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

[WatchrTina]

So . . . changing the subject somewhat . . . I was thinking about Outlander at dinner (as you do) and I found myself visualizing the scene in Book 3 where Jamie offers himself to Lord John to seal the deal when he asks John to look after Willie.  Lord John declines.  I don't recall the lines from the book but I found myself envisioning Lord John saying something along the lines of "No, thank you.  You have no wish to lie with me -- you find the very idea revolting -- and to be with you under those circumstances holds no appeal to me.  I have never forced myself on a man, nor used coercion either, just as I'm sure you have never forced yourself on a woman."  I loved that day-dream because Jamie, as we know, feels guilty about getting William's mother pregnant -- a pregnancy that caused her death.  And of course during the course of their night together she did say stop and he said "No!".  Now let's be clear -- in MY opinion Jamie is not guilty at all of anything even remotely resembling rape in that scene.  Quite the contrary, William's mother (Geneva?) is guilty of raping Jamie in that she used blackmail and coercion (threatening his family) to force him into an act that, if discovered, could have cost him his life.  That's MY take.  But Jamie probably feels guilty about not stopping and so if Lord John says something like that to him in the TV show, ooh what a poignant moment that would be.

 

I also recollect that in a later book, Jamie tells that story to Claire and admits that if John had taken him up on the offer he would have killed him.  It was a test, ye ken?  To see if Willie would be safe with him.  I've always speculated that that bit in the later book was revisionism by Diana after an outcry from her readers that Jamie, the victim of a brutal rape in book 1 would NEVER offer himself up to a man.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe Diana intended it to be a test from the very beginning.  I'd love to know for sure.

 

 

I've always suspected that DG created Lord John in response to critics who took her to task for her appalling portrayals of gay men.

Yep.  That'a always been my suspicion as well.

Edited April 27, 2015 by WatchrTina

[tcay]

Ah, the Wentworth scenes are not ones I ever really revisit, so I guess I've forgotten some things. I do remember a scene in book two where Jamie recounts some pretty awful moments, but I always felt like we were given just enough details to know how horrifying it all was without fully... knowing. 

 

Goes to show how much I skip over the objectionable content of the books and focus on the central relationship instead.

[lianau]

I also recollect that in a later book, Jamie tells that story to Claire and admits that if John had taken him up on the offer he would have killed him.  It was a test, ye ken?  To see if Willie would be safe with him.  I've always speculated that that bit in the later book was revisionism by Diana after an outcry from her readers that Jamie, the victim of a brutal rape in book 1 would NEVER offer himself up to a man.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe Diana intended it to be a test from the very beginning.  I'd love to know for sure.

 

 

 Would Jamie offer himself to John ?  It's a good question and I'm not sure he wouldn't and that's probably the reason for his mental redressing of the situation later . 

[methodwriter85]

I have a funky knuckle on my pinkie left over from punching a wall and refusing to go to a doctor to get it set, so I kept thinking about that when I read about Claire trying her best to set Jamie's hand. Man, that poor guy. I shudder to think about what this will look like on screen.

 

I'm sure Tobias is going to rock the hell out of the torture rape porn, but god it's probably going to make the whipping scene look like Winnie the Bloody Pooh.

 

It's going to be interesting seeing the scene where Claire kills the soldier kid. I like that the book really doesn't flinch from the realities of their situation. The show hasn't watered down anything so I figure that will be in there.

Edited April 27, 2015 by methodwriter85

[GHScorpiosRule]

Sick this weekend so I've yet to see "Lallybroch", but if I could find a gif of myself rocking back and forth, I'd post it here, because that's me, at the thought of watching Jamie's torture and rape onscreen. I remember, way back, before the show even premiered, how Ron, et al, confirmed that they would not back away from these scenes.

 

Blessfully, I don't remember the description of the rape, just the end of all that horrificness, where, amidst all of the blood, that heinous, psychotic rapist, is stroking Jamie's hair. And I just made myself sick, typing that.

 

And it's true what another poster said up thread, how when reading or re-reading, you can skip over those scenes that just disturb you; I know that

I do that when re-reading the in death series, because Eve was raped, horribly, brutally by her biological father and it's something that she lives with every day

, because it's so graphic and painful to read. But I don't have that luxury if I want to see how the show addresses it and shows it, you know? Sure, if I rewatch it, then I can fastforward. So I am NOT looking forward to this.  I know it disturbed me when I read it.  I hope I'm strong enough to watch it.

[chocolatetruffle]

I would just skip the Wentworth episode except that if they don't show it in real time then there will be flashbacks in the season finale.  I wish there was a way to just blackout the screen, the way a mute button immediately removes sound.  Maybe I'll just make my first viewing behind a blindfold.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I would just skip the Wentworth episode except that if they don't show it in real time then there will be flashbacks in the season finale.  I wish there was a way to just blackout the screen, the way a mute button immediately removes sound.  Maybe I'll just make my first viewing behind a blindfold.  

