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

[insubordination]

If they can have time travel though magic stones, then they can give me Nessie!

[absnow54]

From the Unpopular Opinion thread...

 

 

But again I personally was never impressed with Frank as the one and only spouse for Claire. More like first husband material. I also personally never thought Frank was that entirely in tune with her and kind of dismissive. As for their second honeymoon he spent an awful lot of time with the Rev.

This is how I interpreted Frank from the book, but the TV show has shown something very different. All of Claire's Frankbacks have had her included and engaged in all of Frank and the Reverend's discussions. The reason she went off to the kitchen to get her tea leaves read was because she felt so out of place with the Reverend. With the show, these little flashback scenes help with the exposition, but I think Claire's portrayal is off in them when painting her relationship with Frank against her relationship with Jamie. I never got the impression that Frank was a bad guy, only that he didn't know how to relate to Claire and wasn't the guy for her. Contrast that with Jamie who is very open with discussing feelings and their relationship. The show has done a disservice in portraying both relationships, in my opinion, which is making it hard for me to understand her final choice in the show universe.

Edited September 30, 2014 by absnow54

[annlaw78]

I agree, Absnow. I always got the feeling that Claire and Frank had grown apart during the war. They each had his/her own experience during the war, vastly different.

I think some of the Frank stuff, making him more "action man" rather than "scholarly professor" serves to muddy the difference between him and the Highlanders. I got a sense from the book (the parts I read) that there was a certain amount of excitement that Claire thrived on during the War, and life as a wife-and-womb for Frank maybe was not going to meet her newfound expectations.

[nodorothyparker]

Up until the show decided to go all Frank all the time (I guess because they didn't think Tobias Menzies was getting enough scenery to chew), I liked that they were painting Frank as more sympathetic and relatable than he appears much of the time in the books.  But yeah, there's been something not quite real, almost like an idealized '40s Hollywood movie quality about his Frankbacks with Claire that still can't completely gloss over the fact that this is supposed to be their second honeymoon to try to reconnect after a very long separation and she's still coming in second to some dusty historical archives about Black Jack Randall.  There's some irony for you that I think sums the whole thing up.  If he hadn't been so fixated on yet another box of crumbling dispatches about his sociopathic ancestor, Claire wouldn't have gone to the stones by herself and might never have traveled through in the first place.

 

Frank always read to me like that older first husband that a young woman with no real family would marry and then eventually outgrow.  That's honestly what I think very well may have happened even had she never disappeared, especially as it became clear they were not going to have any children of their own.  Frank was wanting a full-time dutiful wife to attend faculty functions and make him look good and we know that's really not who Claire became at all.

Edited September 30, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Tif]

Frank always read to me like that older first husband that a young woman with no real family would marry and then eventually outgrow.  That's honestly what I think very well may have happened even had she never disappeared, especially as it became clear they were not going to have any children of their own.  Frank was wanting a full-time dutiful wife to attend faculty functions and make him look good and we know that's really not who Claire became at all.

^^^^THIS X 100000!

Tobias Menzies is doing a fantastic job and I can't fault his performance in the least.  I think had Claire been a little different, she could've been happy being a faculty wife, but as we know from Book 2 on, she would never have been truly satisfied doing that.  Now, could events from 1743 shaped her more than what she would've been?  Sure, but I think that WWII shaped her far more as a person than the events in 1743.  Jamie wanted her from the moment he laid eyes on her, that had all to do with who she was already.  

[Glaze Crazy]

Frank always read to me like that older first husband that a young woman with no real family would marry and then eventually outgrow.  That's honestly what I think very well may have happened even had she never disappeared, especially as it became clear they were not going to have any children of their own.  Frank was wanting a full-time dutiful wife to attend faculty functions and make him look good and we know that's really not who Claire became at all.

I got that feeling about him too.  I think Claire, if she had continued on in her own time, would have eventually divorced him.  It would have probably been a few years though.  Instead she stayed with him because of his love for Brianna.  Once she became a doctor she had another focus besides being the professor's wife so she was able to become her own person anyway, while sharing child raising duty.  In fact, I think that if Claire had been able to convince Frank to just divorce her when she came back, I wonder if she would have been able to pursue her medical training, with a baby/child to raise alone?  This would have been late 1940s/early 1950s.  I don't know how many single mothers would have taken on the course workload to be a doctor.  She might have gone back to nursing easier.

