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

[DoughGirl]

I think it is definitely Jamie. In the book Frank describes him as a big chap. I have my own sort of theory about this scene but don't really know how to explain it.

[some1105]

Thanks, DoughGirl and Petunia.  I don't intend to read the books, but have been busily spoiling myself as much as possible for all of the various plotlines up through WiMHOB, and was still confused about who it could have been--I didn't see it mentioned in any of the plot summaries, and didn't notice any plotlines about Jamie coming to the 20th century to stalk Claire.  The person also seemed smaller to me than Tobias Menzies, but it could have just been perspective (or whomever they had doubling for a shot that didn't require Heughan to actually show up).  I'll just go ahead and assume it was Jamie.

Edited August 8, 2014 by some1105

[Petunia846]

Yeah, and as far as we've always seen Jamie does not have the ability to time travel, so that makes that scene even more odd. There are some characters later who mention seeing visions of people who aren't around, so maybe it's a vision, or maybe it really is a ghost, or maybe Jamie eventually somehow figures out how to time travel and de-age himself or something. Who knows!

[DoughGirl]

My theory, for what it's worth, is that it is the soul or "ghost" of Jamie searching through time for Claire, and he appears then as she is about to travel through the stones.

How this fits in with time travel, parellel time, etc. is beyond me, but that's the way I like to think about it.

[Pestilentia]

So I was searching around to see who, if anyone, had been cast as Master Raymond?
I can find nothing.

He was one of my very favorite characters and I will be sad if he is not included at some point.

He first showed up in Dragonfly? So that would put him is season two?
Hope I am rembering correctly!

Also wondering if there is any news on his books being written?
I remember reading at some point that he was to have his own series as he is a true time traveler many times over?

He's simply a fascinating character.

[WatchrTina]

Master Raymond first appears in Book 2 and then turns up again in "The Space Between: An Outlander Novella," which follows two secondary characters from Book 7 as they travel from Scotland to Paris.  Without giving anything away that novella leads me to believe that we have not seen the last of Master Raymond.

 

And yes, I've read just about everything in the Outlander oeuvre. Many of them twice.  Except the graphic novel -- I'll be getting that soon.  What, me obsessed?

[WatchrTina]

So I hear (via Reddit) that there are some readers who are up in arms because Frank "goes downtown" on Claire in the 1945 Castle Leoch scene.  I do recall from the book that Jamie does that and that it's a first for Claire but I have to say, the TV approach is much more realistic.  I mean, come on!  Book!Jamie is a virgin who has acquired most of his sex education from watching horses.  He even admits he didn't know you could do it facing each other.  So the idea that he would be inspired to *ahem* go yodeling in the gully all on his own is a bit silly.  Much more realistic if they have TV!Claire introduce him to the concept since, clearly, she likes it.  

[absnow54]

I admit, I disliked that change, but it wasn't just the "but that's Jamie's thing!" aspect of it, it was the change to Frank's character in general. As Frank is presented in the first handful of chapters, he seems somewhat selfish, and oblivious to Claire's needs. They go on a few day trips together, but often Frank leaves Claire to her own devices while he goes off to do his historical research and even when Claire is invited along, she feels ostracized (the tea scene goes very differently in the book.) Also, at this point, I think they're actively trying to start a family, which is another strain on their relationship, and I got the impression that although they enjoyed one another, the sex wasn't primarily for pleasure, so oral didn't make sense to me.

 

I do agree though, given how confident and in tune Claire is with her sexuality, it's silly to think that she'd never been gone down on. I mean she did it for Jamie... with teeth, so it's not like the concept was completely foreign to her.

 

 

I mean, come on!  Book!Jamie is a virgin who has acquired most of his sex education from watching horses.  He even admits he didn't know you could do it facing each other.  So the idea that he would be inspired to *ahem* go yodeling in the gully all on his own is a bit silly.

He did use a horse analogy as his inspiration.

[nodorothyparker]

I realized this was different from the book, but truthfully don't really care.  I actually like that Frank is coming off better in the show than the book because as written I honestly never fully understood why she would want to get back to him so badly beyond a general "yeah, I married him first and hot water" in my own time kind of thing.  The idea that she's truly that terribly conflicted about choosing Jamie over Frank never seems particularly believable to me until the second book with the duel, and even then it seems more like the idea of it than the actuality of it.

