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

[ohhellsyeah]

I understand why the story got bigger because 8 books of Jamie/Claire all from the first person POV is too much. But then, that's what I liked about the series so I just wish it had been wrapped up in 3 or 4 books. I like most of the supporting characters, but not as leads. I'm never going to be particularly invested in Bree/Roger and what goes on with them. I don't know much about Willie at this point and I do like Ian but I'm not sure that's enough. Ian can't carry a book for me.

I am definitely not interested in more rapes. I'm not sure why that keeps popping up. I see people on the show threads complaining about all the sexual assault and we haven't even gotten to the rapes and I can't believe I actually typed that sentence. Just, way too much rape.

I also do not want to read about Claire/Lord John. Just . . . no. I'm trying to figure out what I might like about the last 4 and I'm not coming up with a lot.

I'm also wondering if this series will ever end. If Diana Gabaldon would promise that the next book would be the end that would be one thing. But I feel like this will be going on five books later. No wonder she's friends with GRRM.

[Keeta]

I'm also wondering if this series will ever end. If Diana Gabaldon would promise that the next book would be the end that would be one thing. But I feel like this will be going on five books later. No wonder she's friends with GRRM.

 

Seriously. I buy every book, but it's starting to feel like the literary equivalent of a sitcom that keeps going and going when it should have tied things up years ago. Or Lost. "Wait, this thing we created is successful? Shoot, now we have to think of an ending..." And we all (who watched Lost) know how that turned out...

 

(j/k, I don't think the ending to Outlander will be as bad as Lost...god I hope not anyway...)

[insubordination]

An Echo in the Bone has been sitting in my bathroom for 3 or 4 years. I got about a third of the way in, but was just so bored with all the detail. I read a few pages the other day 'cos the show inspired me to try. It shouldn't be such a chore. I generally read a book or two a week, so it's not as though I'm a poor reader. I suppose I'll finish it eventually, but I'm in no rush. Perhaps Diana's series is so popular that she might get total editorial control. I'd be telling her to cut out at least 33% from most of the books. Less can be more.

 

I liked the Lord John books though.

[MedievalGirl]

The only reason I got through Echo was because it was the only book I brought on vacation. My husband's whole family was on this trip to North Carolina. My father-in-law looked at a map and jokingly said "Hey, there's a place called The Great Dismal Swamp. Let's go there. I said "I've been there, NO." 

[ohhellsyeah]

Perhaps Diana's series is so popular that she might get total editorial control. I'd be telling her to cut out at least 33% from most of the books. Less can be more.

 

 

Yep. This is exactly what I think happened and why I compared her to GRRM.  Even though the series are in different genres I think they suffer from the same problem. Early works were great but then became so popular that there was either no editing or editors who were yes men/women. As a result the books became so bloated as more characters got added and there was no narrative or description that the author didn't think we needed to read about.  Editing is important.

 

I didn't even even watch Lost but I was thinking that exact thing when I was typing that last paragraph.  Lost, How I Met your Mother and Battlestar Galactica.  Battlestar Galactica was the show I was most invested in and the tagline was AND THEY HAVE A PLAN. However, by the last season it was obvious that Ron Moore and the other BSG writers had no plan to speak of.  I really hope that Gabaldon does and it isn't a dream/hallucination, Claire or Jamie dying, or anyone turning into a mystical pigeon.

 

 ETA: LOL @ The Great Dismal Swamp.

Edited October 12, 2014 by ohhellsyeah

[Pestilentia]

I'm just envious of those of you that can remember what happened when.

All of the books converge in my head and I could no more remember in what book such and such happened than the man in the moon.

I can't even post in book threads for fear of spoiling something or worse, have to go look up in what book a particular event took place.

[lianau]

I have that problem with the later books . I'm pretty good with the first 4 books . I thinks it's because I discovered the books while in highschool and these 4 books were available then and I was a typical obsessive teenager . I was reading and re-reading them for a months .

[NoNeinNyet]

I have that problem with the later books . I'm pretty good with the first 4 books . I thinks it's because I discovered the books while in highschool and these 4 books were available then and I was a typical obsessive teenager . I was reading and re-reading them for a months .

 

Agreed. The Fiery Cross came out my senior year of high school and I remember slogging through it between AP class homework but I think I always had one of the first four checked out of the library at any given time.

