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

[bluebonnet]

Okay, can some of you veteran Outlander fans talk me down off the ledge here? haha. I recently finished watching the show and am IN LOVE with it. However, I tried to read the first book and was completely turned off by the beating scene. (I know this is a controversial subject in the fandom, so I'm not trying to settle that issue here.) 

I know you want to be talked off the ledge here, but I feel like I'm sort of standing there with you right now.  I think the strapping scene is going to be the make or break moment for me with this show.  There are all sorts of issues with the scene but a biggie is simply pacing.  Laoghaire has been way more present on screen so we are constantly reminded that Jamie stepped in to take a beating for a woman, not to mention the reasons why.  I find it to be an inconsistency in Jamie's character.  Then Claire blurts out that she loves Jamie after he spends a bit of time explaining how parents spanking kids is so perfectly normal because apparently Claire was the child in this scenario.  Ugh.  

 

It was a bit easier to get past this while reading the books.  By this point, and definitely by the time of their wedding, Jamie and Claire have actually developed a sort of friendship.  They have been having all of these private conversations, they had a pretty deep and meaningful conversation on their wedding night.  This hasn't really happened in the show.  Their time spent getting to know one another and just talking has been limited.  They have shown us way more of the physical part of their marriage than anything else.  As a viewer, how am I supposed to believe that Claire will be filled with a sudden urge to declare her love to Jamie - either by words or actions - so soon after he beat her hard enough that she couldn't sit her horse and also right after he likens her beating with spankings he received from parental figures when he was a child?  Furthermore, how am I supposed to believe that soon after this Claire's love for Jamie and 18th century Scotland is so great that she chooses to stay? 

 

When part one of season one ended, I would have said that I had a lot of confidence in the adaptation.  There are a lot of things that I think the show has improved upon. However, I fear that the current pacing of the show will make this scene and the subsequent plots way worse than it was in the book.  I'm simply not seeing that same friendship between Claire and Jamie that we were already seeing in the book at this point.  

 

I'm hoping I'm wrong.  I really enjoy the show and I absolutely enjoy a lot of the changes they've made.  I hope the writers can find a way to acknowledge how serious the beating is so that everything that comes after (Claire's declaration of love, decision to stay) makes sense.  It will definitely be a make or break thing for me.  

[Dejana]

I guess this an unpopular opinion, but I still don't care for the time jump. Yes, it would have been difficult for Claire and Brianna to survive in post-Culloden Scotland. But it's a work of fiction and Gabaldon could have come up with something if she wanted to. It always seemed to me that Gabaldon wanted to go from one big historical event to the next and she had no idea what to do with Jamie and Claire between Culloden and revolutionary America. And it still took way too many books to get to the American Revolution.

Gabaldon could have done that, but then it would be a different story. Englishwoman Claire knows all that she does about the American Revolution because she ended up living in Boston when she went back, and picked up a lot of things by living there and helping Bree with her homework. If you'd made Claire American instead, then there isn't the tension with her being an English person among Scots. Would Jamie have called her Sassenach? Maybe she could have been a fellow historian like Frank, but then she wouldn't have had the nursing background. I think it will work out that Claire spends roughly half of her life in each "time", and her life in the 20th century does a lot to shape the person she is when she's in the past. But people like stories for different reasons and it is a bit different to separate your main lovers for that long. 

 

I don't really like that he married Laoghaire but I kind of understand it why Gabaldon married Jamie off to someone while Claire was gone, though, granted, it could have been some pleasant widow lady and they had a nice enough life together, but she died of a fever, or whatever, before Claire came back. OTOH, that wouldn't have been as dramatic.

 

I do agree that Gabaldon is meandering as the books go on, and the series could have been wrapped up before eight books. I wonder what will happen if the TV show only gets five seasons or so; will the story be left hanging? What if the series is canceled before Gabaldon is finished writing the books? Will she allow the show to "spoil" the book?

Edited November 23, 2014 by Dejana

[CatMack]

 

I wonder what will happen if the TV show only gets five seasons or so; will the story be left hanging? What if the series is canceled before Gabaldon is finished writing the books? Will she allow the show to "spoil" the book?

 

Book 7 had a lot of cliffhangers, but honestly I think the rest of the books have endings that could theoretically function as finales.  There would be lose threads for sure, but especially if they had notice and could tweak things, I think they could find a way to end the show early if they had to without spoiling anything from Diana's actual ending but still giving a decent amount of closure.  I don't really foresee that being an issue though.  As much as I don't want to assume things or get my hopes up, the fact is this show is giving them some of their best numbers, it has a built in fanbase they can continue to reach out to, and considering the built in fanbase there's probably a pretty big merchandizing market they can exploit, even more than their other original programming.  Baring a catastrophic change that makes it completely non profitable for them, I don't see them canceling the show before the end of the book series.

 

I'd worry about the opposite happening - the show catching up and running out of books - except Gabaldon has been releasing books much more regularly than, say, GRRM with the Game of Thrones series.  Pretty much everyone knows that show is going to reach the end of the published books before Martin gets the next one out, and no one is quite sure what happens then.  But Gabaldon has been releasing books for this series consistently every 4 or 5 years since the mid 90s.  Theoretically that means we can expect book 9 in 2018 or 2019 if she sticks to pattern, and the show would only be on book 5 or 6 then (if they do one a year, and they might stretch it even more than that given the split season format).  I'm pretty sure I've read Gabaldon said book 9 might be the last one unless she thinks she really needs another when she actually sits down to write.  So we should be OK on that front. 

 

To switch topics completely - at this point I have to hope they've changed the strapping scene significantly.  With what they've set up on the show, if it plays out how it did in the book it absolutely will not work.  Showing less of their friendship, not showing them talk and get to know each other as much, shortening the time span so Claire is having the worst day ever with everything bad happening at once instead of spread out - if they have Jamie beat her, be aroused and amused by it and completely dismissive of her emotional pain afterwards, and then have Claire forgive him almost instantly with no real apology - that would be a break moment for the show.  Right now, though, I'm holding out hope they've changed it significantly.  The writers have said there are surprises in store for book readers, and the actors have said things that give me hope Jamie will be a lot less of a douche about it.  So I'm very, very concerned, and I really wish I could look forward to the show coming back without being so apprehensive, but I'm also trying to keep at least a little hope and will wait and see. 

