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

[Rekilt]

I always got the feeling he called her "claire" when he was being serious about something; Ms. Beachamp/mr. Mctavish when they shared a cute/nervous secret between them; Mo Nighean Don as an intimate endearment and Sassenach as a day to day loving endearment.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Rekilt

[Door]

I think I spotted another bit of fan service.  When Jamie is lying there after the "consummation" his finger is doing that tapping thing it does whenever he is concentrating.  Cute that.

I saw that! Another fun moment was after he falls asleep. When Claire gets up, he does that brief "Jamie Sleep Smile" bit of adorableness. Glad they are keeping that in, especially since Bree does it too. 

Edited September 22, 2014 by Door

[mybabyaidan]

He did the finger tap right at the start of the episode as well, right after Claire says the thing about Bob Hope and he is just awkwardly standing there.  It's very fitting and very adorable.

 

He also taps the glass he is holding when Claire hilariously downs 2 1/2 glasses without making 1 toast herself.  You can almost HEAR him thinking about how to get her to stop getting shit faced.

[Kat From Jersey]

http://www.people.com/article/outlander-wedding-images-exclusive

 

I'm a bit sad about there being no red plaid tartan-  "A Highlander in full regalia is an impressive sight- any Highlander, no matter how old, ill favored, or crabbed in appearance. A tall straight bodied, and by no means ill favored young Highlander at close range is breath taking."

 

It just conjured up such an image- they had just better make Jamie absolutely resplendant, that's all.

 

I guess that, when we think of a plaid tartan, we automatically think it should be red!  But not all of the Highland clans had red tartan.  I personally love the more earthy colored tartans that Jamie and the guys have been wearing, and i adore the colors of his Fraser wedding tartan!  It went verra, verra well with his hair and complexion, and I think red would have clashed terribly.

 

I guess my one disappointment with the wedding ep was the fact that, in the book, Claire got married to Jamie in the same church that she had married Frank in!  It was newly built during her and Jamie's wedding.  I think that would have made a nice realization for her, and a nice bit of freak-out, and I'm a bit confused as to why they felt the need to change it for the show.

 

it's been many months since I read the wedding chapters in Outlander; I think I may have to go back and read them again.  Oh well, any excuse!

[Tif]

DUDE!  So, I'm rereading the series (again) and I'm on book 8 and I'm to the part where 

Roger and Buck time traveled and they meet up with Dougal and Dougal makes Geordie and Thomas give them their horses to search for Rob Cameron and Jem. There's a different Angus who is suspicious of Roger because of the scar on his throat and Dougal says in Gaidhlig "Don't trouble friend; they're nay more ghosts than the lads and I are". Buck responds...

"Do not forget to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

 

Is this not the same line that Willie says to the priest, when he says it's all Hebrews.

 

ETA:  I wasn't sure about the spoiler tag, so I did it just in case.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Tif

[NoNeinNyet]

I guess my one disappointment with the wedding ep was the fact that, in the book, Claire got married to Jamie in the same church that she had married Frank in!  It was newly built during her and Jamie's wedding.  I think that would have made a nice realization for her, and a nice bit of freak-out, and I'm a bit confused as to why they felt the need to change it for the show.

 

I always thought that her getting married at the same church was a little too coincidental. Also, in this week's podcast, Ron pointed out that they had already done something similar by having her visit Leoch and having sexytimes with Frank before she went back. A quick wedding with no family there actually felt like Frank being incredibly considerate of Claire's feelings since she pretty much had no family and also probably hadn't stayed in one place long enough to gather a bunch of friends around her. Their wedding guests would have mostly have been his family and friends. I thought it was a really great decision.

Edited September 23, 2014 by NoNeinNyet

[absnow54]

And I always wondered why they got married in Scotland in the first place.

