on his status.

Show: Sad sack Roger fails the gauntlet  piteously and because of this remains a slave

Book: Some women of the Mohawk village don’t want to trade Roger for whiskey because they are interested in him for a hearth mate. This increases some of the men’s desire to sell him 🙂

Show: Roger is so worthless as a slave they intend to execute him (maybe?) or at least house him in the hut of shame rather than use him for work

Thoughts on why Roger has to be so feckless and delicate on the show?  Or at least a heck of a lot less badass?

Edited February 9, 2019 by RyeNeat

[WatchrTina]

I don’t think I agree that Roger is “feckless and delicate” on the show but I’ll take a whack at speculating about the plot changes.

I always hated when (in the book) Roger goes off to try to steal the gemstones that he & Brianna need to return to the 20th century and he either doesn’t tell Brianna that is what he is doing or he DOES tell her and she fails to explain that to her parents.  It’s been too long since I read the book for me to recall for sure but whichever it was, it does not reflect well on Book!Roger and/or Book!Brianna.  The entire “Great Misunderstanding” begins with that somewhat-unrealistic failure to communicate.  And Book!Roger’s ability to steal gemstones from Bonnet – well that beggars belief.  

The chronology on the show is more believable (to me).  I think it is an improvement to depict Roger returning the morning after their wedding-night argument and his trying to leave a message for Brianna when he is forced back on to the ship by a large group of his fellow sailors, under the command of a ruthless captain.  Never forget that Roger saw Bonnet murder sick children by throwing them into the ocean. When Bonnet tells Roger that he has friends in town who will LITERALLY dismember him if Bonnet asks them to, Roger is wise to believe him.

I also prefer the TV version of Jamie & Roger’s fight in that Roger never gets a word out.  In the book, Roger and Jamie do speak to one another when they first meet but they both completely fail to say what needs to be said (due mainly to ego and stubbornness) and it is just SO FRUSTRATING.

I didn’t remember Roger making it through the gauntlet in the book but I applaud the change in the show. TV!Roger is exhausted by his long trip on foot to the village and still pretty traumatized by all that he has been through.  Ian (both in the show and the book) is in a much better place than Roger both psychologically and physically (he travelled on horseback). He volunteers to join the tribe and he understands what the gauntlet is when he enters it.  Plus the show runners were careful to show that Ian’s success in the gauntlet was NOT due to him having unrealistic ninja skills – he’s just a just a canny wee fellow and agile as a monkey.  I think the changes makes sense and I don’t think they reflect poorly on Roger.  Furthermore, Ian making it through the gauntlet while Roger does not clarifies for the viewer that Ian’s status within the tribe will be something different than what Roger experienced.  Ian’s joyful face at the end sets to rest any concerns the viewers might have about Ian’s fate.

As for some of the Mohawk women being interested in Roger – well we did see at least one that was kind to him (which sparked jealousy in one Mohawk man) so that WAS touched on in the episode.

And as for “looking like a pirate” – I think TV!Roger is doing JUST FINE in the looking-good department. 🙂

[RyeNeat]

FWIW, Roger does tell Bree he’s going to go steal some gemstones to ensure their safe return and Bree does tell Claire, part of why they’re so worried about his not arriving at the ridge promptly. Roger didn’t tell Bree from whom he intended to steal the stones, part of the *sigh* Great Misunderstanding.

I’m glad to hear you don’t feel it reflects poorly on Roger. Maybe I’ll try to see it that way. My feelings right now are that he better do something fast that shows a bit more evidence that he is tough and capable in season 5, instead of just impulsive and emotional (and a generally good guy) as they’ve shown him so far. While I appreciate that much of what he has accomplished that they HAVE shown in the show so far has been difficult, I really hope the changes/edits aren’t part of a larger pattern to contrast Roger so sharply with Jamie or go on a whole different and off-book line about Roger not being able to cope with the hard living and violence of the 18th century. Book Roger is not as accustomed to it as Ian nor Jamie, but he is nearly as physically imposing and durable as Jamie and he always steps up when it’s necessary because he can. 