 

Since the show runners are fleshing out Frank a bit more, I wonder if they will add some additional story later about Frank having the gravestone for Jamie put in the kirk.  It's an opportunity to show that he did know Jamie lived and, if they include him finding the death notice himself, long before Roger and Bree do, that he knew Claire went back to Jamie at some point.

 

If TPTB go there, I can see that series of events partly driving his serial cheating through the years and his plan to go back to England with Bree in tow that sparked their final argument.  It could be spun that he was intentionally trying to get Claire to leave him and go back to Jamie.  Since he asked Claire not to tell Brianna about her bio father until he (Frank) was dead and made the effort to teach Bree about shooting, camping and general outdoorsy stuff, he might also think Bree might go back too.

[nodorothyparker]

It could be spun that he was intentionally trying to get Claire to leave him and go back to Jamie.  Since he asked Claire not to tell Brianna about her bio father until he (Frank) was dead and made the effort to teach Bree about shooting, camping and general outdoorsy stuff, he might also think Bree might go back too.

 

That seems to be Bree's theory in the later books and I'm inclined to agree with her.  Frank did enough searching to know that Jamie survived Culloden, so I don't think it's a terrible stretch to assume that he probably continued looking for him throughout the rest of his life to see if any mention of Claire or Bree ever popped up as well.  Especially since he mentions in letters that he knew he had heart problems and would likely be leaving a relatively still young wife and daughter.

 

I sometimes read the CompuServe writers site Gabaldon posts on and she once raised a really interesting point about Claire and Frank staying married that never occurred to me.  No-fault divorce simply wasn't a thing at the time and Frank was Brianna's legal father from the moment he agreed to stay married to Claire when she came back.  Without concrete proof he was committing adultery, Claire would have had a very difficult time divorcing him and might very well have ended up losing custody because her adultery could have been proven with a simple blood test on Bree.  It kind of makes you wonder how much of them staying married was really about both of them having a sense of duty and love for a child and how much was about really not having any other good choices.  Having a partner to share in child raising certainly did benefit Claire in pursuing her medical degree.

[absnow54]

If TPTB go there, I can see that series of events partly driving his serial cheating through the years and his plan to go back to England with Bree in tow that sparked their final argument.  It could be spun that he was intentionally trying to get Claire to leave him and go back to Jamie.

I feel like telling her that Jamie didn't die in Colluden would be a much better way of going about it than chronically cheating on her... Frank not telling Claire was pretty selfish, but at the same time, he did it to protect Brianna. If he'd told Claire she may have run straight back to the stones and either abandoned Bree or brought her along, which would put her in danger. Now those are some shades of gray that I'd like to see Tobias Menzies play.

[Tif]

Since the show runners are fleshing out Frank a bit more, I wonder if they will add some additional story later about Frank having the gravestone for Jamie put in the kirk.  It's an opportunity to show that he did know Jamie lived and, if they include him finding the death notice himself, long before Roger and Bree do, that he knew Claire went back to Jamie at some point.

 

If TPTB go there, I can see that series of events partly driving his serial cheating through the years and his plan to go back to England with Bree in tow that sparked their final argument.  It could be spun that he was intentionally trying to get Claire to leave him and go back to Jamie.  Since he asked Claire not to tell Brianna about her bio father until he (Frank) was dead and made the effort to teach Bree about shooting, camping and general outdoorsy stuff, he might also think Bree might go back too.

I think it was in the 8th book, Bree finds a letter that Frank wrote her ("Dearest Deadeye") that alludes to her going back too and that's why he taught her how to shoot, camping, etc.  I don't think he comes right out and says it, but that was the impression I was left with after reading.

[lianau]

For me Frank's cheating has a lot to do with trying to find an emotional connection with someone since Claire had pretty much emotionally divorced him . I also think it would have been way healthier for both of them   to divorce then trying to keep a marriage on life support that died at Craig na Dun .

[Tif]

For me Frank's cheating has a lot to do with trying to find an emotional connection with someone since Claire had pretty much emotionally divorced him . I also think it would have been way healthier for both of them   to divorce then trying to keep a marriage on life support that died at Craig na Dun .

Sure it would've been healthier, but divorce just really wasn't that common in the late 40's/early 50's.  It was a big deal.

Plus, Frank was all about lineage and although he knew Brianna wasn't his biologically, the historian in him wanted something of him passed on.