[Nidratime]

I swear to heavens I read the first four books years ago, but for the life of me, I can't remember many of the details. And so, I did wonder about this issue when it was brought up: why did Claire and Frank get married in a church up in the Highlands? Neither of them have family up there ... at least at that point. ;-) And, it couldn't have been impulsive if it was a wedding in a catholic church to which neither of them belonged. The way the show handled it seemed much more realistic and was a good comparison between two impulsive marriages -- each perhaps -- influenced by war.

[nodorothyparker]

There was never a reason given and it really never did make sense beyond a "hey, look a similarity to freak out over" kind of thing.  I liked the show's handling of the two weddings much better.  Jamie and Frank aren't really supposed to be anything alike and it makes sense that even though both marriages were quickie affairs the two would have approached them differently.  It doesn't necessarily make one better or worse, just different.

 

On rewatch, I'm really struck by how much I really enjoy the storytelling of the men of clan MacKenzie running around trying to throw a last minute proper wedding.  In the book, most of this happens off page with only glimpses of Murtaugh playing wedding coordinator putting it all together.  Giving them all a part to play makes for some of the funniest bits the show has done to date.  And I can't stop laughing at Ned bringing the whore as his plus one, or Jamie's telling of it.

Edited September 23, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[peacefrog]

Well it takes me a few watches before I can really tell how I like an episode. I have to say this one definitely got better and better. I absolutely love ALL the changes.

Apparently there is some sort of uproar about the ring. I thought it was a neat change and actually like the show ring, simple and seems to represent Jamie better. The style is a personal taste I realize.

Interesting not much talk of it here. What do you guys think? Does having Jamie give her the ring at the wedding bother you? Does it really mean much to the later scene where he does give it to her in the book?

[bluebonnet]

Interesting not much talk of it here. What do you guys think? Does having Jamie give her the ring at the wedding bother you? Does it really mean much to the later scene where he does give it to her in the book?

It doesn't bother me that he gave her the ring here.  I only wanted her to have a ring, one for each hand, so the timing isn't really important.  The ring given at Castle Leoch was more a way for Jamie to be away from Claire long enough for her to start worrying about Laoghaire.  Jamie could be running off to get anything for that future scene to work, it needn't be a ring. 

[Tif]

Well it takes me a few watches before I can really tell how I like an episode. I have to say this one definitely got better and better. I absolutely love ALL the changes.

Apparently there is some sort of uproar about the ring. I thought it was a neat change and actually like the show ring, simple and seems to represent Jamie better. The style is a personal taste I realize.

Interesting not much talk of it here. What do you guys think? Does having Jamie give her the ring at the wedding bother you? Does it really mean much to the later scene where he does give it to her in the book?

I am not bothered about the ring with the exception of that scene in the book in which he gives her the ring.  The entire scene from the moment he leaves her in the room to their fight upon his return to him giving her the ring is a pivotal moment in the book because it's really where she acknowledges her feelings.  She doesn't necessarily name them, but she acknowledges them to herself.

[Door]

I don't mind the change, as I think this ring may still be a placeholder ring, and the scene coming up from the books where she gets the thistle ring will still happen. I'm of the opinion that the show really wanted Jamie to give Claire something personal she could keep at the actual wedding event, rather than using his dad's ring.

[nodorothyparker]

By itself I wouldn't mind the change of the ring.  It being made from the key to Lollybroch as Terry has claimed makes some sort of sense, I suppose.  I only question how this changes the scene in the book where he presents it to her after the massive fight back at the castle. 

 

Sam has alluded in interviews to shooting a fight and some pretty explicit sex for I think episode 10, so I assume we're still getting that.  But that moment where Jamie offers her a choice of the ring and everything that goes with it or she can walk away is where I think the marriage and her feelings for him becomes real.  That's where she seemed to shift her thinking from Jamie and the life they had as a temporary thing with a side benefit of great sex until she could get back to her "real life."  I just hope they've got something else figured out that contains the same weight.

Edited September 23, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[NoNeinNyet]

Interesting not much talk of it here. What do you guys think? Does having Jamie give her the ring at the wedding bother you? Does it really mean much to the later scene where he does give it to her in the book?