[lianau]

 Laoghaire has been way more present on screen so we are constantly reminded that Jamie stepped in to take a beating for a woman, not to mention the reasons why.  I find it to be an inconsistency in Jamie's character. 

 

 

Jamie however doesn't take the beating for her because he disagrees with physical punishments. He takes it because he once was strapped in front of everyone and the humiliation was worse than the pain and it took a lot longer to get over.

[Cliomuse]

 

To switch topics completely - at this point I have to hope they've changed the strapping scene significantly.  With what they've set up on the show, if it plays out how it did in the book it absolutely will not work.  Showing less of their friendship, not showing them talk and get to know each other as much, shortening the time span so Claire is having the worst day ever with everything bad happening at once instead of spread out - if they have Jamie beat her, be aroused and amused by it and completely dismissive of her emotional pain afterwards, and then have Claire forgive him almost instantly with no real apology - that would be a break moment for the show.  Right now, though, I'm holding out hope they've changed it significantly.  The writers have said there are surprises in store for book readers, and the actors have said things that give me hope Jamie will be a lot less of a douche about it.  So I'm very, very concerned, and I really wish I could look forward to the show coming back without being so apprehensive, but I'm also trying to keep at least a little hope and will wait and see.

I have a lot of faith in the production team and in the incredible cast to pull off this event, which I always saw as a major demonstration of culture clash and how they work to get beyond it. This may be part of the reason we are going to see JAMMF POV and voice overs in the second half. (DG approves :) Hearing what is going on in Jamie's head or seeing things Claire does not see will help from a gap filling perspective. We also have two skilled and talented actors who can convey paragraphs of information and emotion with their faces in the space of a moment. I could, of course, be wrong in my assumptions, but I hope not.

[Isabeau1791]

Like I said, I was a total Outlander newbie when I watched the show...Then when I tried to read the first book, I stopped reading after the beating scene. Simply put, heroes don't beat their wives, no matter what era or setting. That's what villains do. So that totally killed my Lady boner for the books. The comparison to a man hitting his wife and spanking a child is baffling to me. I know most readers could get past it, and I might have been able to had I not already fallen in love with the TV show.
The producers have done such a phenomenal job so far (IMO) that I am trying to trust that they will somehow alter the whole tone of the strapping scene. Like you guys have said here, not enough of a relationship has been established to remotely pull off such a scenerio and not totally turn viewers off. It just ain't gonna fly with modern female viewers.
The first half of the season has been damn near the most romantic thing I have ever seen put to screen, largely due to the INCREDIBLE acting of the two leads. They absolutely blow me away!! Despite my concerns, I am so excited to continue watching on April 4. It is KILLING me to wait. I haven't been this obsessed with a fandom in a LONG time. It's ridiculous!
Great discussion, folks - I'm enjoying the various perspectives! :)

[peacefrog]

I know you want to be talked off the ledge here, but I feel like I'm sort of standing there with you right now.  I think the strapping scene is going to be the make or break moment for me with this show.  There are all sorts of issues with the scene but a biggie is simply pacing.  Laoghaire has been way more present on screen so we are constantly reminded that Jamie stepped in to take a beating for a woman, not to mention the reasons why.  I find it to be an inconsistency in Jamie's character.  Then Claire blurts out that she loves Jamie after he spends a bit of time explaining how parents spanking kids is so perfectly normal because apparently Claire was the child in this scenario.  Ugh.  

 

It was a bit easier to get past this while reading the books.  By this point, and definitely by the time of their wedding, Jamie and Claire have actually developed a sort of friendship.  They have been having all of these private conversations, they had a pretty deep and meaningful conversation on their wedding night.  This hasn't really happened in the show.  Their time spent getting to know one another and just talking has been limited.  They have shown us way more of the physical part of their marriage than anything else.  As a viewer, how am I supposed to believe that Claire will be filled with a sudden urge to declare her love to Jamie - either by words or actions - so soon after he beat her hard enough that she couldn't sit her horse and also right after he likens her beating with spankings he received from parental figures when he was a child?  Furthermore, how am I supposed to believe that soon after this Claire's love for Jamie and 18th century Scotland is so great that she chooses to stay? 

 

 

 

 

One word: montage!  

Just kidding. I hope they don't do that.

 

With regards to the aging I wonder if they will ever actually say what their ages are in the show so that way a fixed age won't be in the viewers' minds and more general like early 40's. It's not much of a difference overall though. 

 

My hope for the 2nd half and beyond is that they fix what was wrong in the books and even go off on their own after season 2 or earlier. I think Ron Moore is the perfect person to build more of a mythology in the series and just keep the essence of the characters while creating new storylines. 

[Isabeau1791]

=

My hope for the 2nd half and beyond is that they fix what was wrong in the books and even go off on their own after season 2 or earlier. I think Ron Moore is the perfect person to build more of a mythology in the series and just keep the essence of the characters while creating new storylines.

I actually REALLY like that idea, too, peacefrog. I would LOVE to see them reduce or eliminate the 20-year separation. I don't see how they can prolong the show for long if they don't. The main focus has GOT to stay on J and C. I don't see the introduction of new characters or their romances being remotely as appealing or interesting to me.

[bluebonnet]

Jamie however doesn't take the beating for her because he disagrees with physical punishments. He takes it because he once was strapped in front of everyone and the humiliation was worse than the pain and it took a lot longer to get over.

Yes, I know.  Claire, however, still faced humiliation due to the beating Jamie gave her.  They listened to her being strapped and they saw the after effects of the strapping.  Sure, seeing her near stripped as she was being beat would be an additional humiliation, but the public humiliation is still there whether they saw her naked ass or not.  

[SedruolZenitram]

 

My hope for the 2nd half and beyond is that they fix what was wrong in the books and even go off on their own after season 2 or earlier. I think Ron Moore is the perfect person to build more of a mythology in the series and just keep the essence of the characters while creating new storylines.