 

I think another reason that the first four are easier to keep apart is that you just have to remember which of our main players are around. Book One: Jamie and Claire are in Scotland. Book Two: Jamie and Claire are mostly in France and then back in Scotland for the rebellion. Book Three: Claire goes back. Book Four: Bree and Roger go back in time.

[CatMack]

You know, as I read the series for the first time, I find myself focusing on some of the smaller details when I wonder how they'll adapt things if they get into the later books (and at this point I assume they will since the show is doing very well).  I mean, yes I wonder about larger structural issues and big things, but just a lot of little stuff too.  Like, at various points both Jamie and Claire get their hair cut extremely short and while it's plot relevant it's not 100% necessary and I can see them skipping that because I imagine that could become a continuity nightmare.  Or things like which of Claire's many medical procedures will actually be deemed important enough to make the cut.  IDK why that's the kind of thing I keep thinking about, but I do.

 

I will say on a larger scale, I think the later books could benefit a lot from being adapted to TV.  I've mentioned in a few of the individual book threads that some of the later books feel a lot more like a random serious of events with too much day to day mundane stuff in between and not a very tightly paced narrative structure helping to drive what little book-long plot arch there is.  Not only will they most likely cut out a good chunk of the unnecessary mundane stuff (plus a couple pages worth of description can be shown on screen much more quickly) but the nature of TV lends itself to that 'one event after another' structure.  I adore serialized TV, and I certainly hope they do what they can to emphasize the ongoing archs in an interesting way, but at the end of they day each individual episode of a TV show, any TV show, is a story unto itself.  I think it'll flow better on screen where there's a natural division to the story anyway, than it did on the page.

[tcay]

Oh man, I hope they cut a lot of Claire's medical procedures. Stuff gets pretty Grey's Anatomy at times, and it doesn't seem to serve any purpose besides "look how awful it was then!" Or, alternatively, reminding us that Claire Is a Doctor, Dammit. They don't gross me out so much (my mom is a nurse in surgery, she has ruined plenty of dinners with her daily rundowns), but just feel like pointless color at times. 

 

I don't know what the season order is for season two, but I can definitely see shorter seasons benefitting the later books and like you said, tightening the narratives. 

[peacefrog]

Interesting view. I've thought just the opposite! I can see books 4,5 and 6 being combined into 1 1/2- 2 seasons. I like them much better to read because I find the scenarios good subjects for discussions with other readers. I did not think it would make exciting tv like the first 3.

I will be honest here and say I just reread the first book and parts of it make me cringe. I don't care for a lot of the dialogue, find it corny in most places. I think the tv show is better so far. I really hope the "I am your master" dialogue is cut. I like how they changed "I feel like God" to be silly because that's how it came across to me. I think the sex scenes are far better as they advance in the series.

I love the later books more and I hadn't considered your point on it making better episodic tv. I think you may be right.

[Cliomuse]

I like how they changed "I feel like God" to be silly because that's how it came across to me.

A friend and I were joking that this scene was meant to be played as it was in the book, but the actors couldn't keep straight faces so the director went with it. In all seriousness, I agree that some of the dialog seems more realistic in the TV series. There were times in the book where Jamie was a little too "wise and perceptive" and I like how they have dialed that back just a bit to make him more believably human. Of course the show has the luxury of being able to convey pages of description with just a look or a gesture. They certainly chose the right cast for that!

Edited October 14, 2014 by Cliomuse

[Nidratime]

Another Bree audition tape:

 

http://vimeo.com/108849005

[aemom]

Nidratime, on 14 Oct 2014 - 1:29 PM, said:

Another Bree audition tape:

 

http://vimeo.com/108849005

First one I've been able to watch all the way through.  YMMV.

Thanks for posting Nidratime!

Edited October 14, 2014 by AEMom

[peacefrog]

Yeah I don't really know what to look for actingwise but I thought her look was good. Her eyes especially.

[absnow54]

She has very striking eyes. I could buy that she came from Sam Heughan.

[WatchrTina]

Diana just posted the bit of the book where Claire reveals the truth, including her age and the real reason she left the grove, to Jamie.  I had forgotten that it took place on her birthday -- Oct 20th.  So I'll be the first to say it -- Happy Birthday Claire!

