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

[WatchrTina]

There's also a hint in the episode when the judge calls out to the mob "Wait a minute, she's with child!" So even thought you didn't see it, they hinted that the judges will delay the execution. "Pleading one's belly" was a pretty common occurrence in this time when women were sentenced to death. It was a well-established custom to NOT put a pregnant woman to death (thought this episode certainly raised the specter of that custom being overthrown by Geillis' claim to be pregnant by Satan himself.)

Edited April 24, 2015 by WatchrTina

[methodwriter85]

I'm reading the first book after watching the season 1a. I'm up to page 200 or so, roughly the first four episodes. You guys weren't kidding about Frank's part getting beefed up, were you?

 

I really liked the sketching out the show did of Claire's life with Frank, as well as sketching out more about Claire's life at the castle. I also really liked how they added in the scene with Colum telling Claire that she can't leave.

[maraleia]

There's also a hint in the episode when the judge calls out to the mob "Wait a minute, she's with child!"  So even thought you didn't see it, they hinted that the judges will delay the execution.  "Pleading one's belly" was a pretty comment occurrence in this time when women were sentenced to death.  It was a well-established custom to NOT put a pregnant woman to death (thought this episode certainly raised the specter of that custom being overthrown by Geillis' claim to be pregnant by Satan himself.)

Thanks Tina...although I haven't read the books I've read a lot of online info about them so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misremembering things.

[Sakura12]

I've been reading the books along with the show, which means I stopped reading the book for 6 months and just started again. I've never read a book like this before but I'm going to try. I like seeing the episode then reading what they changed or didn't change while everything is fresh in my mind.

[WatchrTina]

Speculations ahead. Someone pointed out that Laoghaire is clearly visible in the scene where Geillis is carried to the pyre -- walking side-by-side with Father Bane-of-my-existence. I looked and they are correct. You can see her just as Jamie tells Claire they have to go. It seems unlikely that Jamie would have failed to notice Laoghaire in the crowd but he IS focused on Claire at that point so, I'll go with it.

So here's my speculation. Jamie marries Laoghaire in Season 3 and only after the wedding discovers that she played a role in the near-burning of Claire. After that, he can't stand the sight of her and THAT'S why he leaves her -- not the barely credible notion that Laoghaire (formerly a girl of loose morals) somehow turns into a repressed, frigid woman who doesn't like sex. Time-travel I can believe. But Laoghaire not wanting to lie with Jamie Fraser -- well that's just absurd.

I like this idea because it's a more just punishment for Laoghaire. She finally gets what she wants -- Jamie as a husband -- and then loses him to Claire a second time due to her own despicable behavior. That gives her even more reason to hate Claire when she turns up alive and serves as a better provocation for shooting Jamie.

Edited April 21, 2015 by WatchrTina

[tcay]

Oh that's pretty good. Did you see Ron's tweet though, or more specifically the question he answered?

Q: With Jamie knowing how involved Laoghaire was in the trial do you have a plan for how Jamie will forgive her for later ?

A: Yes.
(source: https://twitter.com/RonDMoore/status/589620669949681665)

 

I don't know what to read into it. He didn't deny Jamie knowing about her involvement, but then again didn't confirm when he becomes aware. So it could be something he only finds out later, and I do like him finding out and immediately leaving.

 

But I also liked that marriage failing because he could never love her, and that he pretty much never intended to. We know Laoghaire isn't really an ice queen (the gardener!); she was only icy because Jamie clearly never loved her. I liked that in Jamie's mind he did everything right; when really, we know he might have followed the letter of how a marriage works, he was completely checked out and lacked the awareness to recognize it. 

[WatchrTina]

I didn't see that tweet but others have mentioned it. I'm trying not to think about it too much because I do NOT want Jamie to forgive Laoghaire. I'd rather him marry her for the reasons he does in the book (loneliness, pressure from Jenny, and a desire to give Laoghaire's daughters a father-figure) and in ignorance of her role in Claire's trial. And if he does find out the truth and "forgives" her I hope that scene comes with a speech along the lines of "I'll forgive ye as Jesus teaches us to but I canna forget. And I canna abide with ye any longer."

Edited April 23, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, I started re-reading Outlander last night, and it wasna a problem imagining the actors in me wee head for the first couple of chapters, as the first episode played along in there.  I'll probably go back, but I don't remember Claire talking about burning her fingers at that one tea, and screaming "Bloody Fucking Hell!", which Book Frank had to 'splain, so that was why she didn't accompany him the second time. I really, really would have liked to have seen that.

 

I'm at the point where Frank and Claire are watching the Dance right before dawn...

 

But good GOD, I'd forgotten how awful some of Gabaldon's writing was. The wordiness, the...the...I can't put my finger on it, but I prefer the actual dialogue of the characters...for some reason, they come across more...smoothly? I dunno.

[Nidratime]

I have another question that may have been addressed in the books and I have since forgot....

 

Clearly, Geillis purposely time traveled and had reasons to do so. One would assume, though, that she researched it and, in doing so, might have stumbled across "tales" of other people who mysteriously disappeared at certain spots, like Craig na dun, never to be heard from again. Therefore, she might have heard about Claire Randall's story -- a woman who mysteriously vanished. (Whether Geillis also would've heard about Claire mysteriously returning, I don't know.) However, that does bring up a thought pertaining to this week's episode. If Geillis heard about a Claire Randall, could she have connected that name to Claire Beauchamp Fraser and then realized that Claire returned to the 20th century? And, in order to do so, Claire had to have survived the witch trial. Hmm.

 

Another thought preceding all of this is, how did Geillis know she could time travel? Did she not know for sure and just experimented to see if she could do it? How does one go about playing around with that? She clearly knew a hell of a lot more about it than Claire.

 

Just to let you all know, I've only read the first four books. So, don't know if any of this is answered in later books.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Nidratime

[bluebonnet]

IIRC, Geillis notes included people known to have tried the stones.  Usually they died.  Claire was listed as something different in the missing/dead persons reports because she later returned and her case was closed as something that wouldn't have come up in Geillis' 1960's research.  I can't remember all the details, though.