 

It all depends on how they handle it. If Jamie still goes off to collect his share of the quarterly rent then they better come up with a good reason to need to go get that money as soon as they get back to Leoch. I'm fine with things being done differently as long as something pointless or untrue to the characters isn't slotted in as a replacement.

[absnow54]

Sam has alluded in interviews to shooting a fight and some pretty explicit sex for I think episode 10, so I assume we're still getting that.  But that moment where Jamie offers her a choice of the ring and everything that goes with it or she can walk away is where I think the marriage and her feelings for him becomes real.  That's where she seemed to shifted her thinking from Jamie and the life they had as a temporary thing with a side benefit of great sex until she could get back to her "real life."  I just hope they've got something else figured out that contains the same weight.

I loved that they made the ring the key to Lallybroch, but I agree that they're taking away the moment where Claire chooses to be Jamie's wife by accepting his ring. That was a huge moment in making her final decision at the stones.

[bluebonnet]

I'm sort of hoping that he returns with a practical gift from his share of the rents.  Neither of them really do the sentimental gift giving and a practical gift would be something that shows the audience that Jamie knows Claire.  A new dress, one that is her own so she's no longer wearing cast offs, something for her surgery, her own horse so she can get to town easily, etc.  

[mybabyaidan]

I also think the whole ring moment was a "swoon worthy" moment as well.  Here Claire was thinking the worst of him (He wed her for the wedding money, he was meeting up with Leeery (don't make me spell it correctly))  and all the while he was off getting a ring for her. 

 

Maybe they thought that was a sharp contrast to the anger sex and wanted to tweak it accordingly.  Who knows.

[mitzy]

I think this ring has serious implications vs the thistle ring in upcoming story lines wrt DiA. Once Jamie gave her the thistle ring she never took it off. So she never knew about the inscription until Inverness 1968. How does he get her to take the key ring off to get it inscribed without her knowing?

[peacefrog]

I don't think there will be another ring.

But that moment where Jamie offers her a choice of the ring and everything that goes with it or she can walk away is where I think the marriage and her feelings for him becomes real. That's where she seemed to shift her thinking from Jamie and the life they had as a temporary thing with a side benefit of great sex until she could get back to her "real life." I just hope they've got something else figured out that contains the same weight.

I agree, there does need to be something where we see her accept him completely. I think they will do it whether as simply him taking the ring to get engraved or a completely new and different scene. I'm not worried about it.

I was just surprised at some of the fervor of the objections by people. I guess that was bound to happen once the show started to make more obvious changes. I feel the changes make watching the show more interesting rather than watching something exactly like the book.

mitzy Do you think that affects the story if she knows the ring was inscribed before she goes back? It's a nice dramatic moment when Roger reads it. However it would not change anything overall.

Edited September 23, 2014 by peacefrog

[NoNeinNyet]

I was just surprised at some of the fervor of the objections by people. I guess that was bound to happen once the show started to make more obvious changes. I feel the changes make watching the show more interesting rather than watching something exactly like the book.

 

Almost every change that they've made so far has worked well within the universe of the show so I have faith that they'll handle the change with the ring well until they show me otherwise.

[Rekilt]

Well it takes me a few watches before I can really tell how I like an episode. I have to say this one definitely got better and better. I absolutely love ALL the changes.

Apparently there is some sort of uproar about the ring. I thought it was a neat change and actually like the show ring, simple and seems to represent Jamie better. The style is a personal taste I realize.

Interesting not much talk of it here. What do you guys think? Does having Jamie give her the ring at the wedding bother you? Does it really mean much to the later scene where he does give it to her in the book?

I commented on the ring change on another thread after the show on Saturday. No I don't like it. IF I didn't already know that the book version has several very important emotional ties revolving around the ring then the tv version coupled with the speculation that it's the key to Lallybrock would be great. BUT, the whole story line/set up of the ring DOES have huge significance and HUGE repercussions. Like I said previously in another thread, the original book ring set up led to the scene that clearly shows the intensity and commitment jamie has to this marriage. I'm not sure how the production is going to pull that off now that the ring situation has changed but it better be good.