 

ETA:  I wasn't first. Sam was first.  Here ya go.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Ty79fmqD8&feature=youtu.be

 

ETA:  I'm guessing Jamie wishing Claire a happy birthday won't appear in the TV show.  They've had to flip the seasons (Claire goes through the stones in the spring in the book, but it is autumn in the show.)  So when he rescues her from the witch trial it won't be October.  I predict they won't dare to incur the wrath of book readers by changing her birthday.

Edited October 20, 2014 by WatchrTina

[absnow54]

The timeline for Outlander is always such a jumble for me. I had forgotten that she goes back in April in the book. I feel like she contradicts herself a lot with how long she's been gone, especially around the time she marries Jamie. I think she at one point says she'd been gone for 4 months, married to Jamie less than a month, but had married Jamie a month after going through the stones. Does anyone know the timeline? With the show they've clearly stated she's been gone for six weeks since Halloween and that it's now mid-December since they'll be back to Leoch by Christmas, but I feel like more time passed in the book.

[tcay]

I think even DG has admitted to jumbling the timeline too. But here's what I think is the official timeline (it does have spoilers for all the books):

 

http://www.dgabaldon.de/html/timeline_1e.html

[Nidratime]

Terry Dresbach talked about preparing for the second season of Outlander (DiA book) -- in terms of costumes, of course -- on her blog a few days ago.

 

If you haven't read the book, this would be considered spoiler material:

http://www.terrydresbach.com/q-a/

[millahnna]

So I watched the season thus far before reading the first book. Then I rewatched twice while reading the first book. Just started on the second and am rewatching again (because this show is my crack). But for the record, firmly on team Jamie before the book ever came anywhere near my tablet. Most of the changes feel like improvements to me (who knows if I'd feel that way had in read the books first) but I find I kind of misses the amusing detail about Jamie not being able to wink.

[Nidratime]

There were two more articles posted online focusing on the second half of the season and interviews with the actress playing Jenny. I was going to put it in the media thread but there are just two many spoilers for the second half of the season in them. So, I thought it best to put it in the thread where, mostly, people who've read the books are reading and posting.

 

'Outlander': Laura Donnelly On Her Jenny Fraser Audition & Old Connection With Sam Heughan
http://www.accesshollywood.com/outlander-laura-donnelly-on-her-jenny-fraser-audition-and-old-connection-with-sam-heughan_article_99953

 

‘Outlander’ SPOILERS: Actress Laura Donnelly DISHES On Season One, Suggests That There Will Be ADORABLE Claire/Jamie Family Bonding Scenes In The Future [EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW]

http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/28637/20141023/outlander-spoilers-actress-laura-donnelly-dishes-season-one-suggests-adorable-claire-jamie-family-bonding-scenes-future-exclusive-interview.htm

[Cliomuse]

As I get father into the books (I am on Fiery Cross now) I go back and read what other people say about each book on various forums and I have to say, this a one of those series where your mileage really varies depending on your personal experience. (As in, where we reading the same book?)

So many series have a devoted, but perhaps more limited, following because the story is more or less homogenous across many books. Praise to Diana for creating a world in which lots of different people can become invested for a myriad of reasons. And angry for just as many reasons. I got a coworker young enough to be my daughter hooked and discovered a coworker my age has been hooked for years. The discussion was amazing, and not just fangirling, but deep discussions about character, morality, and history. I think the way Ron and Co. have approached the series it has the possibility of doing the same thing. The DH, who generally despises all things that could possibly be labeled "romance" (I blame my MIL ), is loving the show and we have lively discussions about it. For example, he thinks Dougal wasn't simply propositioning Claire on her wedding night, but testing her loyalty as well. He would have been happy to grind her corn, but would also know she was not to be trusted. Of course we already know from the Gathering that he does not trust Jamie. But does he realize he just created powerful duo? Thoughts to ponder.

[Nidratime]

I saw this posted elsewhere as well as on twitter. Thought some of you who know what's coming up in the next episode, i.e., Claire's "spanking," might be interested in asking questions since Roberts is listed as being the writer of episode 9. (Not that I expect he'll reveal much!)