[missmarple]

absnow 54" The show has done a disservice in portraying both relationships, in my opinion, which is making it hard for me to understand her final choice in the show universe."

I think this is the intersection where we agree. The producer for whatever reason has decided to go all out on focusing on her absolute devotion to Frank.

I just see Frank and Claire as a rocky couple who are trying too hard reconnect. The TV show emphasis Frank all the friggin time- to the point where the romance (yes this is-even though they keep denying it) has almost disappeared and you could question why she's not escaping at every moment. When I think of Jamie and Claire I think of a line from the movie Orlando, “perhaps for love.”

Anyway absnow54, nodorothyparker, glazecrazy, lianu et al I agree with all yr posts. How did that happen ;)

[hammaboo]

What I wish the most that the show would take from the book at this point in the story is to show how much better a fit Claire is for the 18th century. I don't think it has come across how much of an outsider she is in her own time. She was lamenting that she would have to give up nursing when Frank took his new job because that's what women did. The show has not really touched on that Claire has no friends, no family. Just Frank. I think they are starting to show the camaraderie developing with the highlands but oddly when a voiceover would be a nice touch now it's silent!

 

I think this is where the voice overs should have helped more, rather than hindered. (I feel like they were somewhat repetitive at times)  There is so much in the books where you are hearing her thoughts that sometimes just can't be translated by action on the screen.  But at the same time, then people might have been more annoyed by the voice overs because they were telling rather than showing. 

[nodorothyparker]

If this past episode hadn't been eaten by the perils of Frank, they would have had a natural spot to contrast how lonely her modern life was in comparison by using more of the teaching her to fight scene as written in the book.   There, all the guys are really into helping her learn and taking turns letting her "stab" them and even rig up a dummy for her to practice on.  That would have been a perfect moment to reflect on how her old life had just been her and Frank where here by marrying Jamie she had also gained a "family" in all these clansmen who had been mistrustful of her just a short time before.

[justmehere]

Many have probably read Ron Moore interviews where he's said that he added more about Frank because he thinks everyone will wonder why Claire would even consider him when Jamie is right there and so wonderful. In trying to keep a supposed balance in Claire's dilemma, he's highlighting Frank more. Judging by comments, he's gone too far, but who knows what the majority of viewers feel because they don't comment. (Example: people railed online about True Blood and how awful it was, yet viewership remained high. Perhaps some of that was hate-watching, but it seems unlikely that it was a majority.) 

 

Personally, I could have done without the entire scam to rob Frank but appreciated most of the other added depth. However, I do hope, with the exception of Claire and Jamie hopefully having a conversation about Frank at some point, that Claire focuses solely on making her life in 1743 once she decides to stay. Sorry Tobias Menzies.

 

Having six months to stew over how they're going to handle the strapping, along with the perceived focal imbalance between Jamie and Frank, is unfortunate. Who knows, maybe once they're back at Leoch, Claire and Jamie will talk their heads off. Maybe we'll have an episode similar in form to The Garrison Commander where it's just the two of them in the room there, or while on the way to Lallybroch before they reach the stones. I think RDM is a sensitive man who overall is handling the adaptation really well. If I've minded any changes, it's mostly wanting to hear certain lines... which still may pop up in other context.

[annlaw78]

 

Having six months to stew over how they're going to handle the strapping, along with the perceived focal imbalance between Jamie and Frank, is unfortunate. Who knows, maybe once they're back at Leoch, Claire and Jamie will talk their heads off.

I think that they probably should have broken the season up unevenly, giving 10 eps to the first half, and six to the back half.  I have really no complaints about the pacing of eps 1-7 (though I think there should have been the inclusion of a bit more rapport/friendship-building between Claire and Jamie).  I think the post-wedding period, leading up to Jamie's appearance in the window of Fort William, should have had some more screen time.  I don't need to see Claire and Jamie shagging all over the Highlands, but some scenes of them talking, of Jamie not acting like a lovestruck puppy dog/teenager, would have laid the groundwork for him actually being seen as an equal/mate/partner for Claire.  It would have been nice for them to have built a foundation of their young marriage on some pleasant events, without having every interaction interrupted by violence/threats.  And I don't think Jamie's anger at Claire following his springing her from Fort William is going to play well, with the limited relationship we've seen between them, and her rape/near-rape.  