 

Or through fingers? I know in that one episode in Game of Thrones last season, I closed my eyes and covered my ears when I saw what was coming. 

[CatMack]

Heh, I know exactly which Game of Thrones scene you're talking about.  And now they keep almost showing it again in the "previously on".  Stoooooop.  

 

I'm not looking forward the the Wentworth scenes themselves because I don't enjoy torture porn.  It's very hard to show what Diana described without going into torture porn territory.  But I'm...IDK, looking forward to the aftermath doesn't sound right either.  I'm not excited about any of it.  But for all of her overuse of rape and violence, I think what happens to Jamie is one of the few times she actually handled it fairly well.  Not that it's flawless, but she does some really good things.  It affects Jamie for the rest of his life, it's not something that got thrown in to be shocking and then never mentioned again because she wanted to move on to the next thing.  And while I think female rape is way overused as a plot device, male rape is relatively underrepresented.  Men do get raped in real life, and they often get taken even less seriously that women (which is saying something, because good lord are women treated horribly when they report rape) and it's harder to find resources.  I don't remember if it's outright stated, but I know there were a few lines here and there that made me personally infer that Randall, for all his torture, also makes Jamie feel pleasure, just to really fuck with his head good an proper.  And Jamie doesn't get to fight back because he gave his word.  Representing rape as rape even when you don't fight back, even when you feel some physical pleasure, I actually really respect that about this plotline.  Jamie is never diminished because of what happens to him, but he doesn't immediately shrug it off either.  He gets to be a real person, who is damanged but survived, who's recovery never reaches a magical switch flip where he's over it.  It's part of him, but he's still a romantic hero, and that's not a bad message to send for male rape survivors who might be reading this series. 

 

TL:DR - Gabaldon overuses rape and assault, but Jamie's is actually one of her better written examples, IMO, so I'm looking forward to Sam and Cait getting to play the emotional aftermath, even if that means having to watch Wentworth through my fingers.  

[lianau]

I don't remember if it's outright stated, but I know there were a few lines here and there that made me personally infer that Randall, for all his torture, also makes Jamie feel pleasure, just to really fuck with his head good an proper.

 

It's in the book ,he describes first how his body has betrayed him and then later that it was an act of love for Randall . I put it in a spoiler in case people don't want to read it 

“He did not just hurt me, or use me. He made love to me, Claire. He hurt me—hurt me badly—while he did it, but it was an act of love to him. And he made me answer him—damn his soul! He made me rouse to him! ....... I could no more stop myself rising to his touch than I could stop myself bleeding when he cut me.”

[AheadofStraight]

There's some interesting stuff on the Compuserve forum where Diana posts. I kinda page through and look for her comments. 

 

In the latest episode thread:  http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Books_and_Writers_Community/_/_/ws-books/83777.281

I have no idea how far Ron's read, but in all fairness, DRAGONFLY is pretty packed with detail, and Brian being a bastard is only mentioned briefly.

    Though in addition to the blade, they also had Jamie telling Claire that the _house_ had been in his family for generations, so I had to tell them that no, Brian had built it.  Which resulted in a good dialogue change, where Jamie says his father's blood and sweat are in the stones...and now his bones are as well (as he moves to look out the window at the graveyard--which ties in the eventual scene with Jenny at the grave).

     And they asked me what Brian's full name was, and if it was alright to put "Brian Dhu" at the top of the headstone--I said it was. <g>

     They _do_ listen to me; they just don't always change things in response.   I tried to get them to take out the line where Jamie is talking about Jack Randall's proposed bargain and says his father wouldn't mind the buggery, it was "letting that man break me."  I said I thought any heterosexual father, 18th century or not, would have distinct objections to his son being buggered, regardless of circumstance.  They said, huh, they hadn't thought of that...but they left that clause in, presumably because it makes the line read better.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

 

It's in the book ,he describes first how his body has betrayed him and then later that it was an act of love for Randall . I put it in a spoiler in case people don't want to read it 

“He did not just hurt me, or use me. He made love to me, Claire. He hurt me—hurt me badly—while he did it, but it was an act of love to him. And he made me answer him—damn his soul! He made me rouse to him! ....... I could no more stop myself rising to his touch than I could stop myself bleeding when he cut me.”

 

 

This also happens to women who are raped and get accused of not really being raped when they say they felt "pleasure."  That is a result of stimulation and does not negate the fact that the act of rape was an act of violence and power.

 

And that bastard Randall can think of it any way he wants to in his twisted sadistic mind; it was still rape.