 

Matt Roberts @TheMattBRoberts  ·  Nov 7

On Monday at 12pm ET/9am PT I’m chatting all things Outlander. Ask me questions using #AskOutlander @Outlander_Starz

 

[CatMack]

So this was my timeline prediction from a few pages back

 

 

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

 

Based on a few things actors have said or posted I'm revising it slightly.  Putting the new predicted timeline under the cut since it includes information that counts as a spoiler for the show.

 

I don't remember the exact interview, but the actress who plays Jenny mentioned in an interview that they spend several episodes at Lallybroch with lots of Jamie/Claire bonding.  She also just tweeted about doing ADR for episode 12, so that seems like when Jenny will reappear.  And the actress who plays Geillis tweeted about doing ADR for 11 with the hashtag #mythroat which is a good indication she was screaming or yelling which says witch trial to me.  So, revised timeline prediction:

 

Episode 9 - rescue, beating, talking and making up, possibly returning to Leoch or at least indicating that's where they're going

Episode 10 - Leoch stuff leading to Jamie's departure, possibly Claire's capture/cliffhanger

Episode 11 - Witch trial, possibly ending on a cliffhanger, possibly ending with the rescue/time travel reveal, depends how long they want to stretch it

Episode 12 - Rescue/time travel reveal if it didn't happen last ep, Claire's choice, going home to Lallybroch

Episode 13 - Lallybroch

Episode 14 - Lallybroch, Jamie gets taken cliffhanger

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

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

 

I'm still concerned with how little time we have to make Claire's choice to stay with Jamie make sense.  It seems early episode 12 is the latest we're likely to see her make the choice, and I fully expect them to spend most of episode 9 not on good terms because of the beating (even with forgiving him fairly quickly, book Claire spends awhile pissed at him and given the structure of TV I expect they'll make up at the very end of the episode).  I mean, maybe they alter that scene so that Claire isn't really mad at Jamie (given Willie's presence and possible also beating, they might play it up as he has no choice and Claire knows it and if he's regretful instead of gleeful about it as he was in the books I could see Claire not blaming him), so maybe they don't fight in 9.  But that would still mean an absolute maximum 2 episodes (assuming Jamie is gone for most of 11 for the witch trial) to make Claire switch from abandoning Jamie at the drop of a hate for the chance to get back to Frank, to turning down that same chance so that she can stay with Jamie.  Various writers/producers have said there will be some surprises in store for book readers too, so they could very well change things up enough that it makes sense, but...I'm still nervous about it.  Like I said, the actress who plays Jenny said there would be lots of Jamie/Claire goodness at Lallybroch, which is great, but unless they greatly alter the structure of the book, that will be after her choice and I really want that choice to make sense for non-book readers. 

 

[WatchrTina]

Laura Donnelly (Jenny) just tweeted that she just finished ADR (additional dialog recording) on episode 12 so it would appear that Jamie and Claire make it to Lallybroch faster than you have speculated. Maybe no cliffhanger at the end of the witch trial -- just a mad dash cross-country on horseback (which I've always assumed was the source for the last image in the opening credits.)

She also included a spoiler in her tweet by ending it with the hashtag #babybump. We all know Jenny is pregnant when Jamie arrives back home but the unsullied don't. Then again, maybe people will read that and think Claire is pregnant in that episode. Or maybe they'll think Laura is pregnant -- that was my first thought until I remembered the book plot.

ETA: Lotte Verbeek (Geillis) tweeted a while back when she finished ADR on episode 11 and used the hashtag #mythroat so that suggests she did a fair amount of screaming. Looks like it's a safe bet that episode 11 is the witch trial.

Edited November 15, 2014 by WatchrTina

[ohhellsyeah]

The only thing that would make sense to me is if the timeline is altered. Maybe in the show the choice happens after/at Lallybroach. Otherwise Claire choosing Jamie so soon makes very little sense.

[annlaw78]

I still think that if in the next episode -- the first one back after the break, the first one after Claire's rape/not-rape and almost-rape/torture by BJR, and the second after the wedding -- the show has the spanking scene, it's going to turn off a lot of viewers.  There's just not been enough development of Jamie or his relationship with Claire at this point to weather that scene, I don't think.  