[lianau]

May 1, 1945. Craigh na Dun, Inverness-shire, Scotland. Claire Randall, age 27, housewife. Seen last in early morning, having declared intention to visit the circle in search of unusual plant specimens, did not return by dark. Car found parked at foot of hill. No traces in circle, no signs of foul play.

 

This is the way Geillis recorded Claire in her research , there is no evidence that she found the articles about Claire's return . I don't think Geillis was really looking for returnees though .

 

 

On the the topic of Laoghaire , I don't think of her as really evil . She's a 16 year old with a heavy crush which Jamie inadvertently fed by taking a beating for, and making out with her . Then he's incapable of giving her a clear "no" message . So now Laoghaire thinks he's in love with her and hopelessly trapped in a loveless marriage that was forced on him . She's jealous and wants to save him .

Now fast forward and we have a situation in which Laoghaire had years to put idealized  Jamie high on her dream husband list . And then they get married . Laoghaire  thinking she has finally married the man she always wanted , the one she thinks loved her back , while Jamie goes into it with a "might as well be her" attitude , trying to connect himself to people again after having lost just another person he loves (and again without being able to talk with somebody about it). It's no wonder that they didn't work out .

[nodorothyparker]

Yeah, some of the writing in the original Outlander is rough.  I do think she got better as she went along, but she also got a lot wordier so there's that.

 

I actually found the story of Laoghaire and Jamie's doomed marriage rather plausible as it was presented.  Jamie was her third husband by then, and we know from what Marsali tells us that the second one was pretty rough with her which likely left her a little skittish.  She finally gets her chance at the teenage crush she's spent her whole life pining for, but he's completely sleepwalking his way through it because he's carrying around all this stuff about Claire and William and all his lost years away that he really can't talk about.  So he doesn't talk to her.  He's still calling out to his "dead" wife in his sleep. He never shows any particular interest in her as a person or asks her anything about herself.  Any attempts at intimacy are completely rote and impersonal.  It wouldn't take most women long to decide they've just had enough of that.  I even buy that she doesn't really want him anymore by the time Claire shows back up, but she also wants to save face and doesn't want Claire to "win" by getting him either.

 

Jamie may claim to be the innocent in Voyager and just can't imagine why it didn't work out.  But it's pretty clear he wasn't trying very hard because his heart wasn't in it and he didn't care enough to even try to fake it.  

Edited April 21, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't know where exactly to put this. So if this is not the right place, can either Mod move it to the proper thread?

 

I'm up to the part after Claire's fixed Jamie's dislocated shoulder, bandaged his wound, and they're in the forest--she was trying to escape and he's caught up with her. I believe this was toward the end of the pilot/first episode.

 

Okay, Catriona has done a GREAT job of softening Claire. Sure, she's got her temper down pat and mannerisms.  But I find Book!Claire to be cynical and pragmatic; doesn't really care about Frank's family history, or history, period.  But I did recognized a lot of the inner dialogue that made it through to the voice overs in the pilot and will not lie, I could feel a smile stretching me face. And I noticed what, who were left out, and I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

And I'm someone that's not attached to this series, but love Jamie, if that makes sense.

 

As for Ron, well, I'd read how his wife loves this series and he wants to do it justice and not piss off his wife, right? Well, in the episode/Book talk thread, I think it was, or was it media? They're all blurring together, so I apologize...I read today that it was his idea to have a longer witch trial because that's what he wanted. More drama or whatever, and the writer wanted more of the scenes at the Stones. That irked me.

 

How is that trying to be "as faithful to the book/series" as he can so's not to piss off his wife and viewers who are ardent fans of the series, I ask you?

[Hybiscus]

But good GOD, I'd forgotten how awful some of Gabaldon's writing was. The wordiness, the...the...I can't put my finger on it, but I prefer the actual dialogue of the characters...for some reason, they come across more...smoothly? I dunno.

There are moments when her prose is nice, but there are times when you can tell she's trying too hard.  The over-description gets worse as the novels go on.  And if I never read another "the gold auburn curls of lashes/arm hair/chest hair/whatever.." again, it will be too soon.

 

And I'm someone that's not attached to this series, but love Jamie, if that makes sense.

 

As for Ron, well, I'd read how his wife loves this series and he wants to do it justice and not piss off his wife, right? Well, in the episode/Book talk thread, I think it was, or was it media? They're all blurring together, so I apologize...I read today that it was his idea to have a longer witch trial because that's what he wanted. More drama or whatever, and the writer wanted more of the scenes at the Stones. That irked me.

 

Is that the book series or the tv series, or both?  I can understand loving Jamie without loving the rest.  :)

 

Ron did mention in his podcast that he had wanted to cut the finger sex scene, but admitted his was an idiot for thinking that.  He also said something similar about Jamie's voice over in episode109 where Jamie said he didn't feel right about killing an unconscious man (Black Jack); he really wished he'd deleted the voice over.  Maybe he'll feel the same way about the stones scenes, or maybe he'll get hell from his wife for it.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Hybiscus

[ulkis]

I was confused for a bit since it's been years since I read the book then I wondered briefly if it was suppose to be Lord John except he would be too old. I agree about the actor; I think he was so English upperclass officer that it was perfect. I liked the gallantry and the slight awkwardness as well. I'm glad he's probably going to be one of the good English characters since we haven't really seen many in the past. I wouldn't mind keeping Lt. Foster in some way but he may not be long for this world. 

 

I'm all for bringing him back as Lord John. I don't think it's a big deal if they re-use him as another character. 

[maraleia]

Well, I started re-reading Outlander last night, and it wasna a problem imagining the actors in me wee head for the first couple of chapters, as the first episode played along in there.  I'll probably go back, but I don't remember Claire talking about burning her fingers at that one tea, and screaming "Bloody Fucking Hell!", which Book Frank had to 'splain, so that was why she didn't accompany him the second time. I really, really would have liked to have seen that.

 

I'm at the point where Frank and Claire are watching the Dance right before dawn...