Plus I always loved that he originally gave her his father's ring and his mother's pearls.

Also, I could be wrong but I don't think keys were made out of silver in those days. Brass, iron but not precious silver or gold. The juxtaposition in the book of Frank's ring in gold and Jamie's ring in silver, both precious metals but opposites was very symbolic to me. But tv key ring, not so much.

[CatMack]

They wouldn't even necessarily have to have Jamie getting anything for her besides the ring, like someone else said he just has to be gone long enough for Claire to get pissed (which considering they're all exhausted at this point, doesn't take much).  I mean, Claire could throw his ring back at him during their huge fight, and Jamie picks it up and tells her she doesn't have to take it back if she doesn't want to, they can live apart, etc, and you have essentially the same choice and emotions involved.

 

Or they could go a totally different direction with it, we'll see. 

 

I think we're getting to the point where it's harder to judge the changes they're making because we need to see the whole context.  I for one haven't really disliked anything so far anyway, but even if there are one or two things I'm iffy on it's always with the caveat that it could be easily fixed or altered in a later scene/episode.  For me, and adaptation doesn't have to be exact for it to be good.  I want adaptations to be respectful to the source material and keep the bulk of it, but at the end of the day it's a totally different medium and changes are not only inevitable but can create a different but just as engaging story.  There are definitely conversations from the book that I miss, but they could happen later for all I know.  They may end up doing the fight/make up sex scene better than in the book (I don't hate it, but it's not my favorite scene either).  I'm not going to judge the show for not being a literal word for word translation, I'm going to judge it on it's own merits.  If the season works as a whole and answers all my questions and gets me the character development I want, then it's not necessarily bad if the journey there is a little different than in the books.  It's only when the show changes things in ways that are demonstrably bad (*coughaddingmoreunnecessaryrapeGameofThronescough*) that I get cranky.

[Rekilt]

Needed to add. The emotional level will not be the same if Jamie just goes off somewhere verses him going off to get her ring made. It shows she is unjustified in her jealousy and that she is clearly emotionally, not just physically, tied to Jamie. Also, that sometimes (a lot of times) Claire's initial reaction to a situation is completely wrong. Jamie running an errand and just telling claire that The L girl is of no consequence is not the same as him producing the ring. Add to it that he used his part of the rent money, which he sorely needed being practically penniless in his current situation, is oh so romantic. It also shows that Jamie is sometimes justified in his reaction to Claire's misunderstanding of situations.

But I will put trust in the production team that they will still give us all the emotional connections and ties even with the changes because I really think they've done a superb job so far.

[bluebonnet]

Yeah, what I really like is that they've given me a reason to trust their adaptation process.  I'm also more concerned about some of the missing conversations, especially from the wedding night. So far, I've been happy with the changes and I feel assured that they know what they are doing.  There are times when I feel like I might actually like the show more than the books.  But I'm holding off on worrying about some of these changes until we get towards the end of next years mini season.  It's hard to really determine how one change will affect the rest of the story when they are barely halfway through book one.  

[WatchrTina]

 

Apparently there is some sort of uproar about the ring. I thought it was a neat change and actually like the show ring, simple and seems to represent Jamie better.

I'm feeling fairly confident that they'll handle the fight and the make-up sex pretty well so I don't mind the ring showing up early -- I just wish it was prettier.  It looks like an iron ring hammered out by a blacksmith -- which is, of course, exactly what it is.  When Claire tells Rupert it is "magnificent" I scoffed and then decided Claire was just being kind.