 

I don't think that's the approach they're taking with this series, because Ron made a point in the interviews leading up to the premiere that he's "adapting" the books to the TV screen rather than what he did with Battlestar Galactica where he took the framework of an existing work and took it in his own creative direction. 

 

So I don't think they're radically going to go off script / create new storylines,  but I think the show has the benefit of tightening up the pacing and focusing the narrative a bit more so it can fit in the remaining episodes.

 

I hadn't read the book when I started watching the series, and just finished book 1 a little while ago.  So far, I'm pretty satisfied with all the creative choices made, even when it's subtle in the grander scheme of things. For example, I think they've done a wonderful job of setting up Laoghaire as a character - perhaps more successfully than the book managed.  I think that will lead to a more impactful introduction of the witch trial storyline.

[Glaze Crazy]

I also don't see them veering far from the books either.  I don't know how other current shows based on a book series are doing their scripts, but this book series has plenty of stuff to work with, without having to create a whole new story for the characters after a certain point.  I get that there are a lot of viewers who have not read any of the books so they are (presumably) open to where ever the story goes on screen, but you also have a large book-reading fanbase that will riot in the streets (or at Comic Con, etc.) if the story gets too far off track.  I might be one of them.  I really think this is a rich story as it's been written, so I'm glad that TPTB appear to respect the author's work as it stands. (YMMV)

 

I'm glad to see so many different viewers, from book readers, those who tried and gave up, and those who may never read the books.  A book series this size takes a lot of time commitment, I can understand why some have no desire to start it now.  I'm glad they get the see the story anyway.

 

I can see them leaving the ages of Claire and Jamie kind of generic.  As it is, I think Caitronia Balfe looks older in the scenes when she is in the 1940s, maybe it's the clothes and heels.  They will also have to work with characters that pop up in future seasons, who start off as teenagers and evolve into adults, so they have to do similar to Jamie and cast actors for the duration of the series and present them younger at the beginning. 

[CatMack]

If you listen to the podcast interview with one of the writers that was posted on the last page, their writing process is laid out pretty clearly.  They are changing some things because books and TV are different mediums with different pacing requirements, etc, but they are vested in adapting this story and not radically changing it.  That said, I do think, like SedruolZenitram said, they will probably be able to tighten up the narrative a lot, to the benefit of especially the later books/seasons (I enjoy Gabaldon's writing, but holy crap does she need an editor not afraid to tell her to cut things).  I think they could also improve on things like the problematic racial stereotypes Gabaldon tends to use, without radically altering plot.  For the most part I do have faith in this team, the strapping scene is just so terribly conceived and executed in the books that I can't imagine a faithful adaption of it not being terrible, and I don't know how much they may have altered it for the show.

[Isabeau1791]

Question:

Do you think there is enough Jamie-Claire material in the books (BEFORE she returns to the 20th century) to last 2 or 3 seasons?

The reason I ask is because I don't see them aging the characters 20 years for the majority of the series. Also, I don't think most viewers are going to give a rip about other characters. For example, as a non-fan of the book, I have zero interest in Brianna or Roger or any other relationships. If they take the focus off Jamie and Claire for more than a couple episodes, I won't stick around. I think they've got to keep the story arch belonging to Jamie and Claire exclusively for the show, because they've already established that as the focus.

I'm just really curious as to how they could possibly cut 20 years out of the love story and have enough content to last multiple seasons. That's why I'm thinking they've got to significantly reduce the time our lovers spend apart on the show.

Boy, I REALLY hate that 20-year gap! LOL

[CatMack]

"I'm just really curious as to how they could possibly cut 20 years out of the love story and have enough content to last multiple seasons. "

By following the plot of the books, which contains a lot more than Jamie/Claire. I'm glad you like them and I'm sorry you don't like the other parts of the books but there is zero chance they are going to cut the separation or the major side characters. I suggest either accepting it now and trying to keep an open mind, or jumping ship when it gets to the stuff you don't like.

[bluebonnet]

I'm just really curious as to how they could possibly cut 20 years out of the love story and have enough content to last multiple seasons. That's why I'm thinking they've got to significantly reduce the time our lovers spend apart on the show.

Boy, I REALLY hate that 20-year gap! LOL

I think you may change your mind once you read it.  I can understand that hearing about the 20 year gap doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, but their love story would have ended if Claire hadn't returned to the 20th century.  She would have died during labor.  Even if she survived, she and Jamie were wanted outlaws.  I don't know that their love would have survived seven years in a cave and then a decade imprisoned/paroled.  Plus there is Brianna.  It sucks they were separated, but better the separation than the end of the love story.  

[Nidratime]

I know the separation is a tough thing for the reader, as you come to love the characters and want them happy. And, I especially feel sorry for Jamie since he doesn't get to raise his children. However, the one cool thing about the separation is the knowledge Claire, Brianna, and Roger bring to the past to help their family & community. And with Claire being a 20th Century doctor that's a real bonus for Jamie and all of those she loves in the 18th Century. Of course, I've only read up to book four, so I don't know how that all plays out for them in subsequent books. 

[Isabeau1791]

Haha, it's interesting how adamant the book fans are about keeping the main characters apart for so long. LOL. I can understand 5 or 10 years, but 20 years is a lifetime. I don't see non-book people sticking around for the introduction of and focus on other characters, but we'll see. No one is going to be able to sizzle like Sam and Caitriona, though!

[Isabeau1791]

My friend Neva summed it up pretty well. (She tried to read the books after watching the show, like I did.):

"I don't want to hear about any new main characters. I fell in love with J & C. That's who I want to read about and watch. That's why I put the 2nd book down, I tried skimming over the future Claire and her daughter parts but it was useless."

 

She got farther than I did. I put the first book down after the beating scene. And I LOVE romance novels, but that was enough to have me ditch it.