 

But good GOD, I'd forgotten how awful some of Gabaldon's writing was. The wordiness, the...the...I can't put my finger on it, but I prefer the actual dialogue of the characters...for some reason, they come across more...smoothly? I dunno.

So what you were saying here GH is exactly why I will read about the books but not actually read the books myself. I can't stand reading awful writing and from what I've gathered here and elsewhere Diana has great ideas but bad execution when it comes to writing prose.

[Nidratime]

So what you were saying here GH is exactly why I will read about the books but not actually read the books myself. I can't stand reading awful writing and from what I've gathered here and elsewhere Diana has great ideas but bad execution when it comes to writing prose.

 

 

Please do not choose to NOT read the books based on someone else's opinion. Please try them on your own. One opinion, even a minority group opinion, may not necessarily be your own. I may not love everything about Gabaldon, but I don't share this particular view. I'm all for making up one's own mind.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Nidratime

[GHScorpiosRule]

So what you were saying here GH is exactly why I will read about the books but not actually read the books myself. I can't stand reading awful writing and from what I've gathered here and elsewhere Diana has great ideas but bad execution when it comes to writing prose.

 

Oh please don't let my post dissuade you from that. This is just how I feel. And I admit, I was spoiled, very spoiled by Nora Roberts, who is such a prolific writer, that I admit, she set the bar very high. I just happen to not like this wordiness, awkward way of writing and describing things. I mean, "horsey conversation"? Who talks like that? And this is something Claire said, when she said she wasn't interested in the talk of horses, their conformation, etc, that Jamie and Auld Alec were discussing.

 

 

Please do not choose to NOT read the books based on someone else's opinion. Please try them on your own. One opinion, even a minority group opinion, may not necessarily be your own. I may not love everything about Gabaldon, but I don't share this particular view. I'm all for making up one's own mind.

 

I 100% agree. I wasn't trying to convince those who hadn't read her books to not read them; just giving my opinion on her writing.  Like I said above, I've been spoiled. Not just by Nora, but other historical authors, who, to me, write better historical fiction/romances and with more consistency.

 

 

There are moments when her prose is nice, but there are times when you can tell she's trying too hard.  The over-description gets worse as the novels go on.  And if I never read another "the gold auburn curls of lashes/arm hair/chest hair/whatever.." again, it will be too soon.

 

Is that the book series or the tv series, or both?  I can understand loving Jamie without loving the rest.  :)

 

Ron did mention in his podcast that he had wanted to cut the finger sex scene, but admitted his was an idiot for thinking that.  He also said something similar about Jamie's voice over in episode109 where Jamie said he didn't feel right about killing an unconscious man (Black Jack); he really wished he'd deleted the voice over.  Maybe he'll feel the same way about the stones scenes, or maybe he'll get hell from his wife for it.

 

BOTH, Naturally.

 

No, I wasn't talking about the love scene by the fire, but I thought I'd read how he wanted the Witch Trial to be longer, because DRAMA! and he didn't want Claire's telling Jamie about how she came to be in 1743, or really, what we're all calling the Stones scene to be longer. The wanting to cut the love scene out I do recall.

 

Still, my question, I think, is still valid. How does his wanting to take out/shorten, not provide pivotal scenes from the book to the screen demonstrate his "wanting to be as true to the series" as possible? Oh, and not piss off his wife in the process? I'm giving him the side-eye and stink eye going forward If I manage to read him talking about wanting to be true and then pulling shit like he did for this week's episode.

 

Now, I'm not saying everything from the book has to be put on the show, that's not realistic, or even possible; and I understand, and don't have a problem with some of the deviations from the book, but the important stuff? Damn right I expect it to make it to the show.

 

Know what I mean? O' course ye do!

[bluebonnet]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to choose not to read (or watch) something based on someone else's opinion.  We don't have time to read (or watch) everything.  Besides, there would be no point in book reviews and such if we didn't expect to use the opinion of someone else to help us make decisions about what sorts of entertainment will fill up our time.

 

Maraleia, if it's any help, I regret having read the books.  I didn't dislike them, but I didn't love them.  I don't think DG's writing is objectively bad but if one is already not inclined to love historical romance and/or wordy prose, one probably won't fall in love with these books and the books may even color one's enjoyment of the show.  It is a lovely story, though, so it's great it's being told on screen.  I wish I had just let myself see the story play out only on screen.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, I'm one who still loves romance; be it contemporary or historical. So though it took much prodding by my friends years ago, I finally gave Outlander a shot, and like I've said up thread, and I think in Small talk, that I only got as far as one third through Voyager before I called it a day, because Dragonfly in Amber was very difficult for me to get through. I suppose it didn't help that I was reading them back-to-back.  

 

But with this show, I thought I'd give it a try again, and thought this was a place I could tell y'all how I'm finding the book v. the show; and how I'm finding Gabaldon's writing. Which, to me, is not very good. In my opinion.

[WatchrTina]

I came to Outlander when I finished the Game of Thrones series and I thought Diana's writing was inferior to that of George R R Martin.  It was also inferior to the writing I was experiencing with my book group, which had quite discriminating taste.  So no, Diana's prose will never win her a Pulitzer.  But the STORY!  The story sucked me in.  It is, as Ron said, "A ripping good yarn."  And I can overlook the excessive use of adverbs and repetitious use of uninventive metaphors to be carried along with that story.  The story does bog down from time to time in the books (I've commented about my love-hate relationship with Voyager in that book's thread) but generally I think Diana's writing gets better as the story goes along.  She didn't run out of gas the way so many book series writers do (Jean Auel of Clan of the Cave Bear springs to mind).  I recommend reading them if you are someone who falls in love with long, meaty sagas featuring strong women and swashbuckling men. And if, like me, you are of a certain age (*cough* over 50 *cough*) by the end you'll be rewarded with a pair of heroes who are of an age with ye.  That, for me, is one of the main charms of the series.  I am not at all embarrassed to have Jamie in Books 3 - 8 as my literary boyfriend.  Jamie in book 1 & 2 is fine lad that I enjoy reading about, but a lad all the same.