 

Seriously.  She shows more passion for missing hot baths at various points than Frank.  And no wonder considering how he's written.  This at least makes it believable that she would risk so much in her one real escape attempt later.

 

I'm also fine with the oral in Castle Leoch.  That scene read very much that she's a modern woman who's in full charge of her own sexuality, which we know will be important with Jamie later.  It'll be interesting to see if it shows up flashback as she settles in there.

[ihartcoffee]

Non-reader/non-spoilerphobe here: could someone tell me who that was in the square peeping at Claire? It looked too small to be Jamie. Thanks bunches!

http://lynnirwinstewart.yuku.com/reply/11518

I found this interesting discussion on that topic.

Edited August 9, 2014 by ihartcoffee

[Amelie06]

I'm excited for this series! I hope they don't change Jamie being younger than Claire or that he was a virgin when they get married. I liked the subversion of the usual virgin bride trope that shows up all the time. As tough as the Jamie torture (rape) story is, I really hope they don't get rid of it or seriously dilute it. I don't think there needs to be a 10 minute scene, but I would be put off if it were left out entirely. How many movies and film do we see don't seem to think twice about showing violence towards women? Game of Thrones was adding rapes and scenes of violence as if there weren't already enough in the book! (Just a note, I'm not pro-rape or torture of anyone, male or female. I just don't want the show to pull any punches, especially on something that was such a big deal for the character.)

[SonofaBiscuit]

Just wondering, do Jamie and Claire ever kiss before their wedding?  Sam Heughan (Jamie) said something about a hot first kiss in an interview and a steamy scene coming after that, so I'm just sort of curious how quickly the show is going to jump into their relationship.  It had better begin before the show's midseason break!

[Petunia846]

No, I'm pretty sure their first kiss is at their wedding, in the chapel. Claire says something about how she planned on it being a short, chaste kiss, but in the moment she found herself leaning into him, blah, blah, blah, and all the McKenzie guys start cheering.

[Ariah]

Do we know when they're dividing the season? I mean we have now 8 episodes, and I guess we'll get to their marraige and - maybe - Claire's illfated escape attempt concluded in the infamous spanking scene. But will they really end the half-season on such an ambigous note? 

 

As for the show-book comparison, I'd love for them to keep the pace and develop the characters. Rushing and abrupt changes of some beloved book scenes is what soiled GoT for me.

[absnow54]

Sam may have been talking about his kiss with Laoghaire, maybe? That happens pretty early on. There's also a scene right after Claire removes Jamie's bandages in her chambers after she'd been drinking. She says that that night she has unsettling dreams that she would not recall come morning. I always thought that given the sexual tension when she was tending to him, that she'd had a sex dream about him, so maybe there will be some sort of fake out, fantasy kiss.

 

 

Do we know when they're dividing the season? I mean we have now 8 episodes, and I guess we'll get to their marraige and - maybe - Claire's illfated escape attempt concluded in the infamous spanking scene. But will they really end the half-season on such an ambigous note?

I think the first half of the season will end with Jamie's rescue of Claire from Randall and then pick up with the spanking in the second. I think the action of the rescue will be a more interesting note to end on, because the danger the party is in will be fresh. But, given how controversial the spanking scene is, they'll probably end with that so people have something to talk about during the hiatus.

[Petunia846]

I don't know if this would be better in the spoiler thread or not, I've just spent like ten minutes debating it, but the spoiler thread says no book talk and I expect we'll continue refering back to the book in this discussion, so I'm going to just put it here...

 

I think the first half of the season will end with Jamie's rescue of Claire from Randall and then pick up with the spanking in the second. I think the action of the rescue will be a more interesting note to end on, because the danger the party is in will be fresh. But, given how controversial the spanking scene is, they'll probably end with that so people have something to talk about during the hiatus.

 

They've released the titles of the first eight episodes, they are:

 

101- Sassenach
102- Castle Leoch
103- The Way Out
104- The Gathering
105- Rent
106- The Garrison Commander
107- The Wedding
108- Both Sides Now

 

Most of those are pretty straightforward if you've read the book, but I'm not sure about the title for 108...it doesn't really explicitly reveal what it will cover (unless I'm forgetting something from the books).