[Nidratime]

I have no idea where to put this on the board. It's a podcast interview conducted just recently by Lani Diane Rich -- the Sassenach, of The Scot and the Sassenach -- with Outlander co-producer and show writer Anne Kenney. She wrote No Way Out and The Wedding episode! Since I haven't listened to it yet, I don't know if there's any book talk and I don't know if there are any spoilers. But, I can't wait to listen to it!

 

http://storywonk.com/the-scot-and-the-sassenach-episode-11/

Edited November 15, 2014 by Nidratime

[Petunia846]

Yes, there are spoilers! Not finished yet, but yes, spoilers.

[CatMack]

They're right that it doesn't matter in that it doesn't change the book or the show - but as someone who hates the strapping scene and has never bought into the "it was normal so why are you upset about it" argument, it's really gratifying to hear that scholars who study that time period say nope, you most likely wouldn't see wife beating in that class level of society and if it did happen while it might not be stopped it would have been extremely frowned upon.  I feel like a lot of people view history as this free for all where every bad thing you can think of was fair game (and therefore automatically acceptable and expected in historical fiction) and that's not in anyway true. 

[annlaw78]

 

They're right that it doesn't matter in that it doesn't change the book or the show - but as someone who hates the strapping scene and has never bought into the "it was normal so why are you upset about it" argument, it's really gratifying to hear that scholars who study that time period say nope, you most likely wouldn't see wife beating in that class level of society and if it did happen while it might not be stopped it would have been extremely frowned upon.  I feel like a lot of people view history as this free for all where every bad thing you can think of was fair game (and therefore automatically acceptable and expected in historical fiction) and that's not in anyway true.

I agree.  I'm not an expert in this time period, but I have studied earlier periods of British history fairly extensively, and the depiction (when it suits the story) of Scotland being Rapeland just doesn't really comport with anything I know about Tudor/Stuart Britain, and I can't imagine why it would have regressed after the Enlightenment.  And it's not like Scotland was some medieval hell-hole in the 1740s -- Edinburgh was a thriving educational hub, and for centuries would remain the preeminent place for medical training in Britain.  I get there's a difference between the Highlands and Edinburgh, but, still.  And, in line with that, I've never heard of husbands being encouraged or expected to corporally punish their wives, or public spankings of women by their husbands.  

[SedruolZenitram]

Wasn't sure how I was going to feel about Jamie's character and the strapping scene, but reading that section in the book provided some very important context for me.  They establish had any man done what Claire did, they would have been beaten and possibly maimed, so in some ways it was more egalitarian for her not to be exempted from punishment just because she was a woman.  She didn't just disobey orders, she put many clansmen in mortal danger trying to rescue her, and led to Jamie really committing murder killing a guard when he heard her scream. Probably not the greatest way to get his charges dismissed.

 

I'm curious to see how they handle it in the show, because Diana has a lot more room in the book to explain the conditions that led to this punishment.  Willie will likely get punished too.  And I do hope they have Claire fight back and get Jamie to swear the oath never to do it again. 

 

And since they never used the line about marriage having room for secrets but not lies ... this might be an interesting spot to reintroduce that dialogue since Claire got caught after breaking her promise to stay in the forest.

Edited November 16, 2014 by SedruolZenitram

[annlaw78]

 

Wasn't sure how I was going to feel about Jamie's character and the strapping scene, but reading that section in the book provided some very important context for me.  They establish had any man done what Claire did, they would have been beaten and possibly maimed, so in some ways it was more egalitarian for her not to be exempted from punishment just because she was a woman.  She didn't just disobey orders, she put many clansmen in mortal danger trying to rescue her, and led to Jamie really committing murder killing a guard when he heard her scream. Probably not the greatest way to get his charges dismissed.

If the show hopes to explain the strapping away along these lines, I think it should have shown some sort of corporal punishment being meted out by Dougal for one of the men disobeying orders.  But we've only seen Jamie's being whipped for "breaking the law" by the English, and his taking a beating on behalf of Whatshername.  It hasn't been used as a necessary tool to keep discipline and order in the ranks of the MacKenzie forces.  And, frankly, Claire's been openly lippy and critical of Dougal on many times before, with very little consequence.  She's accused him of starving babies in front of an entire village, with no recourse. 