Edited September 24, 2014 by WatchrTina

[annlaw78]

 

There was never a reason given and it really never did make sense beyond a "hey, look a similarity to freak out over" kind of thing.  I liked the show's handling of the two weddings much better.  Jamie and Frank aren't really supposed to be anything alike and it makes sense that even though both marriages were quickie affairs the two would have approached them differently.  It doesn't necessarily make one better or worse, just different.

I liked that change, too.  There'd be no good reason, really, for Frank and Claire (Home Counties folks) to go up to the Highlands to be wed.  Also, it undermines the "foreignness" of the Highlands to Claire on their post-war honeymoon, to have her have been there before.  

[ohhellsyeah]

Tina, that is my only issue with the ring. It's ugly! I don't really mind that he gave it to her earlier than in the books.

[Rekilt]

This article is verra verra appropriate for our ring convo. It does include some big spoilers regarding the ring in future episodes so be forewarned! Those who like the change from the book will like this article. Those who do not like the change should seriously consider whether it's worth the angst to read it. It also list reasons why the production chose to change the ring from the book (or at least it made it appear the answers were from the production team) near the end.

http://thats-normal.com/2014/09/outlander-merch-one-ring-rue/

[Rekilt]

I don't know how to do "spoiler" tags. There's no option in my full editor. Can someone please assist me? Thank you!

This is a quote from HERSELF regarding the ring change not going to affect the jealousy/ L person situation and the Honesty Speech (one of my favs) that got left out. I don't think I need a spoiler tag but if I do can one of the mods fix it for me? Thank you!

----------

Dear Deb (Elle, Laurie, Karen, et al <g>)---

In a word--rhythm, focus and pacing, in a visual medium. Jamie _did_ tell Claire--after she's been glugging wine--that she needn't be afraid of him. That's obviously what he thinks is causing her anxiety, and what would be most important to _him_. In the book, I was in Claire's head, so it's _her_ response that we're focused on, and she really wasn't afraid of him--but she _was_ thinking about Frank. I had room for Jamie's initial reassurance about not being afraid of him--but then we went on to him addressing what was bugging her. To do the same thing in the visual medium would both have taken another minute or two, disturbed the pacing of the conversation--and even seconds count in such a compressed medium--and it would have changed the focus.

The scriptwriter (and show-runner) wanted the focus to lie strongly between Jamie and Claire, with escalating sexual tension through the episode. Yes, Frank's important in Claire's mind, but to bring him explicitly between them (by Jamie's taking note of it) would have diffused that tension somewhat. I thought they handled it very gracefully by bracketing the episode with Frank (marriage flashback, and rolling ring), and otherwise just leaving it unspoken, with Claire's reservations on her face.

Some of you may not have liked the flashbacks, simply because you weren't expecting the story to be told that way (I told you; if you watch the show with the book in one hand, you're not gonna enjoy either one...)--but structurally, they were _very_ effective. Not only did they give us the backstory of Jamie's very thoughtful and thorough wedding preparations (showing us Claire drinking all day, in interspersed shots, would both have wasted time and, perhaps, put her in a bad light, even though she had reason), they give us the relief of intermittent comedy--all three are hilarious--and thus we don't find the wedding-room claustrophobic; instead, it seems like a cozy refuge that we re-enter with Jamie and Claire. (And for those viewers who actually might be _bored_ with an uninterrupted twenty-minute stretch of sexual escalations <g>...it keeps them watching.)

Speaking from a craft point of view, I was very impressed with how Anne handled this.

As for bits like the "honesty" line--you will in fact see that, but somewhere else. There's one other wedding-night line that I recall, that turns up in another (but effective) context, too. And Laoghaire, jealousy, and "I mean to make you call me Master," will be handled very satisfactorily <g>--but again, not in the exact sequence or arrangement you expect from the books.

All I'll say beyond that is that it Just Gets Better from here on out.

--Diana

www.dianagabaldon.com

[Nidratime]

When you "reply to topic" the spoiler symbol is the o with the slash through it, which is the last symbol on the row right above the reply box.

 

Just highlight your text and click on that symbol and a box will appear asking if you want the text to be put under spoiler tags and you click "yes." Voila! 