[ohhellsyeah]

I think that they probably should have broken the season up unevenly, giving 10 eps to the first half, and six to the back half. I have really no complaints about the pacing of eps 1-7 (though I think there should have been the inclusion of a bit more rapport/friendship-building between Claire and Jamie). I think the post-wedding period, leading up to Jamie's appearance in the window of Fort William, should have had some more screen time. I don't need to see Claire and Jamie shagging all over the Highlands, but some scenes of them talking, of Jamie not acting like a lovestruck puppy dog/teenager, would have laid the groundwork for him actually being seen as an equal/mate/partner for Claire. It would have been nice for them to have built a foundation of their young marriage on some pleasant events, without having every interaction interrupted by violence/threats. And I don't think Jamie's anger at Claire following his springing her from Fort William is going to play well, with the limited relationship we've seen between them, and her rape/near-rape.

I totally agree that it's not going to play well. I also don't think there's going to be a lot of time in the second half to have the necessary relationship building scenes because there is so much plot to get through. The strapping scene. The return to Leoch. The witch trial. Lallybroach. Wentworth and the aftermath. It is a lot. I think the pacing in the first half should have been faster AND there should have been more Jamie.

Edited October 1, 2014 by ohhellsyeah

[Freckles101]

Regarding when the witch trial is supposed to happen, I always assumed that would be in episode 10, since they filmed 9 and 10 after the first four for location reasons. So there wouldn't necessarily be much time for Jamie and Claire to talk, but I am assuming that they will spend a good amount of time on that before/after the post-beating making up scene at Leoch in 1x09. Like, that's when Jamie first tells Claire about BJR's proposition back when he was at Fort William, right? And we know from somewhere (the podcast for 1x07 I believe?) that the line "there is room for secrets in this marriage but not lies" IS showing up later on, so it's got to be in the next episode so there's time for it to actually have resonance before Claire tells Jamie her secret.

 

I know I've seen more extensive speculation about how the rest of the season is going to play out, but here are my rough thoughts:

 

1x09-10 - Beating scene/getting back to Leoch/witch trial/ending episode 10 with Jamie taking Claire to the stones
1x11-12 - Claire and Jamie going home to Lallybroch
1x13-14 - Jamie going missing, Claire and Murtagh finding him, the whole awful BJR/Jamie/Claire scene where BJR nails his hand to the table, etc.
1x15-16 - The rescue from Wentworth, Jamie and Claire going to France.

 

The Lallybroch stuff might be contained a bit more and the witch trial/rescue could be around episode 11, with Jamie being captured at the end of 1x13, but given their way of filming the episodes in blocks of two. I'd be surprised? Granted they don't necessarily have to film the witch trial at the Leoch location, but even with the introduction of the Duke of Sandringham I'm not sure enough happens back at Leoch in between Jamie and Claire returning and the trial to sustain a whole other episode.

 

If I have to guess, I'd say Claire being taken into custody will probably happen either at the end of 1x09 or beginning of 1x10, leaving a full episode for the trial, the rescue, and Jamie taking Claire back to the stones. I'm assuming we're gonna get a cliffhanger with Claire at Craigh na Dun, so 1x12 could pick up with Claire choosing to stay and them going to Lallybroch. This would make things very compressed, especially given that 1x08 also ends with Claire captured, but there is much more of the book they have to get through in only eight episodes than they did for the first half of the season.

[Nidratime]

But at least we know how Frank is doing. ;-)

[ohhellsyeah]

I mostly agree with that timeline, but guessing the witch trial gets a whole episode. Also, I agree with the previous poster that a 10/6 split might have been better. A lot of the complaints are probably driven by the midseason finale being such a lackluster episode.

[annlaw78]

 

Up until the show decided to go all Frank all the time (I guess because they didn't think Tobias Menzies was getting enough scenery to chew), I liked that they were painting Frank as more sympathetic and relatable than he appears much of the time in the books.  But yeah, there's been something not quite real, almost like an idealized '40s Hollywood movie quality about his Frankbacks with Claire that still can't completely gloss over the fact that this is supposed to be their second honeymoon to try to reconnect after a very long separation and she's still coming in second to some dusty historical archives about Black Jack Randall.  There's some irony for you that I think sums the whole thing up.  If he hadn't been so fixated on yet another box of crumbling dispatches about his sociopathic ancestor, Claire wouldn't have gone to the stones by herself and might never have traveled through in the first place.