[doesntworkonwood]

For me, Roger and Bree did get interesting, but they were and are definitely not the reason I am reading/watching. Neither is The American Revolution, Willie, Ian etc. That's why I just skim over those bits. Quite frankly I'm surprised that I've gotten this far (about 100 pages into Echo).

 

I don't think that the 20 year seperation is going to translate well on screen. Within the books, whilst it did make sense, it still felt kind of convoluted. Why wouldn't Claire look for Jamie, why did she wait 20 years to look him up? Because of the way the story is written in the books, there's no way to shorten this down. If they're going to stick with Bree and Roger's relationship (which is a main storyline so I don't see why they wont), the shortest time they could make the gap is probably 16-18 years, leaning more towards the 18.

 

I don't think all of the extra characters are going to translate well either, especially the kids. Like I said upthread, they'll have to get new actors every episode to play Jem, Germain, Mandy etc. The actress and actor playing Bree and Roger are going to age around 10 years over 2 seasons, so the make-up department are going to have to deal with that (as well as Claire/Jamie ageing). The massive cast is going to include the men from Ardsmuir, plus wives etc who live on the Ridge. Then there's the River Run people, and all the people they meet along the way to the Ridge. I personally frequently have to go back and check who people are because I get confused and mixed up reading the books, especially as minor characters suddenly become important ones (Stephen Bonnet etc.)

 

Honestly, if people give up around S3, I really wouldn't blame them. At the moment, what is being sold, is a love story between Jamie and Claire. When that stops being a focus, unless the show is able to make us care more for side characters, people have every right to stop watching. 

[morgan]

I get what some of you are saying about the20 year gap being hard, and the addition of other characters.  But if any of you have watched Game of Thrones, or even if you have just noticed how successful it is, you know that people don't always jump ship just because things don't stay the expected course.  I have never read Game of Thrones, but was hooked on the show early on and then have been devastated and knocked for a loop more often than not.  I swear to my husband that I will give the show up, but every season there I am watching.

 

I'm thinking, and hoping, that Outlander will continue to follow the books instead of veering off.  I'm a huge fan of the Outlander books even though I really hate parts.  Of course I hate that they are separated for so long, it was a gut punch when I first read it.  But the books still reeled me in and told an overall amazing story that wouldn't have been the same.  Sure, Claire could have stayed in the cave with Jamie, or hung out at Lallybroch, assuming she survived the difficult birth.  Heck, she could have found a way to convince them all to flee to America instead of stay in Scotland during the rising.  But those would have been different stories.  I'm ok with how this one plays out, and I'm guessing that other fans will be too.  No doubt some will jump ship when the strapping scene happens...7 years ago when I first read Outlander I almost stopped then.  Took me a while to pick the book up again and I was really upset about it for a long time.  But there will be others who ride it out and keep going with the story.  At the end of the day it is an awful scene, but still not half as bad as most of the hugely popular Game of Thrones.

 

Same with the 20 year gap.  Some will hate it and be horrified and gut punched by it.  Others will look beyond it and appreciate that romance and passion aren't only for 20 year olds.  Those of us in our 40s and beyond will appreciate that there is something showing just how hot and amazing romance can be as we age!

 

Is it spring yet?

Edited November 24, 2014 by morgan

[lianau]

 They will also have to work with characters that pop up in future seasons, who start off as teenagers and evolve into adults, so they have to do similar to Jamie and cast actors for the duration of the series and present them younger at the beginning. 

 

The only important characters that have to be aged from childhood to adulthood are Fergus (starting age around 10 and he really ages the 20 + years ) and young Ian (starting age 14 but not having to do the  20 years )  and  there is a the Lord John situation (16 and then again starting 20ies).

 

Boy, I REALLY hate that 20-year gap! LOL

 

I'm weirdly fond of the time jump .

 

Why wouldn't Claire look for Jamie, why did she wait 20 years to look him up?

Because she has a husband, a young daughter and a life  to live with the knowledge of Jamies  death. He is dead , that's her reality .

[Isabeau1791]

I get the comparison to Game of Thrones, but I think the comparison breaks down for this reason, like @doesntworkonwood explains:

----Honestly, if people give up around S3, I really wouldn't blame them. At the moment, what is being sold, is a love story between Jamie and Claire. ---

^THIS.

The producers have really set the tone for the show to be an epic romance, not a fantasy with hoards of characters and storylines changing course (Like GOT does.) It's a different animal.

I don't see the two stars taking a back seat to other characters, either. They have chemistry like I have never seen on another show in my life!

[doesntworkonwood]

 

 

Because she has a husband, a young daughter and a life  to live with the knowledge of Jamies  death. He is dead , that's her reality .

 

I'm sorry I didn't clarify, but I think that there's a difference between looking and actually going. I get Claire not leaving until Brianna was a lot older, but if she was going to look eventually why wouldn't she look at some point during those years? IMO DG decided 20 years and so that's how long it was.

 

 

I get what some of you are saying about the20 year gap being hard, and the addition of other characters.  But if any of you have watched Game of Thrones, or even if you have just noticed how successful it is, you know that people don't always jump ship just because things don't stay the expected course.  I have never read Game of Thrones, but was hooked on the show early on and then have been devastated and knocked for a loop more often than not.  I swear to my husband that I will give the show up, but every season there I am watching.

 

 

I do watch GOT, and I think there's a really big difference between the two shows. With GOT, what is marketed is fantasy storyline as @isabeau1971 said. It's marketed as having a large cast, and shocking storylines, every time someone talks about it, they mention the ambiguous characters, and the massive twists. It's how the show is marketed to people and sold to people. 

 

With Outlander, at the moment, what is being sold is a love story. Eventually that's going to have to change, and with that people will be disappointed and leave, and they have every right to do so. 

[bluebonnet]

Jamie and Claire hardly take a back seat to other characters.  The story still revolves around them all the way through the American Revolution.  The story expands because Jamie and Claire are together.  It would be expanding whether or not there's  a 20 year gap. 