[Rekilt]

When you "reply to topic" the spoiler symbol is the o with the slash through it, which is the last symbol on the row right above the reply box.

 

Just highlight your text and click on that symbol and a box will appear asking if you want the text to be put under spoiler tags and you click "yes." Voila! 

I don't see that. The only thing above my reply box is "reply to this topic". No other option. Even in the full editor. I'm on an iPad.

[Athena]

I don't see that. The only thing above my reply box is "reply to this topic". No other option. Even in the full editor. I'm on an iPad.

You can also use the BBCode for Spoiler tags or any post formatting. The following is for a spoiler:

 

[spoiler*]Next week on Outlander...[/spoiler*]

 

Without the asterisks of course.

 

I don't think the letter you quoted employed any show or unpublished spoilers (someone else can correct me) so I didn't edit it. 

[islagirl]

I'm feeling fairly confident that they'll handle the fight and the make-up sex pretty well so I don't mind the ring showing up early -- I just wish it was prettier.  It looks like an iron ring hammered out by a blacksmith -- which is, of course, exactly what it is.  When Claire tells Rupert it is "magnificent" I scoffed and then decided Claire was just being kind.

 

I didn't see that as Claire being kind, I think Claire would think it's magnificent.  She's not all that sentimental a person about objects but very much about people, and she was touched by the effort Jamie and his sidekicks had gone to in order to give her a wedding ring (even if she didn't want to be wed).  In a sense, it means - to a woman who has never belonged anywhere - that she's no longer an outsider.  I think she'd think that is magnificent.

[nodorothyparker]

I think by this point in the story she had come to realize just how much trouble Jamie, and by extension all the MacKenzie boys, had gone to to try to make what could have been a fairly bad experience of a forced marriage into something good and deserving of respect.  Remember how much it meant to her back in "Rent" when she realized they would fight to defend her honor and include her.  She brings it up repeatedly in the first several books about how she's never truly had a home or belonged anywhere.  Maybe the ring isn't "magnificent" in its craftsmanship, but there's something very earthy and real about it and I think that's what she would appreciate.

 

Or maybe I'm just amusing myself watching some book purists losing their damn minds over this ring on other boards.

Edited September 24, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Pestilentia]

 

Or maybe I'm just amusing myself watching some book purists losing their damn minds over this ring on other boards.

Oh, the Poutlanders?  ;)

[nodorothyparker]

Okay, that amuses me.

 

My favorites are the ones who are bitching about how the ring is wrong and it's ugly AND it's too expensive on the Starz store site.  Apparently it would be okay for it to be wrong and ugly if they could own their own copy for $19.95.

Edited September 24, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Nidratime]

I'm just so glad this show is happening and is on the air and is doing so well, I wouldn't care if the ring was made out of pop rocks.

[peacefrog]

I think this ring is a better representation of Claire and Jamie. It suits her better because I don't think of her as ornate and flowery. She is straightforward. Show ring has a funky, industrial vibe going on. I dig.

[bluebonnet]

It's kinda fun going through the comments sections of the merch store and other places the ring is discussed.  I'm new to the series so I've enjoyed learning more about the Outlander fandom.  Where available, it's interesting to note the differences in in how those who've had the pleasure of reading this series for the past two decades have internalized certain aspects of the books versus how those of us who were deprived until recently are feeling about certain things.  I've been a long time member of another fandom for a lengthy series where I always am very curious to see the differences between the 'old' and 'new' fans.  I don't know, I just find these sorts of things cool.  I'm weird.