Edited April 22, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Speaking of "the lad Jamie", every time Claire refers to him that way, it makes it sound as if she's at least a score or two older than he is, when really there are what? 4 years separating them? She's 27 and he's 23, right? Or thereabouts? It's annoying.

[Athena]

Speaking of "the lad Jamie", every time Claire refers to him that way, it makes it sound as if she's at least a score or two older than he is, when really there are what? 4 years separating them? She's 27 and he's 23, right? Or thereabouts? It's annoying.

 

I think there are a couple of reasons for this. Each of their upbringings and experiences brings them somewhat close since Jamie is well educated and has been to war, but Claire does feel more mature and older than him.

 

She's been married to man for years and back in that day, it would have matured her more than if she was just a single woman. As a war nurse, she tended to and probably became friends with many lads the same age or younger than Jamie. In her role as nurse, she often had to "mother" them in a way even though she wasn't much older than them or Jamie. Secondly, Jamie's virginity and overall demeanor is boyish in the first book even if he's been a solider.

[Nidratime]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to choose not to read (or watch) something based on someone else's opinion.  We don't have time to read (or watch) everything.  Besides, there would be no point in book reviews and such if we didn't expect to use the opinion of someone else to help us make decisions about what sorts of entertainment will fill up our time.

 

 

I generally agree if I know nothing at all about a movie, play or book and am looking for opinions *or* if something is really outside of my normal interests and I need the views of others who are more knowledgeable about a genre. But, in this case, we have a person who is already enjoying the story. The person is already predisposed to possibly getting something out of the books and, unless you're extremely busy and can't spare any time at all for reading, I see no harm in giving the first one a try to see if you like it.

[nodorothyparker]

I deliberately avoided the series for a long time because I'm generally not one for romances and after the absolute travesty against the English language and literacy in general that was the 50 Shades debacle, I'm particularly leery of anything that has people raving about how "great" the sex scenes are.  But a lot of my book club friends whose opinions I usually do respect would not shut up about these books.  So I finally sat down and read them all a year or so ago when I heard it was going to be a TV series because I'm a total spoiler whore if at all possible and I figured 8 books, historical fiction (which I generally do like), summer reading, I can do this.

 

The first book was really rough in spots, and I still don't think she's a brilliant writer.  I do think she's gotten a lot better but I also really wish at times she'd met an aggressive editor who could convince her that every factoid and anecdote she has doesn't have to be in there.  I got sucked into the story, warts and all, and now here we are.  Not everything has to be A Song of Ice and Fire or great literature for me.  It just has be written at least well enough and told well enough for me to want to keep going.

[Hybiscus]

No, I wasn't talking about the love scene by the fire, but I thought I'd read how he wanted the Witch Trial to be longer, because DRAMA! and he didn't want Claire's telling Jamie about how she came to be in 1743, or really, what we're all calling the Stones scene to be longer. The wanting to cut the love scene out I do recall.

 

Still, my question, I think, is still valid. How does his wanting to take out/shorten, not provide pivotal scenes from the book to the screen demonstrate his "wanting to be as true to the series" as possible? Oh, and not piss off his wife in the process? I'm giving him the side-eye and stink eye going forward If I manage to read him talking about wanting to be true and then pulling shit like he did for this week's episode.

 

Now, I'm not saying everything from the book has to be put on the show, that's not realistic, or even possible; and I understand, and don't have a problem with some of the deviations from the book, but the important stuff? Damn right I expect it to make it to the show.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I understood what you were saying about Ron wanting the witch trial to go longer at the expense of the stone scenes.  I'd read that somewhere, too.  (I did NOT know he didn't want Claire to tell Jamie how she came to be in 1743.  Because that would be all kinds of wrong!)  I was using the fireside sex anecdote (which he mentions on his podcast with Toni Graphia) as an example that he doesn't always "get it." 

 

In no way did I mean to invalidate you question/remarks!  You have every right to feel the way you do, and to express it, and every right to be disappointed.  And every right to give Ron the stink eye.  (Truthfully, the scene didn't play out the way I'd wanted it to, either.  But having just come to Outlander in the past few months, it's not something I'd waited so verra varra long to see brought to life. )

 

Know what I mean? O' course ye do!I

Of course I do!  :)

[chocolatetruffle]

Please do not choose to NOT read the books based on someone else's opinion. Please try them on your own. One opinion, even a minority group opinion, may not necessarily be your own. I may not love everything about Gabaldon, but I don't share this particular view. I'm all for making up one's own mind.

 

I actually am one who enjoys her prose as I like character development and emotional and descriptive language.  For me her writing falls down in the plotting.  I think the first book had a nice balance of both.  I've only read through book 5 so far and I left my overly long thoughts about how much I loved it in the Fiery Cross thread.  The only one that was difficult for me to get through was Drums of Autumn (which I ripped apart in the Drums thread) because the plot machinations required me to put on my idiot hat in order to suspend my disbelief and I just couldn't do it.  Assuming the series gets that far, I believe RDM & Co. will do a good job of sorting that out.

 

Of course, I also enjoy the TV series the best when they give us those quiet character moments, especially when they further the story.  The witch trial was a snooze for me in the book, but I absolutely loved it in the TV series (although it could have been a wee bit shorter). The back end of season 1 so far has seemed really rushed to me because it has been really heavy on plot.  I just hope that they slow things down during the Lallybroch episodes because that's my favorite part of the book.

 

Overall, I have enjoyed reading the books and look forward to picking it back up in the summer once the TV series is on hiatus.

[Nidratime]

I was going to put this in the small talk thread but it actually could be considered a spoiler for the show. ;-)

 

I've been using my Netflix account not only to watch movies I missed when they were released, but to look back at old TV series I remembered fondly, to see if they've held up over time.