 

Speaking of 20 year gap, I honestly can't imagine many viewers will be turned off by it.  It's one of those elements of the story will likely be improved in the adaptation to screen.  We're already being prepared for it with the voiceovers and Frankbacks.  The voiceovers seem likely they will become Claire telling this story to Roger and Brianna during a Claireforwardback (or whatever it gets labeled) that is incorporated in a similar way as the Frankbacks were used.  The Clairebacks and storytelling would be just minor points throughout a season of continuing to watch the love story unfold.  By the time Claire goes back to her own time, the viewer is already aware that everyone will die at Culloden and aware that Claire has a history of difficult pregnancies and the danger to herself and unborn child is too great to stay.  I think most viewers will respect the decision for Claire to return to her time because there really was no hope for Jamie, Claire and the unborn child. 

 

Then when Claire returns, they can use the same formula - voiceovers with Clairebacks and Jamiebacks while the viewer watches Claire and Jamie reignite their love 20 years after Culloden.  The viewer knows they were separated but isn't made to feel the separation because the way the story is told allows us to move from one time period to another without much time in between.  I'd imagine season 3 starting up much the way the pilot did, with lots of focus on Claire (it's her story, after all) and her preparing to travel back to find Jamie and then meeting him some point in the middle of s3e1 much like she met him at some point in the middle of s1e1.  

 

Really, the 20 year gap is likely going to end up being so much better on screen simply because the formula they are using lends itself to time jumps in a better way than the books.  The love story just seems even more epic and grand when they parted for love of an unborn child and then found their way back to one another 20 years later and still felt the love.  

 

I think it's much more likely that Claire's decision to stay in the 18th century will be the big wtf moment.  As of right now, Claire and Jamie's relationship is nowhere near where it was in the book.  It was already too fast in the book, but they had a solid foundation even before he beat her so the reader could sort of understand why she'd stay with him.  I think the show has done a good job to portray why Claire would want to stay in 18th century Scotland over returning to her own time, but not so much in showing up why she'd specifically choose Jamie over Frank at this point.  

[absnow54]

I think a 20 year time jump is really difficult to adapt to television. Jamie goes from a baby faced kid to the father of a 20 year old in one season. It's one thing to read it, but it's another to expect casual viewers to go along with such extreme time lapses. I've watched many a Soap Opera, and extreme aging of some characters while others look the same can be difficult to follow. I'm not saying that it won't work, I have faith in this production team, but I think that plot point is a huge detriment to the adaptation.

[Petunia846]

 

Because she has a husband, a young daughter and a life  to live with the knowledge of Jamies  death. He is dead , that's her reality.

 I'm sorry I didn't clarify, but I think that there's a difference between looking and actually going. I get Claire not leaving until Brianna was a lot older, but if she was going to look eventually why wouldn't she look at some point during those years? IMO DG decided 20 years and so that's how long it was.

To be technical about things, Claire never does go looking for Jamie, Roger does. Claire asks Roger to look up what happened to Jamie's men, but she never tells him about Jamie. She has a conviction, deep in her heart, about what happened to Jamie because Jamie was so convinced of what he was going to do. It's Roger who figures out that Jamie didn't die and he brings that information to Claire (in a scene that still makes me short of breath). If it wasn't for Roger telling her Jamie didn't die at Culloden, Claire never would have looked. There's no 'eventually looking' for Jamie. She took Bree to Scotland because Frank was dead and she was finally feeling emotionally ready to see whether Jamie had been able to save his men. That was all she ever planned to go looking for, because she just wanted to be able to tell Bree that her real father died saving those men and she wanted to be sure about it before she told Bree.

 

 

With Outlander, at the moment, what is being sold is a love story. Eventually that's going to have to change, and with that people will be disappointed and leave, and they have every right to do so.

Outlander never stops being a love story! Never ever ever ever. It is such a huge, huge love story, that Jamie and Claire are at the center of all these different relationships with people and all different kinds of love. It's really a huge, fascinating look at human relationships and all the different ways there are to love people. It's always going to be an amazing love story, there is no changing that.

 

 

 

I think a 20 year time jump is really difficult to adapt to television. Jamie goes from a baby faced kid to the father of a 20 year old in one season.

Actually the interesting thing about the way the jump is written, is that next season, the only "aged up" person will be Claire. We'll see adult Bree and Roger too, but all the 1700s plot takes place immediately following the end of book 1. So really, people will have that whole second season to prepare themselves for what's to come in S3 and get ready to see all the other 1700s people aged up. Plus, during season 3, we'll be getting lots of "flashbacks" to the things that happened during the 20 year jump, both in the 1700s and in "modern" times, so their ages will be all over the place.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Petunia846

[Isabeau1791]

 

Outlander never stops being a love story! Never ever ever ever. It is such a huge, huge love story, that Jamie and Claire are at the center of all these different relationships with people and all different kinds of love.

 

Okay, but during those 20 years that will apparently be featured in season 3, we're going to see Jamie married to someone else, someone else having his baby, Claire doing her thing in the 20th century, and the 2 main characters with little to no screen time together? I think that's where most viewers will stop watching. Doesn't matter that they've been prepared for it. I can't think of any TV show featuring a romance that has ever tried anything like that and survived.

[CatMack]

Okay, but during those 20 years that will apparently be featured in season 3, we're going to see Jamie married to someone else, someone else having his baby, Claire doing her thing in the 20th century, and the 2 main characters with little to no screen time together? I think that's where most viewers will stop watching. Doesn't matter that they've been prepared for it. I can't think of any TV show featuring a romance that has ever tried anything like that and survived.

 

I think you're confused about the structure here.  In the books the future stuff is, well, bookends.  We start book 2 in the 20th century and end in the 20th century, but the bulk of the book is back in the past, showing us how Claire ends up going back to the future.  I imagine the show will do a lot more back and forth, rather than keep it all at the beginning and end, but I will be extremely shocked if we don't have Jamie/Claire in every episode.  We hear bits and pieces about Claire's life just because she's changed so much, and we get some sense of their family life from Bree's remarks to Roger, but we really don't go into many details about the missing 20 years.  We start to get more of it in book 3 and onward, but they're more told as flashback/forward scenes, not something where we're spending massive amounts of time dwelling on it. 