[WatchrTina]

Unfortunately we still have one more great misunderstanding involving Roger to get through and Roger suffers grievously as a result of that one too.  We were barely introduced to Morag on the ship (the one with the baby with a milk-rash and NOT smallpox that Roger helps hide from Bonnet.)  Yet it is his flirty friendship with Morag (and her husband's profound over-reaction to that relationship) that gets Roger half-hanged and destroys his voice.  God I hate that turn of events.  I wonder how they are going to get through THAT without Roger looking like his own worst enemy?

Here's a speculation for you -- maybe they'll skip it.  I don't recall Roger's ruined voice being an important plot-point in any of the following  books.  I think they can cut that whole sub-plot (and that will leave some room for the plot they have to add to give Murtagh something to do.)

BTW, in the book canon of Roger-as-a-bad-ass, nothing will ever top the moment in a future book when Jamie and his men go to rescue Claire.  Roger single-handedly strikes terror in the kidnappers' hearts by his virtuoso playing a Scottish war-drum as the signal for the attack. 

[RyeNeat]

I doubt they’ll skip it - I think it’s part of his journey in that without his voice he was lost and then he found purpose again in becoming the Ridge’s representative of Presbyterian church. HOWEVER, they could skip that whole thing if the end of his career waffling ends up being that he doesn’t end up finishing his ordination. That’s currently unclear and will be continued in GTtBTIAG.  

And you cant get through the hanging without making Roger look like an imbecile to emotions as usual. Though I really don’t hate that about him always - it’s often a strength and adds some levity to the book at times when C & J are too sincere and deathisnothingtoourlove - it can be groan-worthy for how much trouble it causes.  All his mess is due to how desperate he is for family as an orphaned only child.  He wants to be accepted as a son by Jamie and Claire and wants to have a real of-the-blood family with Bree so badly it cripples him (both literally, figuratively, and for his character development).  Like when he nearly dies going through the stones (twice, if you think about it) because he’d kinda like to meet his fighter pilot daddy.  So don’t kiss your married great great etc. grandmother and get hanged. Just accept the wonderful patchwork family you have, bro!

And yes, Roger on the bodhran scaring the bejeezus out of Hodgepile’s men (before he actually kills one or two) is a badass moment FTW.

Edited February 9, 2019 by RyeNeat

[fishpan]

11 hours ago, RyeNeat said:

I doubt they’ll skip it - I think it’s part of his journey in that without his voice he was lost and then he found purpose again in becoming the Ridge’s representative of Presbyterian church. HOWEVER, they could skip that whole thing if the end of his career waffling ends up being that he doesn’t end up finishing his ordination. That’s currently unclear and will be continued in GTtBTIAG.  

And you cant get through the hanging without making Roger look like an imbecile to emotions as usual. Though I really don’t hate that about him always - it’s often a strength and adds some levity to the book at times when C & J are too sincere and deathisnothingtoourlove - it can be groan-worthy for how much trouble it causes.  All his mess is due to how desperate he is for family as an orphaned only child.  He wants to be accepted as a son by Jamie and Claire and wants to have a real of-the-blood family with Bree so badly it cripples him (both literally, figuratively, and for his character development).  Like when he nearly dies going through the stones (twice, if you think about it) because he’d kinda like to meet his fighter pilot daddy.  So don’t kiss your married great great etc. grandmother and get hanged. Just accept the wonderful patchwork family you have, bro!

And yes, Roger on the bodhran scaring the bejeezus out of Hodgepile’s men (before he actually kills one or two) is a badass moment FTW.

They've played up Roger's singing in the show too much for them not to have the hanging in the show.  Though I think they'll change the primary cause of it, even if he does bump into Morag and her Jem again, to make it more about the politics of regulators and militia.  Then they could have Roger cop it as he tries to either prove himself or due to Jamie not having his back completely because Jamie doesn't think Roger is capable.

As for the differences between Roger in the book and show - suppose they actually want to show us him growing into a badass who can cope in the 18th century while being the one hit with the biggest culture clash out of Claire, Bree and him.  I say that seeing how a lot of Claire's foibles at first could be dismissed by the Mackenzies' due to the' fact she is a woman and English then because she is Jamie's wife.  Bree gets a pass with her parents because she is their child.  Roger should experience something different.  It is in shown in part in the books as Jocasta telling him that she's leaving River Run to Jemmy instead of Bree as he is basically penniless and no-one can really vouch for him, (something no one complains to Claire about once she is married to Jamie considering everyone else has designs on Lallybroch).  But Roger is a Scot, living with Scots and he can't really fight, shoot, farm, butcher meat or basically do a lot of the tasks that men in that time, men like Jamie and even Fergus would have done since a young age. 