 

There is also a picture with episode summaries floating around (there are TV spoilers in this link... https://twitter.com/OutlanderItaly/status/483365231243317248 ), but obviously I don't know how accurate the summaries are, and it doesn't actually show the summaries for the last two episodes, so it doesn't really help with the question of where they'll end midseason.

 

I also have a vague memory of Sam saying something in an interview or a panel that the midseason break would end with screams. Something like that. He was being very coy of course. If I hadn't been watching and reading so much, I could maybe remember, but I've read so much that it's all a bit of a blur now.

[WatchrTina]

So . . . Did anyone notice my avatar image for this website? It's the tartan of the Fraser Clan. It's bonny, ye ken? But as much as I like it I just want to say how happy I am that I have not seen a single image online of Sam wearing it. I really really don't want to see it until the wedding and then, hoo boy, do the show-runners have a lot to live up to. Diana's description of how impressive a Highlander looks in full regalia is one of the most evocative passages in the book. I remember stopping my reading and going to the internet to get some idea of what she was talking about. Nothing there lived up to Diana's words (and no one online lived up to my mental image of Jamie.) So I can't wait to see Sam-as-Jamie in his wedding finery (during the episode and not before!) I expect to be just as blown away as Book!Claire by that reveal.

Edited August 11, 2014 by WatchrTina

[absnow54]

 

So . . . Did anyone notice my avatar image for this website? It's the tartan of the Fraser Clan. It's bonny, ye ken? But as much as I like it I just want to say how happy I am that I have not seen a single image online of Sam wearing it.

Shouldn't he be wearing the Fraser colors during the Lallybroch flashback though? I guess I can reason that the flashback is what Claire imagines based on Jamie's description -- hence the same color plaid she knows him to wear, but with that argument, one would wonder how Claire knows exactly what Jamie's sister looks like without ever seeing her. That's major inconsequential nitpickiness though.

[WatchrTina]

Okay, I'm going to speculate that Jamie will be wearing an alternative Fraser hunting tartan (muted colors to blend in with shrubbery) in the flashback scene and we won't see the more impressive red tartan described in the book until the wedding.

And of course the tartan worn in the 18th century won't be as vibrant as the colors shown to the left because they were limited to the mostly plant-based dyes available then.

Edited August 11, 2014 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

I was going to ask that about the brightness.  I do recall though the wedding plaid as being described as "crimson".  Wonder what Claire's dress will look like.  I can't remember a description.  Did Murtagh find it or was it Jamie?

[annlaw78]

Some people have complained that TV!Jamie seems small compared to Book!Jamie.  I think that may be due to the fact that we almost never saw Jamie standing up in the first episode.  The actor is quite tall (6'3" according to IMDB) and I think when we see him standing next to some smaller actors his size will become more obvious.  The actress who plays Claire is 5'9" but when you see them in close-up two-shots he doesn't look six inches taller than her -- probably because of the way the shot is framed.  I'm looking forward to a nice long-shot in the main hall of Castle Leoch where it becomes clear that Jamie towers over a good many of the men in the castle.  But they'll have to leave Dougal out of that shot.  Grahm McTavish is 6'2".

It's fairly typical, too, to use an "apple box" when a man and a woman are in a scene together.  I'm guessing that it's easier to frame a shot when there is not much of a height differential between the two.  I read an interview with Gillian Anderson recently and she commented on the elaborate set-ups (including long ramps) they had so that she could be in scenes with David Duchovny on The X-Files and be in frame with him.  I don't know if they're doing that in this show, and, as others have said, there haven't been too many scenes of Jamie and Claire standing next to each other.  Caitroina Balfe is fairly tall for a woman, as-is (she towered over the actress who played Mrs. Graham). 

[DoughGirl]

I was going to ask that about the brightness. I do recall though the wedding plaid as being described as "crimson". Wonder what Claire's dress will look like. I can't remember a description. Did Murtagh find it or was it Jamie?

IIRC Murtagh did find the dress. I think it said it had lots of tiny buttons and smelled of its previous owner. :-)

The dress reminds me if a nitpick I have with time travelers fitting into clothes from the past. Those women had notoriously tiny waists because they started wearing corsets at a very young age. I can't see most average sized woman from later times having a waist that tiny and the people were just smaller in general. I used to work in a vintage clothing shop and even the clothes from the Edwardian and Victorian age were unbelievably tiny. The owner of the shop had to use itty bitty teens of 14 years of age to model the clothes.