[CatMack]

I really liked that line addition.  My level of surprise that Diana Gabaldon objected to a change that made an 18th century character slightly less problematic = 0%

[ulkis]

TL:DR - Gabaldon overuses rape and assault, but Jamie's is actually one of her better written examples, IMO, so I'm looking forward to Sam and Cait getting to play the emotional aftermath, even if that means having to watch Wentworth through my fingers.  

 

It's weird though - I get why Jamie wouldn't use the word, but Claire never actually uses the word "rape" in regards to what Randall did to Jamie in the first book, and not from what I've read in the second. Does she actually say it/think it later on?

[WatchrTina]

 

Diana wrote:   I thought any heterosexual father, 18th century or not, would have distinct objections to his son being buggered, regardless of circumstance.  They said, huh, they hadn't thought of that...but they left that clause in, presumably because it makes the line read better.

Two points -- I took the line in the episode to mean that Brian would not think any less of Jamie for having been buggered against his will.  I assumed he would certainly be very upset with the person who did the raping.  I suspect that the line was put in specifically to soften the depiction of people's attitudes toward homosexuality vs how they are portrayed in the book.  I also think Jamie's line in ep S01:E10 about the Duke being "very attentive but that's as far as it went" was also inserted the soften the portrayal of the Duke who, let's face it, is something of a sexual predator in the books -- stalking young boys in the stable and trying to lure them into his room by saying he needs help with his bath.

Edited April 27, 2015 by WatchrTina

[methodwriter85]

Well, I finally finished the first book. The people who were pissed at Jamie spanking Claire...I wonder how they'll react to him fever-attacking Claire-posing-as-Randall.

 

If I were them, I'd play the scene as Jamie actually seeing Randall in place of Claire, and then cutting back to see that it was actually Claire all along, saving us from seeing the sight of Jamie throwing Claire around and choking her.

Edited April 28, 2015 by methodwriter85

[AheadofStraight]

 

If I were them, I'd play the scene as Jamie actually seeing Randall in place of Claire, and then cutting back to see that it was actually Claire all along, saving us from seeing the sight of Jamie throwing Claire around and choking her.

 

Yes, kinda of like the movie Ghost. I preferred seeing Demi kissing Patrick rather than Whoopie. :)

[bluebonnet]

Well, I finally finished the first book. The people who were pissed at Jamie spanking Claire...I wonder how they'll react to him fever-attacking Claire-posing-as-Randall.

 

If I were them, I'd play the scene as Jamie actually seeing Randall in place of Claire, and then cutting back to see that it was actually Claire all along, saving us from seeing the sight of Jamie throwing Claire around and choking her.

Those two scenes aren't even comparable.  In the latter, Jamie is legitimately ill and hallucinating and Claire purposely facilitates a situation where Jamie will have cause to think he's still in the grips of a man who just raped and tortured him to within an inch of his life.  Like, it's the one time we can say 'she was asking for it' without it being victim blaming.  Because, literally, Claire was asking for this to happen as a way to help Jamie.  

[methodwriter85]

They're not, but I still think people are going to be pissed.

[lianau]

Some people want to be pissed or need to be pissed to have something to rant about .

[justmehere]

lianau, maybe I've misunderstood. Are you saying there's no justification for viewers potentially being upset by the events in Wentworth and its aftermath? I agree that some people just want to rant, but this is pretty big stuff.

[bluebonnet]

They're not, but I still think people are going to be pissed.

 

Sure, but very unlikely that they would be pissed because Jamie hits Claire.  Probably more because (1)he has recently been raped and tortured and (2)Claire is using an unacceptable form of treatment, albeit the only one she had available based on what she knew.  

lianau, maybe I've misunderstood. Are you saying there's no justification for viewers potentially being upset by the events in Wentworth and its aftermath? I agree that some people just want to rant, but this is pretty big stuff.

Not to speak for lianau, but the response was to the discussion saying that viewers are going to jude this scene the same as they judged Jamie beating Claire after she tried to go back to the rocks.  The scenes aren't comparable in any way.  

[lianau]

exactly , some people will look for  all kinds of reasons to find fault in  drugged ,  feverish , almost dead Jamie fighting off imagined Randall with Claire as a stand in . I really believe there is a certain type of personality out there that is incapable interpreting a scene in its entirety, they will pick words or actions  and ignore the rest while being completely dogmatic about their interpretation . That drives my crazy because it doesn't allow for any discussion , it's my way or the highway.

[justmehere]

Thanks for the clarifications.