 

Just this week I started rewatching "Christy," which only lasted two seasons in the mid-90's. For those of you unfamiliar with the show, it's based on a bestselling novel by Catherine Marshall and tells the story of a young woman in 1912 or so who answers a call to be a teacher in a remote mountain community in Tennessee. It's partially an education calling and partially a religious one. In any event, I was watching the second episode last night and our main character (Christy) invites the local doctor to give a history lesson to the children about their ancestral roots. Wouldn't you know, he talks about Bonnie Prince Charlie, the desire to claim the English throne for the Stuarts, and the uprising in the Highlands of 1745. So, presumably, some of those who survived the battle with the British took flight and settled in the south eastern part of the U.S. (including this mountain community) before it was the U.S. (Ahem.) By the way, in the series, Christy hails from North Carolina.

 

In the same episode, a little boy goes missing and the community goes out in search of him. It's dark and they're out in the woods. His big brother looks in an area that he last saw the boy. Instead, he sees a vision of a Scotsman in full regalia, kilt and all. The Scotsman is accompanied by what looks like a wolfhound or other large dog, but they're both not clearly defined. The ghostly (Jamie-like) Scotsman keeps gesturing to the older boy trying to get him to follow, until he leads him close to the spot where the little boy had fallen.

 

I swear, between the tale of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the highlanders, the ghostly Scotsman *and* the doctor, himself, who has a Scots accent and is named Neil MacNeil, I thought I was watching a mishmash of Outlander and Christy.

[AD55]

The first book was really rough in spots, and I still don't think she's a brilliant writer.  I do think she's gotten a lot better but I also really wish at times she'd met an aggressive editor who could convince her that every factoid and anecdote she has doesn't have to be in there.

 

A thousand times this! I got sucked into the series and I seem to be in it for the long haul because I want to know how the various characters' stories play out, but I give myself permission to skim read or even skip huge swathes altogether. DG hasn't learned the cardinal rule that unless a detail moves the story along, it needs to be cut. I find myself cursing her editor, but I also sympathize with her/him. It would take a pretty gutsy soul to tell a bestselling author with an outsized ego that she needs to cut text. It's a shame because the result would be tighter, more focused books. I also think that eliminating the chaff would improve DG's writing overall. The clichés and purple prose might be more obvious to her if she were encouraged to be more precise and concise in her writing.

 

As to the changes between text and screen, I'm mainly fine with the ones Moore has made. Books and TV have different storytelling conventions. JMO, but I generally think that Moore has done a good job of balancing fidelity to the text with the differing dramatic requirements of series television. In many instances, I think he's improved on the books. I have quibbles now and then, but I prefer his approach to the reverential adaptations we sometimes see on film and television. I like TV Claire much more than I do book Claire, and I think TV Jamie is a more complex and interesting character. That may be more down to the actors than to the writing, since Moore hasn't actually changed that much with respect to their characters. He's done a lot to enrich the secondary characters such as Frank, Dougal, and Murtagh. All of this is just my opinion, of course. Mileage obviously varies when it comes to the creative choices adaptors are forced to make.

[aemom]

AD55, on 22 Apr 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

I give myself permission to skim read or even skip huge swathes altogether. DG hasn't learned the cardinal rule that unless a detail moves the story along, it needs to be cut. I find myself cursing her editor, but I also sympathize with her/him. It would take a pretty gutsy soul to tell a bestselling author with an outsized ego that she needs to cut text. It's a shame because the result would be tighter, more focused books. I also think that eliminating the chaff would improve DG's writing overall.

 

I totally agree.  I especially skim over the long surgical diagnostics and/or procedures.  It's not the quality of her writing that keeps me reading, it's the story.  Though some parts of the story over time I have preferred over the others.

[ulkis]

The first book was really rough in spots, and I still don't think she's a brilliant writer.  I do think she's gotten a lot better but I also really wish at times she'd met an aggressive editor who could convince her that every factoid and anecdote she has doesn't have to be in there.  I got sucked into the story, warts and all, and now here we are.  Not everything has to be A Song of Ice and Fire or great literature for me.  It just has be written at least well enough and told well enough for me to want to keep going.

 

I give Outlander points over A Song of Ice and Fire just for being able to wrap up a story. The first book, for all intents and purposes, is a close-ended story. Of course it can be continued, and she obviously did, but it's not a cliffhanger. I haven't read the third book through but from what I've heard the end of Voyager also makes a good stopping point.

 

Yeah, I'm one who still loves romance; be it contemporary or historical. So though it took much prodding by my friends years ago, I finally gave Outlander a shot, and like I've said up thread, and I think in Small talk, that I only got as far as one third through Voyager before I called it a day, because Dragonfly in Amber was very difficult for me to get through. I suppose it didn't help that I was reading them back-to-back.

 

I like the political intrigue in Dragonfly, but man, the prologue was rough slogging.

[ulkis]

Ron did mention in his podcast that he had wanted to cut the finger sex scene, but admitted his was an idiot for thinking that.  He also said something similar about Jamie's voice over in episode109 where Jamie said he didn't feel right about killing an unconscious man (Black Jack);

 

He said that? Oh good. I was like, really? Jamie has scruples about killing the man who almost whipped him to death (and realistically he probably would have died), and who just tried to rape his wife in front of him? I think even the most gentle hearted of people would be like, wait, gimme a minute to kill this dude.

Edited April 22, 2015 by ulkis

[Keeta]

For the record, Jamie also says that Ned instructed them not to kill anyone. Though when it comes to Black Jack, I think an acception could probably be made... ;)

[AD55]

He said that? Oh good. I was like, really? Jamie has scruples about killing the man who almost whipped him to death (and realistically he probably would have died), and who just tried to rape his wife in front of him? I think even the most gentle hearted of people would be like, wait, gimme a minute to kill this dude.

 

That didn't ring true for me either, especially given that in later books Jamie is generally pretty comfortable with vigilante justice. I thought Ned's desire to lessen the repercussions of the rescue effort was a more convincing rationale.

[ulkis]

I read exactly one interview with Diana when I first started reading the books and decided very quickly I was never going to read or watch her interviews again.

 

I've given her the side-eye ever since she said she didn't like fanfic. I get it coming from some authors, but her? And it's not about the quality of her writing or lack thereof, whatever one thinks, but I just don't think there's anything to fear from Outlander fanfic. Like I can understand why George R Martin might not want people to write a wrap up fanfic of the series, but I don't really see what kind of fanfic could out-saga Outlander at this point, heh.