Edited August 12, 2014 by DoughGirl

[WatchrTina]

Starz has posted a scene from the next episode on the Facebook page for the show and of course I showed no restraint and watched it several times. It's the scene where Jamie volunteers to take the beating for Laoghaire.  It does not slavishly follow the book in a couple of ways that I really like.  One is that Gellis is in the hall and is translating for Claire instead of some other random woman. I think they are going to beef up Gellis' character in the same way they beefed up Frank's so that we are more connected with her and thus are more ambivalent about her when her evil deeds are revealed.  I love Jamie Lanninster over in the Game-of-Thrones-verse and he tosses a child out a window in the first ep.  I would be happy if TV!Gellis turned out to be a more complex character than Book!Gellis.  

 

I also loved the hushed conversation between Murtaugh and Jamie where Murtaugh warns Jamie to watch out for his uncle.  Murtuagh is an important person in the book.  He's Jamie's godfather and -- unknown to Jamie at this point -- he gave an oath to Jamie's mother to watch over him.  But he is definitely a background player in the book.  I'm glad to see him brought forward more here.

 

And I suspect, from the last line of the clip, that it may be Dougal who delivers the beating in the scene to follow, not Colum's gigantic helper (the one who did it in the book.)  That kind of condensing of action to the lead characters in the show makes perfect sense.  I love the big guy in the book (can't recall his name).  He gives the beating thoroughly but carefully so as not to do permanent damage and he's just doing his duty.  Having Dougal deliver the beating instead will imbue it with something more because, as Murtaugh says at the end of the clip, Dougal is "up to something."

[nodorothyparker]

I watched it too and it made me think maybe they're combining Mrs. FitzGibbons' character with Gellis to give show-only people one less character to keep track of.  It would definitely give Gellis more of a presence rather than being a character we've only seen four or five times before everything goes to shit.  Game of Thrones has done it on a number of occasions so it doesn't really bother me.

 

I wondered too if they're not going to giving Dougal more to do as well because in some preview clips I've seen it appears he and Jamie are having a pretty serious fight.  I can't remember that happening anywhere in the first book.  They do engage in some pretty serious swordplay in the second book, but even that's for show.  Is it possible that this is how they're going to address that Jamie strongly suspects him of trying to kill him with the blow to the head before the story starts or that it was actually Dougal who was responsible for him getting shot out on the road in the beginning?  Of course, the show moved him getting shot so I don't know if that will play into it at all.

Edited August 13, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[sosmitten]

I do agree that it seems like they're giving Gellis a bigger role, which I think does need to happen when you translate a book into a TV show.  It's easy in a book to have someone show up a few times here and there, but when you're hiring actors I would imagine it's easier to cast if your characters are going to be showing up in more episodes rather than fewer.  They've said that there are going to continue to be Claire and Frank flaskbacks and I wonder if that's just as much about giving Tobias Menzies more screen time as it is about showing that Claire misses and loves Frank.

 

That said, at least according to IMDB, there is someone cast as Mrs. Fitzgibbons.  I do hope she is a separate character from Gellis.  I think she added a different kind of ally for Claire than Gellis did.

[morgan]

 

The dress reminds me if a nitpick I have with time travelers fitting into clothes from the past. Those women had notoriously tiny waists because they started wearing corsets at a very young age. I can't see most average sized woman from later times having a waist that tiny and the people were just smaller in general. I used to work in a vintage clothing shop and even the clothes from the Edwardian and Victorian age were unbelievably tiny. The owner of the shop had to use itty bitty teens of 14 years of age to model the clothes

 

 

An interesting thing I learned recently on a mansion tour in Newport, Rhode Island addressed this.  While I am sure there is some definite size differences from women now vs then, they also pointed out it isn't as great as you would think.  A lot of it has to do with the fact that clothes were usually passed along to different women or worn out from use.  If there was a smaller than average woman who couldn't pass along clothes, those are the clothes which have survived to us today. 