Yeah, that's my recollection of the BookFrank and BookHoneymoon -- Frank really just wanted to dig around in the dusty archives and wasn't exactly attentive to Claire or all that interested in reconnecting with her.  The honeymoon for Claire was about reconnecting, but for Frank, it was a research trip.  

 

I think the Frank scene at the stones would have been just as powerful -- perhaps more so -- if the episode hadn't been so Frank-heavy to begin with.  By the time that scene came around, I had serious Frank-fatigue, and really just wanted to cut back to the action in 1743.  

 

I don't see Heughan as a weak link, acting-wise -- in fact, I think the show is somewhat banking on Heughan's "like-ability" factor in his portrayal of Jamie to fill in a lot of holes/blanks with the Jamie character.  Jamie comes across as so earnest, gallant, affable, etc., and casts such a long shadow in an ep, it's rather shocking when you actually tally up his screen time.  It's not all that much.  

[CatMack]

I really hope they delay the witch trial longer than that.  Yes, there's a bunch of stuff after that too, but I'm sure there's going to be a lot of condensing and/or cutting on both sides of the trial.  The problem is Claire has to choose to abandon Frank forever right after the witch trial.  So if we're going from Claire's desperate run towards the stones in episode 8 to her being beaten by Jamie and then choosing him for good less than 2 episodes later, and most of those episodes being spent on the trial/with Jamie not there?  Good lord I hope not.  I've read the books, I understand their relationship, and even I couldn't take her choice seriously if they play it like that.  We need at least a couple of episodes focusing on making Jamie a more fleshed out person and strengthening their bond after the beating, otherwise Claire's choice comes off as Stockholm Syndrome. 

 

I foresee something along the lines of

 

Episode 9 - rescue, beating, talking and making up

Episode 10 - return to Leoch

Episode 11 - Leoch stuff leading to Jamie's departure, possibly Claire's capture

Episode 12 - witch trial, possibly ending on a cliffhanger

Episode 13 - rescue (if the ended on a cliffhanger), time travel reveal (I actually don't see them doing Claire's choice as a cliffhanger for some reason), Lallybroch

Episode 14 - Lallybroch, Jamie gets taken

Episode 15 - finding Jamie, Wentworth prison, beginning of rescue

Episode 16 - rescuing Jamie (if they split the rescue as a cliffhanger), the abbey

 

Yeah, there's not necessarily a lot at Leoch before the witch trial in the books, but we know they're rearranging some of Claire and Jamie's bonding.  Diana has said there's going to be more Jamie in the second half, and considering he's gone with Sandringham or captured for the majority of the two biggest plot points left (witch trial and his imprisonment), I think we're going to get a little breathing room to focus on them before all hell breaks loose.  It's not like the show hasn't fleshed out things from the book to make them longer, or wholesale added new things. 

 

I will be severely disappointed if we get the witch trial in episode 10.  There's just no way to set up Claire's choice in time.  It would be completely unbelievable. 

[ohhellsyeah]

I partially agree. I think RDM is a little too enamoured with Tobias Menzies and wanted to give him more to do. It kind of reminds me how how wrote Lee/Kara/Sam in BSG. Once Sam came into the scene, RDM didn't have much use for Lee's character, so I think being distracted by certain characters to to detriment of others is a weakness in RDM's writing.

OTOH, I think they have banked too much on fans liking Jamie/Claire. It's like they decided the fans loved them so much they didn't have to show/sell the relationship but actually you do. Or perhaps they think the wedding episode was enough, but again it's really not. They need to show us more of Jamie/Claire to make her choice a believable one.

[CatMack]

And the thing is, we have to keep telling ourselves the show is not the book.  We may very well choose to like the book better, and that's fine, but it's valid for them to do character archs differently.  So it may very well come to pass that they've paced the relationships the way they have intentionally, and that the second half is going to beef up Jamie, and Jamie/Claire, in a way that makes her choice make sense.  Maybe our speculation is right and the show will play up Dougal and the other men insisting on the beating, and it serves to create a sense of "us against the world" atmosphere for Jamie and Claire in which they really start to depend on each other more.  Or maybe something completely different but equally as valid as a bonding trigger.  Or maybe they'll completely fuck it up, IDK.