 

Claire didn't disobey an order from a commanding officer -- she disregarded something her husband of two-days told her to do, when she was likely still in shock from being raped/almost raped.  Her being beaten is not really egalitarian -- would Jamie be strapped for disregarding something she said?  That's just paternalism, that the wife has to blindly follow orders given by her husband, or be beaten by him.  

[SedruolZenitram]

 

Claire didn't disobey an order from a commanding officer -- she disregarded something her husband of two-days told her to do, when she was likely still in shock from being raped/almost raped.  Her being beaten is not really egalitarian -- would Jamie be strapped for disregarding something she said?  That's just paternalism, that the wife has to blindly follow orders given by her husband, or be beaten by him.

 

I think if she had run off and was found later, with no danger to clansmen due to having to get her out of Fort William, that would have been one thing. But the mortal danger she puts them in due to breaking her promise ups the stakes for the consequences of her decision.  Had Jamie done something similar under the circumstances, I do think he would have been strapped or some other brutal form of discipline. The book alludes to prior occurrences of Jamie being strapped by his father and Dougal for bad behavior.  The closest we've seen the show depict this type of justice being doled out is when Colum was rendering verdicts for cases brought to him at Leoch, and the boy who had his ear nailed to the pillory because he stole some bread.

 

I do like, however, that Claire didn't accept the status quo of the times and in no uncertain terms told Jamie that if he tried it again, she'd cut his heart out and fry it for breakfast.  And Jamie swore the oath never to do it again.  He could have doubled down on the view that strapping was his right as a husband, but I don't think that was the sort of relationship he really wanted to have with her. He respected her way too much for that.

 

I wonder how the show will tie this "strapping" occurrence to the fight that happens at Leoch when they return.  They don't have a lot of episodes to get through the remaining book plot so it might even happen in the same episode. I hope they retain the line "I am your master ... and you're mine. Seems I canna possess your soul without losing my own."  I think this is the point where Claire really goes "all in" with the marriage, so I'm hoping the show runners can get her from the betrayal of the strapping to forgiveness and true commitment to the relationship they've built together. 

Edited November 17, 2014 by SedruolZenitram

[absnow54]

I think if she had run off and was found later, with no danger to clansmen due to having to get her out of Fort William, that would have been one thing. But the mortal danger she puts them in due to breaking her promise ups the stakes for the consequences of her decision.  Had Jamie done something similar under the circumstances, I do think he would have been strapped or some other brutal form of discipline.

Shouldn't Jamie have been strapped for the whole incident with the deserters then? Jamie and Claire are both making really bad decisions, but Claire is the one that is being punished. Jamie promised Claire that with his name she'd be protected, and after he failed to protect her against an attempted rape, he promptly abandoned her in the forest with the C-team of guards. The circumstances weren't much better in the book (in some cases they were worse since he flat out left her alone) but at least there was time between the attempted rape and Jamie's meeting with Horrocks for Claire and Jamie to both come to terms with the attack and for them to be on the same page again. The way it played out on screen, however, makes Jamie look really shitty for beating her after she ran away without taking responsibility for his own stupid choices.

 

It's not like Claire ran away to Fort William and then realized in hindsight that that was a bad idea. She was actively being targeted by red coats, and the clan -- after promising to protect her -- left her in an area with heavy red coat traffic. It's not like she ventured far from where they left her. She was wondering around in a daze, so unless Willy was having a serious bowel movement, she couldn't have gotten too far to completely shake him. Placing the danger of the Fort William rescue firmly on Claire's shoulders is ridiculous because everyone's got a hand in the "bad decision" pot, and I hate the strapping scene because it makes it seem like it's all Claire's fault when it wasn't.

Edited November 17, 2014 by absnow54

[Nidratime]

Someone on the "Storywonk" board posted a link to a very interesting blog post where the author writes a comparison between Dougal and Jamie. I thought a few of you might want to chew it over. The author really gave it a good deal of thought and lays out her argument well. Kudos to her! (There are spoilers here for events in Dragonfly in Amber).

 

Dougal and Jamie: two sides of the same coin.

http://www.meredithstoddard.com/meredith-r-stoddard/2013/12/20/why-dougal-mackenzie-is-jamie-fraser-spoiler-alert

[Pestilentia]

Someone on the "Storywonk" board posted a link to a very interesting blog post where the author writes a comparison between Dougal and Jamie. I thought a few of you might want to chew it over. The author really gave it a good deal of thought and lays out her argument well. Kudos to her! (There are spoilers here for events in Dragonfly in Amber).