 

Back to the ring.  It still doesn't bother me.  I think it might be because I'm simply not a jewelry person.  I liked that Claire had these symbolic representations of her marriages, something she carried around at all times even when she was centuries apart from one or the other husband.  But, for me, these rings never went further than being symbolic items.  I didn't even feel anything extra for the rings when I found there were inscriptions on them.  Claire's relationships with Frank and Jamie were defined by so much more than just a piece of jewelry.  When I think about the most meaningful things they each gave Claire, I think about them giving her independence, a means to pursue a career, fathers to her daughter.  Even when it comes to Frank and the mess their marriage sort of became, he's still this person who really knew Claire and believed her and believed in her, which I think is a pretty big deal.  Her ambitions and her experiences weren't a joke to him.  

 

It's not that I see these relationships as one-way streets, because there are a lot of things Claire gave to these men as well.  But with regards to the ring, it doesn't bother me because there are other significant things that Jamie can give Claire when they return to Leoch that would represent Jamie's commitment to the marriage in ways that are more meaningful for who we know Claire to be as the books go on than a ring.  I mean, this is someone who spent an annoying amount of time thinking about wanting a home so that she'd have a reason to buy something as frivolous as a vase, but also someone who gushes over a new knife, or a medical kit, or seeds for a garden.  And I don't think she ever thought about that vase again anyway.  I wouldn't be opposed if they included Jamie leaving her alone in the room to get the ring inscribed or just a different one made.  But the hopeless romantic in me is really hoping that it's something very practical while also reflecting that Jamie has come to know Claire well enough to know what's truly important to her.

 

On another note, I'm not sure how I'm feeling about the next episode including the part where Frank is searching for her.  Logically, it probably makes more sense for a visual medium to show it now rather than do a flashback in a future season.  It keeps us connected with Frank and sympathetic for him.  I think my uncertainty is the part where the woman sees the 'wanted' poster of ghost Jamie and implies she knows something super secret.  It's probably a fake out, but it's edited to appear as though the audience will know some of the secrets of the women's circle before Bree and Roger come on the scene.  What do y'all think about it with the clips we've seen so far?

[marinite]

In the preview for next week, I thought it was a neat idea to show how despondent Frank was.  However, I think the editors of the clip ruined the element of surprise and hope (especially for non-book readers) in showing that really, the woman only led Frank down an alley so her accomplice could wallop him one, and probably pinch his wallet.

Edited September 24, 2014 by marinite

[nodorothyparker]

I'm blanking now on specifics, but isn't there a scene maybe in Voyager where we see Frank talking about how after she went missing the police accused him of killing her and it took months to get out from under that?  It doesn't really bother me for them to show this here in its logical chronological spot.  I have no idea what's going on with the woman claiming to be able to lead him to the mystery man.  My only concern is that it's going to eat too much show time from what most of us are probably more interested in.

 

EDIT:  Just realized I've confused the above with the preview scenes of the police saying she's with a lover whose wanted poster looks like Jamie.  So they've realized TV viewers aren't going to patiently wait decades to find out the deal with the "ghost" in the beginning.

 

I also see they've released a preview scene of Jamie making Claire promise to stay put in the woods before he and the rest ride away (maybe to see Horrocks).  So I'm thinking my earlier guess that they would end the midseason finale on her making her one legitimate escape attempt toward the stones might be correct after all.  My first thought was damn, that was quick, and then I remembered that in the book that happened only maybe a week or so into the marriage.

Edited September 24, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[CatMack]

Yeah, going by the preview scenes I think the next ep includes them getting attacked at night by the other clan, Claire and Jamie getting attacked mid coitus/Claire killing that one dude, and Claire making a break for the stones when left alone.  My guess is we end with Claire getting captured on the way there, maybe going so far as to see her with Black Jack again, just to really screw with us over hiatus (though I think it's been said they didn't know at the time that the season would be split, so it may not be that big of a cliffhanger).  Then when the show comes back, we'd have the rescue and the strapping.  I'm hoping we have the initial make up in the same episode as the strapping.  I'm nervous enough about how they're going to do it, I don't want to have to wait a week to see how they deal with the aftermath, or watch non-book readers freak the fuck out over it without knowing the resolution.