Also in the books he has no idea if he killed the mohawk in the village, he supposes he did but he doesn't actually remember the details.  But in the show he knows he killed Alexander and by doing so a woman also killed herself.  I guess that is why in the show he is still sitting in the long house, depressed and no longer trying to save himself because those would be Roger's first kills.   Even if the first was out of mercy and the second was not directly his fault it has to screw with his head more than it the killing in the book did.

Though Roger becoming a minister is something I wonder if they will do.  They haven't played up faith on the show as much as the books

Edited February 10, 2019 by fishpan

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, fishpan said:

They've played up Roger's singing in the show too much for them not have the hanging in the show.  Though I think they'll change the primary cause of it, even if he does bump into Morag and her Jem again, to make it more about the politics of regulators and militia.  Then they could have Roger cop it as he tries to either prove himself or due to Jamie not having his back completely because Jamie doesn't think Roger is capable.

As for the differences between Roger in the book and show - suppose they actually want to show us him growing into a badass who can cope in the 18th century while being the one hit with the biggest culture clash out of Claire, Bree and him as his plan.  I say that seeing how a lot of Claire's foibles at first could be dismissed by the Mackenzies' due to the' fact she is a woman and English then because she is Jamie's wife.  Bree gets a pass with her parents because she is their child.  Roger should experience something different.  It is in shown in part in the books as Jocasta telling him that she's leaving River Run to Jemmy instead of Bree as he is basically penniless and no-one can really vouch for him, (something no one complains to Claire about once she is married to Jamie considering everyone else has designs on Lallybroch).  But Roger is a Scot, living with Scots and he can't really fight, shoot, farm, butcher meat or basically do a lot of the tasks that men in that time, men like Jamie and even Fergus would have done since a young age. 

Also in the books he has no idea if he killed the mohawk in the village, he supposes he did but he doesn't actually remember the details.  But in the show he knows he killed Alexander and by doing so a woman also killed herself.  I guess that is why in the show he is still sitting in the long house, depressed and no longer trying to save himself because that would be Roger's first kills.   Even if the first was out of mercy and the second was not directly his fault it has to screw with his head more than it the killing in the book did.

Though Roger becoming a minister is something I wonder if they will do.  They haven't played up faith on the show as much as the books

 Well, the show did turn him into a prudish, slut-shaming asshole, so maybe that's what they were going for.

[CABINET]

I do think they did a real disservice to Roger in season four and I say that as somebody who actually finds the Brianna/Roger partnership fairly tedious.

Based on the way they played seasons two and three, with discord between Jamie and Claire on screen which was not in the books, I fear that they will use the same tactic with Roger and Jamie.  Rather than Jamie coming to recognise Roger's good points there will be a whole season of Jamie still giving Roger side eye and despising his pathetic 20th century weakness.

I can't call it about the hanging.  It seems too big a plot point for them to leave out but is Richard Rankin going to be expected to croak all the time afterwards?  That works on the page but in reality would become intensely irritating for both actor and viewer. 

Edited February 10, 2019 by CABINET

[fishpan]

10 hours ago, toolazy said:

 Well, the show did turn him into a prudish, slut-shaming asshole, so maybe that's what they were going for.

I didn't take that as really slut shaming in the sense as it was he is as bad as everyone else in the show - crap at communication.  Plus it is Bree who brings up virginity and the fact he's had a few women when Roger knows he doesn't have to propose to have her to consent to sex.  

So if I am expected to give everyone else a pass then I have to give Roger one too.  Considering that alcohol, embarrassment at being rejected over trying to make a big commitment  and Bree trying to paper over them needing to talk about where both of them are in the relationship by coming on to him straight after turning him down. 