 

The beginning of book 3 is when they've realized Jamie lived and they track his progress through the missing 20 years - that's the longest you go without Jamie and Claire being together in some capacity.  In the books that lasts for 23 chapters, which sounds like a lot but is less than a third of the book.  We then continue to get flashes of the missing 20 years hear and there, as Jamie and Claire reconnect and build a life together again, but they're together at that point, it's just flashes. 

 

Season 2 should introduce the separation, but we should still spend the majority of our time with Jamie and Claire together in the past.  Season 3 will pretty much have to have some episodes where Jamie and Claire are separated completely (although the writers could always throw in Claire and/or Jamie remembering their time together, if they really don't want to have a whole episode where they're separate).  Considering the amount of stuff that happens after she goes back and they're reunited, I seriously doubt we'll have more than a handful of episodes (2-3 is my guess, maybe 4) where we don't get Claire/Jamie together scenes, and those will still be full of Jamie pining for Claire and Claire growing more and more hopeful that she'll actually be able to see him again.

 

So, bottom line, the 20 year separation is talked about in bits and pieces over time.  We do not follow Jamie and Claire linearly through those 2 decades.  You will not have to spend a whole season without Jamie and Claire together.

 

And it really never does stop being their story.  The vast majority of the secondary characters who gain prominence are directly family to Jamie and Claire in one way or another.  Like, yes, it grows beyond just Jamie and Claire, but it grows to include the rest of the family they make together.  It's absolutely still romantic, it just includes so much more than that, which IMO is what saves it from being boring, because an 8 book series of nothing but romance would have lost me a long time ago.

 

I don't want to seem like I'm trying to invalidate your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it and I'm sure there are others with similar worries, I just really don't see this being an issue for the vast majority of viewers.  It's such a non issue for me and every other fan I've ever talked to off this board that this whole discussion is just entirely bizarre and hard for me to process because it's just...not a problem I understand at all. 

[bluebonnet]

Okay, but during those 20 years that will apparently be featured in season 3, we're going to see Jamie married to someone else, someone else having his baby, Claire doing her thing in the 20th century, and the 2 main characters with little to no screen time together? I think that's where most viewers will stop watching. Doesn't matter that they've been prepared for it. I can't think of any TV show featuring a romance that has ever tried anything like that and survived.

I don't know why most of this stuff wouldn't be given in flashback.  I mean, that's actually how we actually know Jamie is married to someone else, it's told to us after the fact when Jamie and Claire have already reunited.  Claire narrates some bits and pieces of her past 20 years but we don't actually experience.  We get a bits and pieces of Jamie's story - living in a cave, in prison, paroled as a stable hand, etc - that follows the research Brianna, Roger and Claire are doing to find where he might have ended up 20 years after Culloden.  The only things I would think they'd really want to concentrate on are the ones Claire doesn't know about when she arrives, like his friendship with John and his son Willie, but again, flashbacks or a Jamie centric half an episode at most would suffice. I can't imagine a scenario where they make the entire season a focus entirely on their separation when it doesn't even cover 1/3 of the book, if that.  The Frankbacks, which aren't in the book, is a formula the show has developed that would allow the 20 year separation to be told in bits and pieces without a significant separation of cast.

 

Like CatMack says, I think you think the 20 year gap is something entirely different.  Of all the problems in the books, the separation is such a non issue.  

Edited November 25, 2014 by bluebonnet

[Tif]

Okay, but during those 20 years that will apparently be featured in season 3, we're going to see Jamie married to someone else, someone else having his baby, Claire doing her thing in the 20th century, and the 2 main characters with little to no screen time together? I think that's where most viewers will stop watching. Doesn't matter that they've been prepared for it. I can't think of any TV show featuring a romance that has ever tried anything like that and survived.

If Season follows Book 3, then the first few episodes could be Claire finding out what happened to Jamie and the wacky hijinx that ensue while trying to get back to 1768 Scotland.  Then it could be Claire finding him at A. Malcolm's Ye Olde Print Shop and then while they are finding their way with one another, we find out through Frankback type scenes what happened over the past 20 years.  There is A LOT to cover in Voyager and I think that this is the most plausible scenario to have it flow to get through Scotland, Young Ian and the trip to Jamaica, etc.

[bluebonnet]

If there is any book that could be split into two seasons, it's Voyager.  There is just so much stuff in that book.  I hope they don't split it, though pushing some of the early parts of Voyager into the end of season 2 wouldn't be too bad.  I'd like the cliffhanger being the realization that Jamie is still alive 20 years after Culloden and that Claire knows where he is, but the audience not being entirely sure if she will go back or what Brianna will do.  

 

Talking about this and revealing my own confidence in how the show will handle the gap is making me worry much less about the strapping scene.  It's weird that I have so much confidence in TPTB but then think they would mess up a single scene so badly that I wouldn't be able to watch any longer.  

[CatMack]

 

Talking about this and revealing my own confidence in how the show will handle the gap is making me worry much less about the strapping scene.  It's weird that I have so much confidence in TPTB but then think they would mess up a single scene so badly that I wouldn't be able to watch any longer.

 

I think it's just because that scene is just...so terrible.  I get that there are some people who are cool with the wife beating for whatever reasons, but if you're someone who is not accepting of the "it's the 18th century" excuse, then there's nothing redeeming about it.  At best it's something you try to forget after you realize he's going to keep his oath to never raise a hand against her again (which, since "I promise I'll never do it again" is something many abusers say, that scene would not have been very reassuring to me if I hadn't been spoiled for later books).  So making it in any way redeemable for the show (where we actually have to see it happen in front of us, not just read about it) involves things having to change significantly.  And the writers are being tight-lipped enough about spoilers for how they may or may not have altered things, we really don't have anything to go on.  I can come up with several theories for how they might do it, but there's nothing to confirm any of them are remotely likely.  Aside from a couple of very vague comments we have nothing to speculate on, it's just this big gaping pit of grossness to get past so we can go on to the good stuff.