 

Dougal and Jamie: two sides of the same coin.

http://www.meredithstoddard.com/meredith-r-stoddard/2013/12/20/why-dougal-mackenzie-is-jamie-fraser-spoiler-alert

Interesting, and thank you.

I would only disagree about Dougal being the closest thing to a father figure that Jamie has- I see my man Murtagh more in that role.

Sure, he was fostered at Castle Leoch, but I somehow see Jamie looking more to Murtagh as a role model. I think that as he has gotten older any adolescent admiration he may have had for his MacKenzie uncle/s may have been replaced by the solid, steady nature of Murtagh's influence.

[Isabeau1791]

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.) But the main thing that has me VERY concerned about the show is the 20 year separation of our beloved main characters. I am baffled that this seems to be no problem at all for romance fans! It seems absolutely HEARTBREAKING that Jamie and Claire will be torn apart for that long in the TV series. I don't get it?? Claire leaves when she is 30 and returns to her soulmate just in time for menopause? WTF? That's not a romance - that's a tragedy! Please tell me how to deal with my Outlander crisis! LOL (I am just not a fan of the way the first book is written, so I doubt I will continue to read the series. Spoilers welcome.)

[Dejana]

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.) But the main thing that has me VERY concerned about the show is the 20 year separation of our beloved main characters. I am baffled that this seems to be no problem at all for romance fans! It seems absolutely HEARTBREAKING that Jamie and Claire will be torn apart for that long in the TV series. I don't get it?? Claire leaves when she is 30 and returns to her soulmate just in time for menopause? WTF? That's not a romance - that's a tragedy! Please tell me how to deal with my Outlander crisis! LOL (I am just not a fan of the way the first book is written, so I doubt I will continue to read the series. Spoilers welcome.)

 

I would say Claire and Jamie are shown together in at least half of every book, if not more. Their time apart is a big deal, but the story is told in a way that kind of condenses those years. I think Gabaldon wanted Claire and Jamie's child to grow up in the 20th century, and that they weren't together for 20 years was also a major obstacle for our leads to overcome.

 

A big deal is made out of how young Claire looks for her age to everyone in the 18th century when she goes back, partly due to nutrition, partly because Diana seems to have pretty good genes in that department herself, and the leads in a romance tend to be attractive. Though just as conveniently, aging also seems not to have slowed down Claire and Jamie's sex life very much. Perhaps making up for lost time?

Edited November 22, 2014 by Dejana

[Isabeau1791]

Thank you, dejana! That makes me feel a little better. :)

[mybabyaidan]

I was upset about it at first too, but actually came to really love that aspect about Jamie/Claire.  Their love was so strong and so absolute that even being apart for that long didn't diminish it.  In fact, I think it made it stronger.   Does it suck they were apart?  Yeah.  It sucks even more that Jamie didn't get to raise his own child.  But there are things that happened in those 20 years that I really loved.  I love that Claire was able to become a surgeon.  Shit, the woman went through trauma after trauma, lost the love of her life, and what did she do?  She became even more bad ass.  And the shit Jamie went through....excruciating stuff.  But through ALL of it his love for Claire never wavered.   It's beautiful and it's tragic. 

[CatMack]

The 20 year separation is heartbreaking, but I ended up loving it.  Plus, I feel like people sometimes make too big a deal about how old they are when they get back together (not necessarily you, Isabeau1791, but I've seen some pretty big freak outs from people who find out Claire and Jamie age into the 40s, 50s, and 60s throughout the series and they find that gross for some reason because ew old people I guess?).

 

A) They aren't that old when they get back together, there are many decades left for them to have a life together

B) They still have a very active sex life, which is actually pretty true to life (yes, aging can slow your sex drive, but there was a study awhile back that found old people have A LOT more sex than most people think, I can try to find it if anyone's really interested)

C) Old people can still be hella attractive.  Have you seen Ming Na Wen lately?  The woman just turned 51 and is currently staring as the main muscle/fighter person on an action/super hero show.  How about Lena Olin (59)?  Or Helen Mirren - the woman is old enough to be my grandmother and completely gray and I'd jump in her bed in a heartbeat if she asked me to.  I can only hope to look half that good when I'm 69. 