 

But I spent the whole summer listening to the Once Upon a Time fandom bitch nonstop about how stupid it was that the show was bringing on characters from Frozen and how it was going to take over the show and be awful.  Then the premiere happened and 99% of the same people were saying the Frozen stuff was some of the best stuff in the ep.  I don't want to spend 6 months hating the writers for something we haven't seen yet.  We know the big plot points they're going to hit before the end of the season, but we don't know the road they'll take to get there, and how much they will or won't change.  The book and the show are different mediums and require different pacing.  Maybe it would have been better to stress Jamie more in the first half, maybe what they have filmed for the second half will make it all better and everything will make sense when we see the whole season.  I want to keep an open mind.  I don't want to become a book purist (or, to use my newest favorite phrase ever, a Poutlander). 

[mybabyaidan]

I don't see Heughan as a weak link, acting-wise -- in fact, I think the show is somewhat banking on Heughan's "like-ability" factor in his portrayal of Jamie to fill in a lot of holes/blanks with the Jamie character.  Jamie comes across as so earnest, gallant, affable, etc., and casts such a long shadow in an ep, it's rather shocking when you actually tally up his screen time.  It's not all that much.  

 

Agreed.  I think Sam is being severely underestimated.

 

I thought he was TERRIFIC in the deserters attack scenes and aftermath.  His face was heartbreaking, and his voice when he was talking to Claire after was just so broken.  It was understated, but beautiful. 

[Nidratime]

Yes, I think people are using his charm and looks against him, not seeing the work underneath that. It's like a pretty girl who is underestimated.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nidratime

[nodorothyparker]

I've been pretty impressed with him too, especially considering I'd never seen him in anything before this role and it doesn't sound like he's had a lot of huge roles.  I know we were all focusing on the pretty in the wedding episode, but I was really struck by the range of emotional depth he was showing there.  There was a lot of awkwardness mixed with charm and cockiness and then a whole other layer of vulnerability bubbling underneath that he was managing to keep in check until he gave her the pearls.

 

Gabaldon keeps promising that the back half is going to be very Jamie heavy POV and will resolve a lot of the concerns people are having at this point.  We really don't have a lot of choice but take her word for it and wait and see.

Edited October 1, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[Nidratime]

I know through most of it, he was just hanging there like a Christ-like martyr, but he was very impressive in the scenes in the Garrison Commander.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nidratime

[peacefrog]

He says so much with just a look.

[Kiwi]

When you lay out the major plot points left to happen like you have it does worry me at how underplayed the Jamie/Claire relationship has been. I need to see some serious bonding before I would believe Claire would choose to stay in rapeville 1743. Lets hope there are a decent amount of episodes and relationship building moments before she has to choose.

[annlaw78]

 

There was a lot of awkwardness mixed with charm and cockiness and then a whole other layer of vulnerability bubbling underneath that he was managing to keep in check until he gave her the pearls.

I especially liked the decision to try to imbue the line "if I need guidance, I'll ask" with some confidence, rather than what I assumed when I read the book was more of a joke.  The previous joke about one of them knowing what they're doing aside, he wanted Claire, in the moment, to think he was manly and whatnot.  That's why it was a bit disjointed and disappointing to see Jamie seem more like a lovesick puppy than an equal/partner this past ep, and I can't really see how THAT GUY transforms into someone who thinks he's entitled to corporally punish Claire.  

 

 

When you lay out the major plot points left to happen like you have it does worry me at how underplayed the Jamie/Claire relationship has been. I need to see some serious bonding before I would believe Claire would choose to stay in rapeville 1743. Lets hope there are a decent amount of episodes and relationship building moments before she has to choose.

Rapeville -- to quote Karen from "Will and Grace," it's funny b/c it's true.  

 

Nothing's been developed between Claire and Jamie that would lead me to believe she'd acquiesce to being punished by him.  I'd expect ShowClaire to blurt out that she's from 1945, the concept of his punishing her is insane, and she hates Jamie and his a** face.  Right now, Jamie and Claire's marriage is just about convenience, with sporadic nookie (interrupted by arrows, rapists, Rupert/Angus trying to sneak a peek), and Claire's not so young or inexperienced that she's going to put up with being beaten, or "submit to her husband" because the sex is good. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by annlaw78

[mybabyaidan]

I especially liked the decision to try to imbue the line "if I need guidance, I'll ask" with some confidence, rather than what I assumed when I read the book was more of a joke. 

 

I thought it was hilarious onscreen because 2 seconds after he said it, he DID need guidance.  His face when she turned back around was hilarious.  Like, really????  We can do it this way??