[mollybygolly]

In The book Angus was the huge guy who delivered the beating to Jamie.  He was something of a bodyguard/personal assistant to Colum.  In the series they have made Angus one of the highlanders with Dougal (he was the one who didn't want to give Claire his belt when she was fixing Jamie's dislocated shoulder) so it would make sense that in the series Dougal would deliver the beating, since the Angus character is now a different character (in size and position) from the book. 

Edited August 13, 2014 by mollybygolly

[nodorothyparker]

An interesting thing I learned recently on a mansion tour in Newport, Rhode Island addressed this.  While I am sure there is some definite size differences from women now vs then, they also pointed out it isn't as great as you would think.  A lot of it has to do with the fact that clothes were usually passed along to different women or worn out from use.  If there was a smaller than average woman who couldn't pass along clothes, those are the clothes which have survived to us today.

 

I know from reading my own ancestors' Civil War enlistment records that my however many greats grandfathers averaged out at 5'9" or 5"10," which I guess was slightly taller than average for the time but not terribly unusual either.  They would have been a few inches shorter and a bit lighter than their current male descendants but I don't believe they'd be that noticeably smaller.  Looking at pictures of them with their wives and female relatives, the women seem fairly comparable sizewise.  Having grown up with my great-grandmothers who were born at the turn of the last century, I agree that average people didn't have a ton of clothes and tended to wear them until they absolutely wore out or couldn't be passed on anymore and then tended to end up in quilts or patches for other things.

 

In the books, Claire is remarked on occasionally as tall for a woman, but not excessively so.  Brianna, on the other hand, does stand out at nearly 6 feet tall.  But she's considered unusual in both centuries.

Edited August 13, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[DoughGirl]

An interesting thing I learned recently on a mansion tour in Newport, Rhode Island addressed this. While I am sure there is some definite size differences from women now vs then, they also pointed out it isn't as great as you would think. A lot of it has to do with the fact that clothes were usually passed along to different women or worn out from use. If there was a smaller than average woman who couldn't pass along clothes, those are the clothes which have survived to us today.

I've heard this too but it's not only the clothes that are teeny. Vintage shoes and gloves are very tiny too. Shoes impossibly narrow. I have even seen it in my lifetime. I wear a size 5 or 6 shoe and it is very difficult to find a size 5 in the stores any longer. Sometimes I can buy girls shoes.

ETA: My Mom's wedding ring from the forties is a size 3!

Edited August 13, 2014 by DoughGirl

[SonofaBiscuit]

Starz has posted a scene from the next episode on the Facebook page for the show and of course I showed no restraint and watched it several times. It's the scene where Jamie volunteers to take the beating for Laoghaire.

 

Do you have to be logged in to see this video?  I searched all over and couldn't find it.  I'm not on facebook, so of course you probably have to have an account to view some of these extra videos.  Ugh!

[absnow54]

I think the video is also on the Starz YouTube page, which you don't need an account to view.

[sosmitten]

There is a clip posted on the Outlander Facebook page that has Claire trying to explain infection to Mrs. Fitzgibbons, so it looks like they will have both her character and Geillis (which I've just realized I've been misspelling!).

[sosmitten]

I think this is where the episode titles were posted.  Based on the episode eight title that Petunia shared above,

Both Sides Now

, I'm wondering if the mid season break will happen right after they return to Leoch after Claire and Jamie are married.  I feel like the scene where Jamie beats Claire could be balanced nicely by the scene where he gives her the ring once they get back to the castle.

(And then she'd have rings on both sides now.)

I haven't been able to think of anything else that title could mean.

 

Any other thoughts?

[peacefrog]

I think it will end with Claire being taken by BJR and we will see Jamie looking for her as well as Frank in 1945 still looking for her.

[mollybygolly]

I have the thought that it will end with the scene where Jamie goes to Fort William to rescue Claire from Black Jack.  They will show that scene where he is in the window, gun in hand (empty but unknown to non readers and Black Jack) and Black Jack will put his gun to Claire's head in order to get Jamie to drop his.  Then fade to black.  It will be something different, of course, but I loved that scene in the book so I will enjoy it wherever it appears in the series.

[Bella Gamgee]

My favourite place for snark is at That's Normal.  Their take on all things Outlander is priceless and the reactions to the Season 2 news don't disappoint:

 

http://thats-normal.com/2014/08/starz-announces-outlander-season-2/

[Glaze Crazy]

LOL at their "picks" for Bree and Roger on that snark site.  I'd quit watching right there.