Edited November 25, 2014 by CatMack

[LadyHam]

Upthread, someone was asking why Claire waited 20 years to look up Jamie.  Technically, Claire did not ask Roger to look for Jamie.  His name purposely was not on the list she gave to Roger.  Claire wanted to know the fate of the other men from Lallybroch.  I believe there is a point in DIA where Roger specifically mentions the name James Fraser to Claire, and Claire tells Roger she doesn't have to research him because she alread knows his fate.  In Claire's mind, Jamie died at Culloden because that is what he intended to do.  I don't think it's until she sees the grave stone for Jamie in the church cemetary that Claire has Roger undertake the task of researching what happened to Jamie.  If I am remembering correctly ,wasn't the grave stone placed by Frank and it didn't have any dates on it?  I think it just said something along the lines of "Beloved Husband to Claire".  I think the end of DIA one of the last lines is Roger telling Claire that Jamie intended to die at Culloden, but he didn't - he survived.  For someone who read these books as they were released (I read Outlander shortly after it came out in 1991 I believe), it was such a miserable wait for Voyager to come out after DIA!  I think it was only a year or so at that point on time, nothing like the 4 to 5 year wait between books now, but still, it was awful to wait!  I almost makes the 6 month wait for the start of the second half of the season bearable!  I said almost! ;)

[mybabyaidan]

I think she was in extreme denial for 20 years and the thought that Jamie was dead was the only thing that allowed her to "get on" with her life with Frank and Brianna.  Imagine if she researched Jamie's fate when Brianna was say....5?  or even in her teens?  If she had found out Jamie WAS alive but she would have to abandon their daughter to get back to him?  It would have been a soul crushing choice.

 

Denial is a strong strong thing.  She had to completely abandon any hope that Jamie could have indeed survived in order to have any kind of life. 

[doesntworkonwood]

To be technical about things, Claire never does go looking for Jamie, Roger does. Claire asks Roger to look up what happened to Jamie's men, but she never tells him about Jamie. She has a conviction, deep in her heart, about what happened to Jamie because Jamie was so convinced of what he was going to do. It's Roger who figures out that Jamie didn't die and he brings that information to Claire (in a scene that still makes me short of breath). If it wasn't for Roger telling her Jamie didn't die at Culloden, Claire never would have looked. There's no 'eventually looking' for Jamie. She took Bree to Scotland because Frank was dead and she was finally feeling emotionally ready to see whether Jamie had been able to save his men. That was all she ever planned to go looking for, because she just wanted to be able to tell Bree that her real father died saving those men and she wanted to be sure about it before she told Bree.

 

 

Outlander never stops being a love story! Never ever ever ever. It is such a huge, huge love story, that Jamie and Claire are at the center of all these different relationships with people and all different kinds of love. It's really a huge, fascinating look at human relationships and all the different ways there are to love people. It's always going to be an amazing love story, there is no changing that.

 

 

 

Actually the interesting thing about the way the jump is written, is that next season, the only "aged up" person will be Claire. We'll see adult Bree and Roger too, but all the 1700s plot takes place immediately following the end of book 1. So really, people will have that whole second season to prepare themselves for what's to come in S3 and get ready to see all the other 1700s people aged up. Plus, during season 3, we'll be getting lots of "flashbacks" to the things that happened during the 20 year jump, both in the 1700s and in "modern" times, so their ages will be all over the place.

 

 

My problem with with the 20 year gap is because it felt more plot motivated rather than character motivated. To me it read like DG just wanted to skip to the juicy bits, and that's the only reason it was there. 

 

And whilst Jamie and Claire are still there throughout the books, they do take a pretty big back seat. People didn't sign up for that. 

 

Upthread, someone was asking why Claire waited 20 years to look up Jamie.  Technically, Claire did not ask Roger to look for Jamie.  His name purposely was not on the list she gave to Roger.  Claire wanted to know the fate of the other men from Lallybroch.  I believe there is a point in DIA where Roger specifically mentions the name James Fraser to Claire, and Claire tells Roger she doesn't have to research him because she alread knows his fate.  In Claire's mind, Jamie died at Culloden because that is what he intended to do.  I don't think it's until she sees the grave stone for Jamie in the church cemetary that Claire has Roger undertake the task of researching what happened to Jamie.  If I am remembering correctly ,wasn't the grave stone placed by Frank and it didn't have any dates on it?  I think it just said something along the lines of "Beloved Husband to Claire".  I think the end of DIA one of the last lines is Roger telling Claire that Jamie intended to die at Culloden, but he didn't - he survived.  For someone who read these books as they were released (I read Outlander shortly after it came out in 1991 I believe), it was such a miserable wait for Voyager to come out after DIA!  I think it was only a year or so at that point on time, nothing like the 4 to 5 year wait between books now, but still, it was awful to wait!  I almost makes the 6 month wait for the start of the second half of the season bearable!  I said almost! ;)

[tcay]

The separation is heartbreaking on a lot of levels and I hate thinking about it. But in terms of the plot, you can't consolidate it too much. Cynically, the separation is there to bridge the gap between two wars, because DG just can't have characters live in peace (and clearly likes writing historical fiction set during wars). Then throw in the complication of Jamie's son, and now you see that the characters wouldn't even wish away the separation: Jamie would lose Willie and Brianna would have been deprived of her father in Frank, whom she loved. So they wouldn't even change it if they could.

 

And as far as aging, the books make ample references to the fact that Claire basically doesn't age and Jamie looks amazing, so beyond adding a few highlights to Claire's hair, I don't think the aging is an issue. 

 

I don't want to make any pronouncements about the way the show will handle the separation itself though. I want to say they'll be reunited in episode 3 or 4 of season 3, but then again, I could see them wanting to make it all as painful as possible. Yet there is SO MUCH plot that happens after the reunion. I will riot in the streets though if they're reunited in say, episode 6 and then episode 7 is a midseason finale. Riot in the streets.