[GHScorpiosRule]

CATMACK said on March 13: (sorry, couldn't find the quote to quote from!)

 

 

 

I read exactly one interview with Diana when I first started reading the books and decided very quickly I was never going to read or watch her interviews again.

 

 

I've given her the side-eye ever since she said she didn't like fanfic. I get it coming from some authors, but her? And it's not about the quality of her writing or lack thereof, whatever one thinks, but I just don't think there's anything to fear from Outlander fanfic. Like I can understand why George R Martin might not want people to write a wrap up fanfic of the series, but I don't really see what kind of fanfic could out-saga Outlander at this point, heh.

 

And I remember, way back, right before I caved in to read Outlander how a good friend of mine (she's the one who turned me on to Anne Stuart and I will forever love her for that!) read how Gabaldon said this series was "NOT romance." or that she hated that it was designated a romance, as if romance was something to look down on.

 

Y'all know how I feel about that, so I won't go repeating myself, and thus annoying y'all.

 

I admit, that was also one of the reasons, aside from my hating books in First Person, that took some convincing for me to give this series a chance.

Edited April 22, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[lianau]

That didn't ring true for me either, especially given that in later books Jamie is generally pretty comfortable with vigilante justice. I thought Ned's desire to lessen the repercussions of the rescue effort was a more convincing rationale.

But the later books come after Wentworth and 20 years of separation . That probably makes you lose your idealism and resets your moral compass .

[AD55]

CATMACK said on March 13: (sorry, couldn't find the quote to quote from!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I remember, way back, right before I caved in to read Outlander how a good friend of mine (she's the one who turned me on to Anne Stuart and I will forever love her for that!) read how Gabaldon said this series was "NOT romance." or that she hated that it was designated a romance, as if romance was something to look down on.

 

Y'all know how I feel about that, so I won't go repeating myself, and thus annoying y'all.

 

I admit, that was also one of the reasons, aside from my hating books in First Person, that took some convincing for me to give this series a chance.

 

Oh please, do repeat yourself. Romance novels are not for everyone -- there are genres I don't like either -- but the form is often unfairly maligned because it is mainly written and read by women. At least, that's the stereotype. The reality is more complicated. I know people who don't like mystery novels, but you don't hear a lot of them speaking of the whole genre with disdain -- that contempt is mainly reserved for romance novels. IMO, Gabaldon distances herself from the genre because she thinks she won't be taken seriously if she is considered a romance novelist. She's not wrong about that, but that doesn't alter the fact that her novels meet the main criteria of the romance novel: primary focus is on a hero and heroine (or hero-hero, vampire-human, etc), the two face seemingly insurmountable impediments (class, family, different species, come from different centuries) to their union, the barriers are eventually overcome. Gabaldon says that the Outlander books can't be romances because romances always end with a marriage and her novels give us the history of a long marriage. That's wrong on at least two counts. First, the forced-marriage plot is a staple of the historical romance -- Outlander obviously fits into that category. Second, Outlander is actually the exception that proves the rule. The continuation of the series depends on the separation and reunion of Jamie and Claire being repeated over and over: Claire has to return to the future, Jamie is kidnapped, Claire is kidnapped, one of them nearly dies, one of them is believed dead, Claire has to reaffirm her commitment to staying in the eighteenth century, etc, etc.  That Gabaldon is retelling the tale with the same couple rather than creating a new one each time doesn't mean she's writing in an entirely different genre. Part of the problem is that she and others define romance novels in very narrow terms when the fact is there is huge variation within the form.

 

Again, I have no problem at all with anyone who loathes romance novels. As with any genre, personal taste prevails. A lot of them are poorly written, but that's true of all genres. My main issues are that the novels are considered a low form of writing and that people will sometimes defend their affection for a particular book by placing it in opposition to the romance novel. The argument goes something like this: I hate romance novels. I like [fill in the name of the novel the person likes]. Ergo, the aforementioned novel is not a romance. This is right up there with, "I'm not a feminist, but I am in favor of equal rights for women."

 

I need to work out more. I just twisted an ankle descending from that soapbox.

[Nidratime]

Again, I have no problem at all with anyone who loathes romance novels. As with any genre, personal taste prevails. A lot of them are poorly written, but that's true of all genres. My main issues are that the novels are considered a low form of writing and that people will sometimes defend their affection for a particular book by placing it in opposition to the romance novel. The argument goes something like this: I hate romance novels. I like [fill in the name of the novel the person likes]. Ergo, the aforementioned novel is not a romance. This is right up there with, "I'm not a feminist, but I am in favor of equal rights for women."

 

 

Brava!

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh please, do repeat yourself. Romance novels are not for everyone -- there are genres I don't like either -- but the form is often unfairly maligned because it is mainly written and read by women. At least, that's the stereotype.

But you've said it so much better than I did! And I agree with you 1000% absolutely! But so you know, what i said was, and I think it was in the pilot thread, of how I hated how loving or even liking romance had to be kept like a dirty little secret/something to be ashamed of.  Something I'm so not. Yes, yes, the early stuff I inhaled as a tween/teen were the horrid, horrid Harlequin romances, but then I discovered Nora Roberts, and she raised the bar so high. You, well I didn't and don't feel like I'm reading about fictional characters, but real people and she sucks me right in.  But, anyway, I wish I could find the rant...you don't like romance, fine, but there's no need to look down your nose in contempt. And by "you" and "your" I'm talking the general "you" and "your" and not anyone specific here.

 

I love romance. Adore it. But hate chick flicks, which I find to be nothing but stories of balls busting bitches and emasculating men. One author I used to love to read, fell into that with her historicals, so I stopped reading it. I proudly admit I love the Mega-Alpha Hero; tortured hero. Sonofabitch hero. As long as the heroine is not a wily-nily TSTL (Too Stupid To Live) heroine. But I don't hold it against those that loathe or don't like romances.

 

But this series? This show? You are going to get romance. That's the heart of the story. At least, that's how I see it.