 

Even in the most recent book, when Claire has, I think (I'm bad at counting) made it to her 60s, she's still got plenty of life left, it's not the end of the world to have a protagonist who isn't young.  I actually rather love that we've been able to see our main characters age so many decades, it allows us to see the differences that experience and age brings.  I like Jamie in the early books, for the most part, but I like Jamie a lot more in the later books - he gets better with age, like fine wine.  Claire too for that matter.  Hell, even Brianna and Roger change substantially from when we're first introduced, for the better IMO.  She slowed down the time jumping a bit in the last few books, since we reached the start of the Revolution, but if she goes back to moving time forward at a rapid pace I hope we get the same kind of growth from Willie.  He's still really young and has a lot of years to grow out of his more annoying traits and I hope we get to see that because I like him overall but he can be a bit of a derp. 

[doesntworkonwood]

I think that the only thing annoying or confusing about the quick time changes is that it's really hard to keep track of how old everyone is, so when it is mentioned it's sort of a shock. For example, I got to the end of Breath yesterday, and Willie was 18 and I realised that Brianna nearing 30ish (the dates still confuse me), and that was a huge shock, because she acts really young. I think with Claire and Jamie it's easier to accept that they've gotten older because they're mature and they've always been like that, but other characters (such as Brianna, Lizzie, and even Ian at times) even though there are other identifiers that time is passing (Jem walking, talking, etc) it's still really difficult to believe. 

 

To keep this on Books vs Show, if the show does get a third or fourth season (and presuming this translates to books 3 & 4), I'm quite curious as to how they're going to to deal with the quick passages of time without being confusing. They'll have to get a new actor to play Jem (and Germain and the other kids) every episode, and I don't think audiences, even those that have read the books, will be able to keep up. It's hard enough in the books as it is. 

[Isabeau1791]

Thanks, everyone, for your input! I guess I am not bothered as much about the ages of the characters being in love as I am the fact that they have to live so for so long apart and be with other people. It's just not what I call a happy ending or an epic romance. There's just enough heartache in real life to deal with. I am still hoping the show decides to do something different! haha. Thanks a lot for the discussion.

[Glaze Crazy]

As far as the time spent apart, both characters mention and acknowledge that if Claire had stayed in the past she and Brianna might not have survived the aftermath of Culloden, since the Highlands were devastated, overrun with soldiers and had a famine.  Also, if you think about it, Jamie spent most of those 20 years either in hiding, at Ardsmuir or at Helwater, so he wouldn't have been living with Claire and Brianna anyway.

 

I liked the time and era separation since, when they do get back together, who they've become over the years apart just gives added dimension and growth to the characters.   Seeing them work it out so they can finish their lives together is my favorite theme for this story.

[ohhellsyeah]

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.

I feel like the quality of the books really declined after the second one and the time jump played a big part in that.

As for the strapping scene, I don't want to get into that again but I will say I don't have any plans to be anywhere near the internet after that episode airs. It's not going to be pretty and I'm not exactly the poster child for calm and unemotional.

[Firebunny]

I don't have much to add to the time jump issue accept that I think it's funny the characters go from being in their 20s to being in their 40s and the actors will never actually play their actual ages (in their 30s).

[Isabeau1791]

Thanks, Glaze Crazy...That's an interesting perspective.

OhHells, are you dreading the strapping scene? I sure am...Can't see how they're going to go from that sweet, tender wedding scene to Jamie hitting his wife 2 episodes later. Makes zero sense.

Thanks again for the input on this, folks!

[Keeta]

Interesting discussion about the big time jump. On the one hand, I wish we had more of Claire and Jamie's relationship to read about when they were younger, just because that's my favorite part of the first two books (and as the series goes along, their early relationship becomes proportionally less and less of the overall story). That being said, I think it was in fact a really brave and unexpected decision plot-wise. None of the books since Voyager have had anything nearly that significant and earth-shattering happen, so I appreciate it for that aspect alone. It also made Jamie and Claire's reunion in Voyager that much more poignant.

 

I am very curious to see how they handle the time jump in the tv show, mainly in terms of how much transformation Sam and Caitriona will have to undergo.