 

ETA: This site has some HQ stills for the next ep.  It's possible it's not from the same scene, but there's one that looks like it's from the sneak peek scene and Jamie has his sword drawn.  Which makes me think they might be changing things from the book.  We know they're dealing with Horrocks eventually, they cast the character, but that could be another thing that gets moved.  It always seemed contrived in the books that they thought the best way to deal with visiting Horrocks was to leave Claire literally completely alone in the woods.  Creating more of a chaotic situation leading up to her abandoning the party would make more sense.  Plus a new situation like that could theoretically remove the question of why everyone just assumes it's her fault and she should be beaten when as far as the readers are ever told, all they knew was they left her alone and the next time one of them saw her she was being forcefully dragged away by English soldiers. 

Edited September 24, 2014 by CatMack

[bluebonnet]

The still with the redcoats has one of them wearing some snazzy glasses.  I hope that gets taken care of. 

[nodorothyparker]

It always seemed contrived in the books that they thought the best way to deal with visiting Horrocks was to leave Claire literally completely alone in the woods.

 

Yep.  That was always one of those things that absolutely screamed plot contrivance because they'd just been through the near rape in the woods and the Grant fight.  What on earth would make any of them think it would be a good idea to go off and leave a woman by herself after that?  It would have been so much more plausible for one of the men to stay with her and then something happen that would result in her suddenly finding herself alone for the first time.

[Door]

The still with the redcoats has one of them wearing some snazzy glasses.  I hope that gets taken care of. 

Another time traveler!

[absnow54]

Yep.  That was always one of those things that absolutely screamed plot contrivance because they'd just been through the near rape in the woods and the Grant fight.  What on earth would make any of them think it would be a good idea to go off and leave a woman by herself after that?  It would have been so much more plausible for one of the men to stay with her and then something happen that would result in her suddenly finding herself alone for the first time.

I never understood why they couldn't leave a man behind with her. I would have bought her shaking her highlander guard more than Jamie leaving her alone in a meadow a few days after almost getting murdered and raped. Claire knocking out one of the clansmen to get away would also support why Dougal and the others were hesitant about rescuing her because they assumed she was a spy. 

[nodorothyparker]

Or the guard falling asleep.  Or wandering off into the brush to take a shit.  Or anything that would have been just ambiguous enough to leave room for doubt about whether she left on her own or not to justify both Jamie's and Dougal's viewpoints.

Edited September 25, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[CatMack]

The still with the redcoats has one of them wearing some snazzy glasses.  I hope that gets taken care of. 

That actually wasn't there when I posted the link.  The site adds pictures as they get them and groups days together, even if the pics aren't from the same episodes (sometimes there are extra still released after an ep airs, for instance, and they don't go back and put them with the earlier stills).  Since multiple dudes are staring directly at the camera and in general are hanging out like a boy band, I don't think this is necessarily a still from the episode it might just be a promo pic.  Though I don't think we've seen these particular redcoats before, so they may be from the next episode (confirming we end with Claire's capture).  If it's just a posed pic and not from filming that would explain why the soldier has modern glasses on.

[WatchrTina]

I don't want to restart of discussion of the upcoming strapping scene but I've just had a thought and I hope the TV writers had it too.  

 

In the book, Claire internally muses (after getting sucker punched by BJR) that even having led a relatively eventful life, that punch to the gut was actually the first time anyone had ever struck her (Uncle Lamb being such a softy ye ken). Add to that the fact that I always thought Jamie's promise to never strike her again was a bit hard to credit.  I know he didn't make that promise because she promised to gut him it he did it again (she wouldn't, he knew it).  I always fan-wanked that he saw her very strong reaction and decided it would be poison to their marriage to do it again.  

 

So here's what they could put in the show.  During the post-strapping conversations, when they are trying to find their way back to one another, Claire could say that line out loud, telling Jamie that she's only ever been struck by a man twice in her life . . . the first being Black Jack Randall and the second being him.  I'd pay good money to see Sam play Jamie hearing that bit of dialog.