 

 

Gabaldon distances herself from the genre because she thinks she won't be taken seriously if she is considered a romance novelist. She's not wrong about that, but that doesn't alter the fact that her novels meet the main criteria of the romance novel: primary focus is on a hero and heroine (or hero-hero, vampire-human, etc), the two face seemingly insurmountable impediments (class, family, different species, come from different centuries) to their union, the barriers are eventually overcome. Gabaldon says that the Outlander books can't be romances because romances always end with a marriage and her novels give us the history of a long marriage. That's wrong on at least two counts. First, the forced-marriage plot is a staple of the historical romance -- Outlander obviously fits into that category. Second, Outlander is actually the exception that proves the rule. The continuation of the series depends on the separation and reunion of Jamie and Claire being repeated over and over: Claire has to return to the future, Jamie is kidnapped, Claire is kidnapped, one of them nearly dies, one of them is believed dead, Claire has to reaffirm her commitment to staying in the eighteenth century, etc, etc.  That Gabaldon is retelling the tale with the same couple rather than creating a new one each time doesn't mean she's writing in an entirely different genre. Part of the problem is that she and others define romance novels in very narrow terms when the fact is there is huge variation within the form.

Yeah, well, she's wrong. Maybe partly right about the first part. But not the rest.  I hate to keep bringing up Nora, but well, it's a good example of why she's wrong about romance ending after marriage.  Under JD Robb, in 1995, she created the In Death series, which is a romantic suspense series, and the main character, Eve, is a NYPD cop in 2059, and she marries this former thief/criminal Super gazillionaire, Roarke, and they get married in book three.  Granted, each book doesn't span years, but weeks and months, but we see how they handle married life while she's out solving homicides, blah, blah.  These books are in either sci-fi because of when they are set, or mystery, because of homicide aspect.  For a lot of years, before social media, MEN read these books, thinking Robb was a man.  That's because Nora grew up with 4 brothers, and likes men, which translates in her books. We're up to 40 books since then, and the series is still very popular. Even before this, Men and Women read books under Nora. So, you're wrong, Gabaldon.

 

Sorry to get offtopic, but I wanted to explain why I feel the way I do and provide examples. I'm not trying to convince anyone to think or feel the way I do. Just want to show why I think and feel the way I do.

 

And because of this...I don't know, contempt, lately, I think more of the past 10 years or so, instead of getting straight romance in my historicals--the relationship between the characters, more and more, the authors I read, are writing series' and putting in a LOT of mystery, murder, who did it, why or more of it....shit I don't give any figgedy fucks about. I want to know about the hero and heroine and how they come together/fall in love, etc., etc.

 

And now I'll step of me soap box.

[peacefrog]

But the later books come after Wentworth and 20 years of separation . That probably makes you lose your idealism and resets your moral compass .

Yes and he has learned that when he doesn't "take care" of it when he has the opportunity it comes around to hurt his family again, like Stephen Bonnet. 

 

Regarding Claire calling Jamie a lad, I think it was also a way of distancing her subconscious feelings for him as well. She is trying to compartmentalize him with her other soldier patients. I think she eventually stops this, maybe? 

[lianau]

I think at one point she describes  the "thing" she has for Jamie as infatuation and that usually infatuation would go away after a while with no danger for her and Frank but now she had to give in to it .

[ulkis]

That didn't ring true for me either, especially given that in later books Jamie is generally pretty comfortable with vigilante justice. I thought Ned's desire to lessen the repercussions of the rescue effort was a more convincing rationale.

But the later books come after Wentworth and 20 years of separation . That probably makes you lose your idealism and resets your moral compass .

 

But the later books come after Wentworth and 20 years of separation . That probably makes you lose your idealism and resets your moral compass .

 

I was the one who made the original "I didn't think that felt right" post about Jamie saying he felt he couldn't kill a helpless man, and I don't think it didn't ring true because of the later books myself . . . I thought it because of his characterization in the first book. I went back to see how it played in the books and yeah, he didn't really have time to stop and kill him because they were already hearing footsteps coming up to the room, they had to get out of there.

 

But I thought about 80% of Jamie's voiceover was bad, so you know, I'm a little biased against the voiceover. :)

 

re: Claire calling Jamie a lad, I think, in claire's lingo, that's the equivalent of her saying "that kid over there". Plenty of 27 year olds say that about people only a little younger than them, so I didn't find it weird. And as she gets closer to him she stops saying it to him, like people pointed out, anyway.

Edited April 22, 2015 by ulkis

[justmehere]

GHScorpiosRule said:

 

I thought I'd read how he wanted the Witch Trial to be longer, because DRAMA! and he didn't want Claire's telling Jamie about how she came to be in 1743, or really, what we're all calling the Stones scene to be longer.   (emphasis mine)

 

 

I mentioned in the podcast thread that the episode's writer, (Toni Graphia), said that she wanted a shorter trial scene because of all that was to come with Claire and Jamie. Ron wanted the longer trial scene, yes, but neither of them said anything about him not wanting the stones scene to be longer. -- My personal frustration was that they didn't talk about the stones scene much, but they both said that they loved it in the book.  If this wasn't about the podcast comments, then my apologies. 

[Petunia846]

My first inkling of distrust of Ron was when The Garrison Commander came out and it had expanded such a brief scene into a whole episode. I remember from several interviews he'd said that that scene in the book, where Claire meets Randall during the rent trip, was a scene that stood out to so many people and so interesting that he wanted to really delve into it. I doubt that has ever been a scene that long-time fans have been looking forward to seeing. Not over stuff like the stones or the wedding or things like that. I know most people say that's one of the best episodes of the show but I almost can't rewatch it because it makes me so mad. All that time eaten up that could have been Claire and Jamie bonding time on the road. He also wanted Claire's ring to be made out of a nail...Terri had to talk him into the key bit. (Which still doesn't thrill me, but at least it's not a nail for goodness sake.) So anyway, by now I'm not surprised by any of his ideas of what should be done.

[WatchrTina]

 

My personal frustration was that they didn't talk about the stones scene much, but they both said that they loved it in the book.