[Bella Gamgee]

I would too, but after the casting that Ron Moore and co. have done so far with all sorts of talented UK actors, I don't think we have to worry about seeing them on our small screens.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Bella Gamgee

[auntlada]

LOL at their "picks" for Bree and Roger on that snark site.  I'd quit watching right there.

 

I'm guessing I should know who those people are, but I don't (the people in the photos, not Bree and Roger -- I know who Bree and Roger are).

[maraleia]

After reading the chapter where Jamie spanks Claire (still need to read the rest of the book) I hope that Ron filmed it just like Diana wrote it. Her writing was so vivid that I can picture everything that happened and now that we've seen the actors in the roles its even better.

I also wonder if Caitriona decided that in order to be realistic it would be better if Sam actually hit her bottom. I know that most of these things are faked but I hope they didn't go that route here.

[Glaze Crazy]

I'm guessing I should know who those people are, but I don't (the people in the photos, not Bree and Roger -- I know who Bree and Roger are).

 The actors who played Bella and Edward in the "Twilight" movies.  Photoshopped to change hair color and physical attributes for Pattenson.

 

ETA: Kudos to you for remaining unsullied.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Glaze Crazy

[auntlada]

Thanks, Glaze Crazy. I'm against them, then, not that I've seen anything they've done. I'm just against them on principle. Also, I think Bree smiles every now and then, and my understanding is that what's-her-name who played Bella doesn't.

[WatchrTina]

The deviations from the book have begun.  I'm not sure how I feel about the brothers MacKenzie being so blatant about keeping Claire captive.  I guess they actually did that in the book by simply not giving her any means to leave but the bit with the Tinker -- first offering her a way home and then snatching it away -- that's so much darker.  The confrontations between Claire and Dougal in the hallway, Dougal's discovery that Colum had already given Claire permission to leave, and the confrontation between Colum and Claire when he "changes his mind" -- none of those are in the book.  So Claire's situation is much more explicitly that of a captive in the TV show.  And of course Book!Claire takes comfort in the request to help out as a healer whereas in the show it comes across almost as a punishment.  I wonder if TV!Claire is going to initially refuse to help.

 

The beating in the hall was different too.  Much more malice courtesy of Dougal's non-verbal directions to Angus and the vicious punch to the wounded shoulder.  I guess I'm okay with that, as it amps up the tension more quickly and clarify's Jamie's position more explicitly.  You need that in TV vs. the leisurely pace of a 800-page book.

 

I wish I had not watched the previews for next week because it looks like they are REALLY going to deviate from the book.  I won't discuss it here until it airs, but I'm not looking forward to it.  I didn't like what I saw.

Edited August 17, 2014 by WatchrTina

[absnow54]

I still can't tell Rupert/Angus/Murtagh apart. I thought I had it figured out last week, but this week, apparently I was wrong on every count. It's like Game of Thrones all over again where every secondary character is the "I don't know, the old guy with a beard..."

 

I thought they filmed the scene with the leeches, but I guess the licorice didn't look realistic enough.

[WatchrTina]

I think I've got them straight.

 

Murtaugh rescued Claire -- then knocked her unconscious -- then redeemed himself by "staking is best shirt [that Claire was] not a whore."  He's the one trying to talk Jamie out of offering to take the beating in episode 102 and who helps Jamie up at the end of it.  He's also the one who was supporting Jamie after he fell off the horse in episode 101.  He and Jamie seem close, whereas Rupert and Angus are clearly MacKenzie men.

 

Rupert is the "fat" one that got fussed at for not taking good care of his horse at the beginning of episode 102.  He and Mrs. Fitz seemed very chummy -- he received a big welcoming hug in the yard (that worries me).  He's the one who follows Claire around all through this episode and tells Claire she asks a lot of questions and also that she should be grateful it is him on guard duty and not Angus.  Rupert has also been watching Claire very carefully all along -- on the road in episode 101 and at dinner in 102.  He seems naturally suspicious of her.

 

Angus delivered the beating to Jamie.  He seemed to do it reluctantly but he still punched Jamie in his wounded shoulder so he's dead to me.  Apparently we'll see him watching Claire in future episodes since Rupert came right out and said they were sharing guard-duty.