 

 

Nothing's been developed between Claire and Jamie that would lead me to believe she'd acquiesce to being punished by him.  I'd expect ShowClaire to blurt out that she's from 1945, the concept of his punishing her is insane, and she hates him and his a** face.

 

Well, she didn't exactly acquiesce to the punishment.  If I remember correctly, Jamie doesn't come out of it unharmed either.   Claire gets in some good wallops and scratches.

Edited October 1, 2014 by mybabyaidan

[annlaw78]

 

Well, she didn't exactly acquiesce to the punishment.  If I remember correctly, Jamie doesn't come out of it unharmed either.   Claire gets in some good wallops and scratches.

I think she initially does acquiesce, then realizes she'd made a terrible mistake [/GOB] (Seriously, I can't make a post tonight without including a quote from some other entertainment product).  

[Rekilt]

We need a name to describe those of us in the middle. Those who love the books, accepting there's going to be changes, have faith that the production team will do a great job but still want to express concern for the direction things are going (not for ourselves but because we want non readers of the books to love these characters as much as we do). We aren't Poutlanders (those who are upset over every change) and we aren't Newlanders (non book readers who love the show). So what are we?

[CatMack]

Middlelanders?

 

That just makes me think of Middle Earth.

 

Which makes me think of hobbits.

 

We're hobbits. 

 

(my brain is a very logical place)

[Rekilt]

Middlelanders?

 

That just makes me think of Middle Earth.

 

Which makes me think of hobbits.

 

We're hobbits. 

 

(my brain is a very logical place)

Tall, skinny, good looking hobbits right?!! With flowing hair and cute shoes? Then yes we can be middlelanders.

[Tif]

I'm a Middlelander as well. Lol

I like second breakfast as much as the next Hobbit, but i draw the line at hairy feet.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Tif

[Rekilt]

Well then, pedicures and feet scaping will have to be a part of our by laws.

Second breakfast is a given.

[Tif]

Then count me in! Pedicures for all!

[Kiwi]

Middlelanders?

 

That just makes me think of Middle Earth.

 

Which makes me think of hobbits.

 

We're hobbits. 

 

(my brain is a very logical place)

 

Which on a purely shallow note makes me think of Jamie's hair cause about now dude needs to do something about it, it is looking like a hobbits. I like a guy with long hair, (see Tim Riggins, Friday Night Lights) but his hair is looking pretty shaggy and kinda distracts me.

[nodorothyparker]

That's why it was a bit disjointed and disappointing to see Jamie seem more like a lovesick puppy than an equal/partner this past ep, and I can't really see how THAT GUY transforms into someone who thinks he's entitled to corporally punish Claire.

 

By itself, I don't find him coming off like a teenager in the full throes of his first crush all that troubling because that's essentially what he is.  Over the course of a few days, he went from being a 23-year-old virgin who was completely enamored with a woman but likely didn't think he could do much about it to being married to the object of his affection and getting to have sex all the time and having all these feelings he now has an outlet for.  Again, in show time it's been maybe less than a week since the end of the Garrison Commander when everything shifted.

 

The problem is with the pacing and with what we know is coming.  Had this past episode maybe had two Frank scenes instead of what felt like 12, there would have time to watch this evolve more organically.

Edited October 1, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[glitterpants]

Before the last episode actually aired I wouldn't have predicted that the scene in which Claire tries to go back to the stones would be so suspenseful and intense (especially being a book reader and knowing there's no way it'll work), and yet it was! So who knows what other good surprises the show has in store? Either way I'm looking forward to finding out. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by glitterpants

[tcay]

I think we might get a proper honeymoon period at Leoch before the witch trial. In the book, there's stuff about Claire delivering a foal, the adorable conversation in the stable between Hamish and Jamie, gossip about Sandringham, and then the dinner with Sandringham. I feel like that could be all its own episode with some new stuff thrown in, then off to the hunt in 111/very end of 110? All of those scenes are pretty sweet and set Jamie + Claire up as a team. 

 

As for the strapping, I feel rather confident in my theory: Claire isn't going to get blamed at all for her capture, they're going to blame Willie, who admittedly wandered away to do his business. Outraged that he's completely innocent of this, Claire will volunteer to take his punishment for him. At which point, Jamie will step in and insist he do the strapping, since she's his wife. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by tcay

[DoughGirl]

We need a name to describe those of us in the middle. Those who love the books, accepting there's going to be changes, have faith that the production team will do a great job but still want to express concern for the direction things are going (not for ourselves but because we want non readers of the books to love these characters as much as we do). We aren't Poutlanders (those who are upset over every change) and we aren't Newlanders (non book readers who love the show). So what are we?