Yeah, that was my reaction as well.  It suggests to me that Ron and Toni think they did a good job of portraying the decision at the stones and expect a positive reaction from the fans.  Some people HAVE said they liked the episode but my gut says a majority of the non-book readers watched the show and went "Huh?  She stayed?  She was running to those stones calling Frank's name less than a week ago and in the interim she's been assaulted and nearly raped by a psychopath (who now knows her name and who she married), subjected to corporal punishment by her husband, and nearly burned as a witch.  And she STAYED?  Why?"  Other than talking about taking out the voice-over (which many people have said would have been a really good idea to keep in) and going to great lengths to film the shot of her looking at her two rings so as to "show, don't tell" the inner turmoil she was going through, they didn't talk at all about the difficulty of depicting such a gut-wrenching, life-altering, decision.  I wonder now if they are reading comments like these and realizing that maybe they made a mistake.

 

Well, spilt milk now.  The next 6 episodes are already in the can and maybe Claire will talk about her choice and clarify her reasons in a voice-over and maybe she won't but it too late to change it now.  Jamie will have to go on believing that Claire is a time-traveler without the proof of what he saw at the stones (which I personally hate) but I guess the "proof" will emerge over time as Claire's predictions about the rising come true (including the victory at Prestontpans) and the threat of Culloden looms closer and closer as Jamie finds himself drawn inexorably toward that battle despite all their efforts to avoid it.

 

New speculation.  Laoghaire's role in the witch trail was public. Everyone in town will know it.  Everyone in the castle will know it.  She publicly accused the Laird's niece of witchcraft (and admitted to asking Claire for a spell.)  She's going to have to be punished  -- that cannot go unanswered.  I think she's going to be immediately given in marriage to a man who treats her very badly.  By the time she and Jamie meet again she will have aged a lot, due in part to rough treatment at the hands of her husband.  And I think THAT might, just might, allow Jamie to forgive her for her role.  Maybe.  I don't know.  Jamie is a bit dead inside by the time he marries Laoghaire so between Jenny harping at him and his prolonged sadness, he may convince himself that Laoghaire has been punished enough and go ahead and marry her, only to discover that the specter of Claire and his still-burning love for her makes it impossible for the two of them to connect in any meaningful way.

 

Someone in the casting thread said Nell Hudson (Laoghaire) should be cast to play her own daughter in book 3 and I love that idea.  Then we could have the satisfaction of seeing the actress who played Laoghaire explaining to someone (Claire?) all that Laoghaire went through following the witch trial (complete with flashbacks if necessary).  That could be . . . satisfying.

[tallyrand]

I would love if Nell played Marsali! Marsali quickly became one of my favorite characters in the later books, and I think Nell has been quite good.  I would love if the show spent more time on her and Fergus, as their wedding scene in Voyager is one of my favorite scenes in the Outlander novels. 

 

Also, I really like the idea that Jamie marries Laoghaire without knowing her involvement with the witch trial and after finding out scorns her. However, I would really love to see (if we get a third season of course), Claire finding out they are married and blurting out Laoghaire's involvement in front of Jamie in order to see his reaction. I just can't see how he could marry her knowing what she did to Claire.  In the book, I can somewhat excuse her as a young girl who did something awful and could be forgiven. But in the show, she is far more spiteful and knows exactly what she has done.  There is no doubt she wants Claire to die so she can have Jamie. That's not something Jamie should be able to forgive. 

 

As to Ron Moore, I'm actually surprised at how it seems like all his decisions have been off-base, at least when it comes to Jamie/Claire romance.  He seems to think that the actor's chemistry can carry the relationship, which is true to a certain point.  You need scenes, conversations and moments where the actors can explore their natural chemistry and build that bond for the audience to see.  The trial should have been shorter (I don't think there was any need for the maid to testify or the guy who spoke about Gellis being a bird).  I also always liked in the books that Ned made a drawn out speech in order to delay the trial for another day to give Jamie time to arrive, which I missed in the show and would have been a good way to save time. He has been off base with the ring decision (a nail, really?) and wanting to cut the love scene by the fire? That was such a beautiful scene.   

 

On another note, I really hope in the show that Claire and Ian's bond is explored because I loved the scene in the book where Claire and Ian bond over having married Frasers during Jenny and Jamie's fight.  I also hope Jenny and Claire's relationship gets explored since that is a very important one.  But I always hated Jenny in the books (even the first book), so I'm not particularly looking forward to her in the show. She was just too possessive of Jamie and such a judgmental busy-body. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by tallyrand

[Keeta]

On another note, I really hope in the show that Claire and Ian's bond is explored because I loved the scene in the book where Claire and Ian bond over having married Frasers during Jenny and Jamie's fight.  I also hope Jenny and Claire's relationship gets explored since that is a very important one.  But I always hated Jenny in the books (even the first book), so I'm not particularly looking forward to her in the show. She was just too possessive of Jamie and such a judgmental busy-body. 

 

Hopefully this will be a case of the actor providing additional colors and layers to a character, fleshing them out (Jenny).

 

Not sure how I'd feel about Nell Hudson as Marsali, if only because she's supposed to be Cait & Sam's daughter's age. It could work, but I think I'd prefer a different actress.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Keeta

[tallyrand]

Hopefully this will be a case of the actor providing additional colors and layers to a character, fleshing them out (Jenny).

 

Not sure how I'd feel about Nell Hudson as Marsali, if only because she's supposed to be Cait & Sam's daughter's age. It could work, but I think I'd prefer a different actress.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, Marsali is supposed to be even younger than Brianna. I could see them changing that though, since Marsali was 16 and Fergus was 30 when they got married. 

[Megan]

 

I also hope Jenny and Claire's relationship gets explored since that is a very important one.  But I always hated Jenny in the books (even the first book), so I'm not particularly looking forward to her in the show. She was just too possessive of Jamie and such a judgmental busy-body.

 

Me too! I never liked her. She was just an asshole about everything.

I really dislike her and Roger. He's just slightly less annoying.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Megan