[Liser78]

 I can't stop thinking about Toby Regbo for Lord John. I don't know if he's well-regarded or not, but I really love him. He's pretty much the only reason why I'm still watching Reign. I think he'd be perfect for Lord John, because he's got that petite, delicate, almost girlish stature, plus the fair skin and blond hair. He's been doing great with this aristocratic, period piece part so far. Plus he is actually English, so the accent and all would be easy. He's also about ten years younger than Sam and Cait, so that's about right. I don't know, I'm rereading Voyager right now and that's just who I keep imagining, now that it's a real possibility that that book might actually end up on our TV screens someday. I'm sure there's less than like 1% chance of him being cast, but if he could some how get out of Reign and come to Outlander.

I keep envisioning Toby Regbo too!  First real actor I have been able to "see" as Lord John, I think he just fits the bill.  They could totally make him look younger (for our intro to him at age 16), and then in Voyager he would already be the perfect age.  And as far as him getting out of Reign; if they follow the actual history (I don't think they will rewrite it completely even though they have not been all that historically accurate so far) King Frances dies after only one year of marriage to Mary.....so in theory Toby would be in need of a gig.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Liser78

[Petunia846]

And as far as him getting out of Reign; if they follow the actual history (I don't think they will rewrite it completely even though they have not been all that historically accurate so far) King Frances dies after only one year of marriage to Mary.....so in theory Toby would be in need of a gig.

That's what I was thinking too! I'd be super sad to see him leave Reign, obviously, but...I mean, he needs to start planning ahead...

[CatMack]

I could see him for teenager Lord John, maybe even Helwater era John, but I can't see him for later series Lord John.  He's just too young.  John is only, like, 10-15 years younger than Claire and Jamie.  That means by the later books, when Claire has reached 60, John is in his 40s.  Toby Regbo is 23, and could easily pass for younger.  No way I can buy him as a middle aged man, even with aging makeup.

 

I really think they will (or at least should) go with a recast for young vs old Lord John.  Or cast an older actor and try to make him look younger for his one young scene.  Not a knock on Regbo, I liked him well enough in the few episodes of Reign I managed to get through, I just don't think he has the looks or the gravitas to pull off the older Lord John.

 

I picture Lord John as more of a Dan Stevens, though this show sees to go with a lot of unknown or lesser known actors and actresses and it's worked very well for them so far so I have faith they'll find someone appropriate. 

[lianau]

I'm with you here . He's way to young for John after book 2 . I think they will go with two actors for him . John is about 8 years younger than Jamie as he's 16 in DiA and Jamie 24 .

Edited December 7, 2014 by lianau

[Petunia846]

To each their own obviously, but I just always read John as looking very boyish, even in later books when he was older.

[CatMack]

I mean, there's boyish and there's being on screen believable as the father of an 18 year old (or however old Willie is in the last two books).  It's sort of the same thing with Claire getting older - you can say the books describe her as barely aging and looking really good for her age and you wouldn't be wrong, but there's a difference between reading it and actually seeing them on screen playing parents to characters who are in their late teens and/or 20s.  This is one of those areas where books and television are very different mediums and the show is going to have to adjust accordingly (not that I think they'll have Claire hobbling around with a full head of gray hair or anything, just that they'll probably need to go at least a little further with the aging than the books describe just to make her and Bree believable as mother and daughter).

[Liser78]

I picture Lord John as more of a Dan Stevens, though this show sees to go with a lot of unknown or lesser known actors and actresses and it's worked very well for them so far so I have faith they'll find someone appropriate. 

I had to look up Dan Stevens (I haven't watched Downton Abbey) and I could see it, but....

Age is an issue, and I think he looks too old.  They will most likely do what you said and cast a lesser known actor, or cast a teenager and then recast for the later books.

[lianau]

We only need teenage John for a couple of scenes in season two (and maybe for the Hector backstory if that is needed) . The next time we see him is in Ardsmuir and he's in his mid/late 20s

[Nidratime]

Back to the potential Bree audition tapes. Here's a "new" one:

 

http://vimeo.com/114450629

 

And another Roger, which I guess we haven't seen before.

 

Edited December 15, 2014 by Nidratime

[justmehere]

A couple of people have posted links to the new preview for the second half of the season (in Media and Scheduling threads). There's a brief shot of Claire outdoors - in the woods - holding a baby, which seems likely to be the "fairy" child. Given the other setups they've already had that could be fuel for the witch trial, I was sort of hoping they'd skip it.

[ScotchnSoda]

 

"Count me as among the seemingly few who will be sorely disappointed if they try to psychobabble and 21st century color the scene"  written by dustoffmom 

Never heard of "Outlander" until this show, but have now read (albeit really fast) the first 3 books and just discovered this discussion site.  So that said  . . .  when I was a kid I didn't understand why Rhett just didn't slap Scarlett silly.  Even then I intuited that it would have saved her a lot of grief later on.  For me, this 18th century Scotland is an essential "character" as Diana has portrayed it.  It is shocking to us (and that alone is reason enough to have it) but without it, Claire would not be an "outlander".  She and Jami, both, would be outcasts from the only society in which they exist.  

PS - is there a tutorial on how to use/navigate this site and the "threads"? Where is everything?

[Athena]

PS - is there a tutorial on how to use/navigate this site and the "threads"? Where is everything?

 

Can you be more specific on what you want to see? There is a search function on the top upper-right hand corner which is the magnifying glass icon.

 

This is the forums portion of PTV and you are in the Outlander shows forum. The full index of this shows thread are on the Outlander forum page. For other show forums, you can select Forums.

[chocolatetruffle]

The strapping scene didn't bother me nearly as much as the brutality of the Wentworth scenes.  It is still disturbing to me as I write this and I doubt I will be able to watch those scenes portrayed in full HD technicolor.  I literally wanted to stop reading as the events unfold and the only reason I kept going is because I knew there were 7 more books, so Jaime had to have put his life back together and moved on from it.  But if I had been reading it when it was first written I would not have been able to finish it.  Did anyone else feel the same way?  I have seen a lot of posts about the strapping, but I'm just surprised no one has mentioned Wentworth. 

[auntlada]

I read it the first time through. Now I just skip that part and pick up with the wolves. I also skip any exposition about what happened. I really don't like reading it. The strapping doesn't bother me.