That would be okay, since you're coming up with it yourselves, but as someone who doesn't like the changes at all, I find being labelled by others as a "poutlander" irritating.

[TidalCreek]

As for the strapping, I feel rather confident in my theory: Claire isn't going to get blamed at all for her capture, they're going to blame Willie, who admittedly wandered away to do his business. Outraged that he's completely innocent of this, Claire will volunteer to take his punishment for him. At which point, Jamie will step in and insist he do the strapping, since she's his wife.

 

 

This is my guess too. And I think she'll not just volunteer -- she'll do it with some bravado, only to discover that they mean business. And at that point the sparks will fly. Just a guess, y'all, but that's the only way I see it working without outraging a lot of people.

[ohhellsyeah]

But I spent the whole summer listening to the Once Upon a Time fandom bitch nonstop about how stupid it was that the show was bringing on characters from Frozen and how it was going to take over the show and be awful. Then the premiere happened and 99% of the same people were saying the Frozen stuff was some of the best stuff in the ep. I don't want to spend 6 months hating the writers for something we haven't seen yet. We know the big plot points they're going to hit before the end of the season, but we don't know the road they'll take to get there, and how much they will or won't change. The book and the show are different mediums and require different pacing. Maybe it would have been better to stress Jamie more in the first half, maybe what they have filmed for the second half will make it all better and everything will make sense when we see the whole season. I want to keep an open mind. I don't want to become a book purist (or, to use my newest favorite phrase ever, a Poutlander).

Well, when you're right you're right. I don't consider myself a book purist, but there has definitely been some pouting going on. Maybe it's time to . . . let it go. :) As a casual Once Upon a Time fan, I have no problem with the Frozen characters, but as a kindergarten teacher I will throw something at my TV if I hear That Song. Lol.

[absnow54]

This thread is for comparing the book to the show and speculation. People are allowed to have positive and negative reactions to the adaptation. I don't see anyone threatening to torch Ron D's house yet for injustices (maybe in other corners of the internet, but not here), just people speculating how the rest of the season will play out given what's left in the book and how the show's covered things so far.

 

Before the last episode actually aired I wouldn't have predicted that the scene in which Claire tries to go back to the stones would be so suspenseful and intense (especially being a book reader and knowing there's no way it'll work), and yet it was!

I really enjoyed that scene as well. In the book she had this idea that she was close, but it came off as such a long shot. Having her within reach of the stones was really compelling, and I liked that she could hear Frank through the stones, it was sort of a callback to the supernatural element of the screams she heard when she first touched them.

 

I'm really curious to see how they'll play the scene of Claire and Jamie at Craig na Dun. I'm kind of hoping they take their time there with Claire comparing her life in 1743 with her life in 1945. In the book it's really "hmm, Jamie or hot baths..." It could be a good time to really explore Claire's character.

[DoughGirl]

Well, when you're right you're right. I don't consider myself a book purist, but there has definitely been some pouting going on. Maybe it's time to . . . let it go. :) As a casual Once Upon a Time fan, I have no problem with the Frozen characters, but as a kindergarten teacher I will throw something at my TV if I hear That Song. Lol.

There are differences of opinion. Doesn't mean one side is right or one is wrong. When I say I don't like the changes I'm expressing my opinion, not "pouting". And if "something is going on" maybe it's because our opinions are valid.

[Pestilentia]

Well, when you're right you're right. I don't consider myself a book purist, but there has definitely been some pouting going on. Maybe it's time to . . . let it go. :)

 

 

This thread is for comparing the book to the show and speculation. People are allowed to have positive and negative reactions to the adaptation. I don't see anyone threatening to torch Ron D's house yet for injustices (maybe in other corners of the internet, but not here), just people speculating how the rest of the season will play out given what's left in the book and how the show's covered things so far.

 

 

 

None of my business, but I think that ohhellsyeah was referring only to herself as far as pouting/letting it go, not castigating others.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Pestilentia

[ohhellsyeah]

Yeah, that's what I was doing. Plus making a really terrible Frozen joke. Maybe people don't pick up on that when they don't have 5 year olds singing it at them all day, every day. I certainly wasn't trying to be the thought police.