Edited August 17, 2014 by WatchrTina

[sdpfeiffy]

Ack! I am also distressed after seeing the preview for 103! Hoping it is sleight of hand editing a la Mad Men.

[Ariah]

As for the ghost / apparition thing, if it was Jamie or somebody else... I believe at the time Diana Gabaldon was writing 'Outlander' she didn't know if there were going to be any other parts. So, within the world of 'Outlander' alone, I think that was supposed to be the ghost of Jamie, walking on Samhain.

 

In the light of future books, that is not so straightforward anymore. Both Claire and Jamie are older now and the timeframe is wonky at best.

 

I'd appreciate if an older Jamie did admit that he had an out-of-body experience / a vision and saw Claire brushing her hair, but Randall's voice brought him back from that scene. It could have been during one of his many near-death moments, when his spirit almost left the body.

 

At least that's how I would write it in order to cover up a plot blunder I've made unaware that one book i wrote for practice would sprung into half a dozen.

[absnow54]

 

Angus delivered the beating to Jamie.

In the book he delivers the beating, but unless the actors look really similar, I thought Rupert was the one who delivered the beating on the show. I thought Angus was the sassy one who didn't want to give up his belt in the first episode. 

[nodorothyparker]

I don't mind the deviations from the book at this point.  They're mostly minor or a bit of a darker interpretation of certain things, like the beating in the hall which I think worked very well if we're still supposed to be seeing it through Claire who doesn't understand all the pieces of the story yet either.  True, the Mackenzie brothers never dangled an exit date and promise of a ride back to the stones in the books, but it gave a nice bit weight or danger to her interactions with them because she really wasn't heeding Jamie's advice to watch herself and remember who and where she was.  As much as I do like the book, much of that time at the castle reads like "and then this happened and then this happened" with only periodic rememberings of oh yeah, I'm supposed to getting out of here.  Her guard really isn't as up as it should be while she's taking this new/old world in because she's so convinced it's only five days.

 

I like what they did with Gellis much more than I expected to.  The actress perfectly captured how pleased she is with herself and how clever she believes herself to be.

 

I'm really worried about the previews too though.  I have to think the last scene in a particular is some kind of AMC-style misdirection or they're really screwing with a major plot point.

Edited August 17, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[WatchrTina]

 

Unless the actors look really similar, I thought Rupert was the one who delivered the beating on the show. I thought Angus was the sassy one who didn't want to give up his belt in the first episode.

I think you are right and I was wrong.  I think this episode is Rupert's big introduction because he follows Claire, gives his speech about not taking his eyes off her until the "head" orders him to and then he turns up again to deliver the beating to Jamie.  At least, I think it's the same guy.  I just watched the two scenes back-to-back and I'm still not 100% certain it's the same actor.

 

And yes, he's definitely not the guy who says "Fetch me, she says" in episode one.  Is that that the "Angus" that Rupert warns Claire about?  Let's call him the "sassy one" from now on.  I love that.  And we can call Rupert  the "great fat fart" (as ould Alec, the head groom calls him at the start of the ep.)

 

The fact that the actors are clean in episode 102 and dirty and lit mostly by firelight and moonlight in episode 101 doesn't help with keeping them straight.  

 

Eventually we'll figure it out.  I recall at the very beginning of Game of Thrones I couldn't tell Robb and Jon apart and I thought The Hound was the queen's brother.

 

 

True, the Mackenzie brothers never dangled an exit date and promise of a ride back to the stones in the books, but it gave a nice bit weight or danger to her interactions with them because she really wasn't heeding Jamie's advice to watch herself and remember who and where she was.

Ooh, I like that observation.  It's true that Book!Claire has much less conflict at the castle and settles into life there with relative ease, especially afters she starts voluntarily treating all the cuts and scrapes and broken fingers.  TV!Claire is in confident, field-nurse mode much more often -- fussing at Dougal for having her followed and taunting him when she discovers that he doesn't "ken" Colum's mind regarding his plans to let her leave.  And look what that gets her.  You just know it was Dougal who talked Colum into keeping her (at least in the TV version.)  Or is TV!Colum even sneakier than Book!Colum, misleading both Claire and Dougal about his plans?  We'll see.

Edited August 17, 2014 by WatchrTina