And that scene set in 1970, not 2019 so as he doesn't push any of that BS of thinking a woman needs or desires a man's protection and doesn't turn into anything close to a stalker until he finds out she's run off into the past, well for me I have to say for Dougal and Gellis' get, well the MacKenzie's have come a long way to come even with what happened to Bree.  Plus her leaving at the calling of the clans, well suppose the show it is forshadowing the show possibly doing the bit in the book when it comes to the calling in the 18th century when it Bree who leads the MacKenzie's call when Claire and Jamie see she has chosen to stay with Roger.   

Also another way to look at the whole mess in America between them it is probably the quickest way to show that they are in very different places and have very different support in their relationship because of the distance and cultures involved.  Roger having traditional Scottish Fiona going on about him going and getting the girl and Bree having college student Gayle making googoo faces when Roger does call after their bust up.

But as I said, Jamie, Claire and Bree are just as bad through their complete disregard at actually getting the need to get their communication straight.  

Jamie accusing Bree of lying about her rape and justifying beating a man to an inch of his life because of Lizzie when Claire told him that the rape happened after Roger left?   What you screw up to the point an innocent is almost dead and justify it by blaming others? And we won't go on about the slight hesitation that Claire and co had about going after Roger when his captivity was squarely a result of Fraser actions - the Mohawk's are in upstate New York 700 miles away.  Sorry you lot chased young Ian over an ocean with even less info you had about his end destination and you knew Ian was healthy physically when he got grabbed. 

Because mentally this is a young Ian who then sells someone into slavery and justifies it by saying the tribe are honourable and adopt people - so lets unpack that one.  Ian knows what Claire and Jamie's thoughts about slavery, even so called benevolent slavery practised by Jocasta.  But he sells Roger because he wants him gone and likes native americans?  But at that point he thought Roger was a rapist and he sold him to people who he thinks would be honourable and sort of nice to the rapist?  What?   If Roger had turned out to be the rapist Ian had just sold him to people who would make them a member of their tribe - well they didn't know they were getting a man who would be a danger to their women and children because we know Ian didn't tell them.  But Roger not being a rapist - well selling anyone into slavery is a dick move even if you think going native is the best thing ever. But even after the discovery of the great miscommunication Ian then to goes off and puts on the necklace he got in payment when Bree has already shown her disgust over the selling of the guy who was innocent of the crime?  What?

But we also Claire going off about Jamie being with Loaghaire (what did you expect you were gone for 20 years, the woman was crackers but Claire doesn't get to judge), Lord John telling Bree on her using his homosexuality to blackmail him that if he were to marry her he'd preform his husbandly duties even if she didn't like it.  Jocasta trying to marry her niece off to a slimy lawyer who Bree would basically have to service even though Bree doesn't want to get married to the guy (something Bree got hence the blackmailing of the gay guy).  And we also have Bree going off about Frank not being her biological father. 

Sorry girl you know something caused a rift between your parents and they moved to a new continent afterwards and you find a newspaper clipping stating your mother disappeared for three years, with no sight or sound of her to and then was found wandering in the middle of nowhere dressed like Laura Doon and wittering on about a battle from 200 years ago, 6 months before you were born.   Well you thinking you are the result of a grand whirlwind affair should not be your first thought.  Thinking your mother may have been held hostage and raped for three years by a mad man who brainwashed her and your parents trying their best afterwards may have been your first.  I know 1968 was pre Patty Hearst but Bree was a college student.

Basically the gender politics of everyone in Outlander are very screwed!

Edited February 10, 2019 by fishpan

[fishpan]

3 hours ago, CABINET said:

I fear that they will use the same tactic with Roger and Jamie.  Rather than Jamie coming to recognise Roger's good points there will be a whole season of Jamie still giving Roger side eye and despising his pathetic 20th century weakness

I kind of think that is how things are headed. 

So instead of them sticking completely to what they had in the books about the hanging they may have use that.  Have Roger being caught between Murtagh's regulators and Jamie's obligations to Tryon due to Jamie dismissing Roger because he doesn't think Roger is cut out for the 18th century.

As for having Richard Rankin croak his way through the rest of the show, its possible.  Look at Christian Bale and half the cast of Supernatural - how long have those guys been croaking through roles?

Edited February 10, 2019 by fishpan