[chocolatetruffle]

So here's my speculation/wish list of what I would like to/hope to see in the next episode.  I want to see a quiet conversation between Jamie, Ian, Claire and Jenny around the fireplace.  Don't care how long or the subject matter, I just want to see some Murray/Fraser family bonding.  My other desire is to have Jamie at Lallybroch while Jenny's in labor, so that he's there to comfort Ian during the difficult birth.

 

So what are the odds of my getting either or both of those scenes...

 

...Yeah, I know.  Maybe I should go buy a lottery ticket instead.  The odds are better.

[auntlada]

 

It's in the book ,he describes first how his body has betrayed him and then later that it was an act of love for Randall . I put it in a spoiler in case people don't want to read it 

“He did not just hurt me, or use me. He made love to me, Claire. He hurt me—hurt me badly—while he did it, but it was an act of love to him. And he made me answer him—damn his soul! He made me rouse to him! ....... I could no more stop myself rising to his touch than I could stop myself bleeding when he cut me.”

 

In Voyager, young Ian asks him if he knows about being aroused when you don't want to, and Jamie says something about he knows.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh my. I have read up to Part Four. That is, that's where I stopped and I noticed what scenes they shifted and changed and used for the first half and up until now, and what they left out.

 

I understand they wanted to flesh out Frank's character. BUT. Now? I really wish they had shown us how torn Claire was when she realized how close she was to the Stones in the last episode before the hiatus. I really wish they had. Even if she didn't know it, at least, I, as the reader, could see that she had feelings for Jamie. She was crying as she was debating crossing that burn or water or stones that caused her to fall in and be "saved" by the dragoons who then took her to Randall.

 

And at the risk of getting beaned, and asked if I can't tell abuse when I read/see it, I have to now mention my thoughts on Claire's "beating." Why Gabaldon had Claire state that Jamie had "beaten her within an inch of my life" I will never understand. That sentence would lead me to believe he used his fists on her. Her face, her body. Which wasn't the case at all. I cringed every time Claire or Jamie called it a beating. It was a very harsh spanking.  And Claire also got her licks in--bloodied Jamie's nose and gouged his cheek. 

 

And that's all I'm going to say.

 

Though I still like Show!Jamie more...I wish they'd aired more of the dialogue on the road after Jamie had saved Claire.  And it would have been nice if Randall's attempted rape of Claire had been the one as stated in the book.

 

After saving Claire? I now "SEE" Jamie as a full flesh character.  And yes, the story is now picking up, and the writing is getting better; probably because there's more dialogue? I dunno.

 

I love seeing how Claire is jealous over Jamie and is in self-denial about it.

 

But MAN, are there a lot of TYPOS in the Kindle. I'm pretty sure every time I see the word "porpentine", it's supposed to be porcupine, considering that Claire is describing Jamie's hair sticking up like quills. These stupid typos take me out of the story, because I'm trying to figure out what the actual word is. There was another one, which was supposed to be "concentrate" I'm sure, but the misspelling was so out there.

[ElsieH]

I think porpentine is a real word though.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/porpentine

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think porpentine is a real word though.

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/porpentine

 

Yeah, I Googled it, and it's so NOT what Claire meant when she said it. Not based on the definition I found.  Jaime even responded with you're calling me a hedgehog?

[ElsieH]

What was the definition you found? All I could find is that it is an archaic word that means porcupine. I did forget about the hedgehog bit, that was funny.

[GHScorpiosRule]

What was the definition you found? All I could find is that it is an archaic word that means porcupine. I did forget about the hedgehog bit, that was funny.

 

Something having to with a woman, or some damp wood or something...let me see if I can find it again...

 

Porpentine Charity Heartscape is a feminist video game designer, writer and curator. She is primarily a developer of hypertext games and interactive fiction.

 

porpentine.tumblr.com/

thinking about sick buildings, damp paneling, structural respiration, mold, gaps between walls full of dust and darkness, leaking swamp coolers, the black ...

 

Ahhh, now I see the wiktionary definition of porcupine! But still!

[chocolatetruffle]

I'm familiar with this word because it appears in Shakespeare's plays.  I'm not sure if it's one of the dozens of words that he added to the English language or if it's based on an archaic word, but the meaning is a quilled animal like a porcupine or hedgehog.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm familiar with this word because it appears in Shakespeare's plays.  I'm not sure if it's one of the dozens of words that he added to the English language or if it's based on an archaic word, but the meaning is a quilled animal like a porcupine or hedgehog.

 

Okay then, I stand corrected--but just for that one word. It doesn't change the fact that there are a bunch of hyphenated words that shouldn't be, misspellings of Geillis's name (after the first mentions, her name shows up as Geili), and other typos. Ridiculous.

 

Oh! It's interesting how Murtagh is described as a short, tiny man, who looks like a rat, I think is how Claire sees him, and Show!Murtagh is a tall speciman of a man, who is actually attractive. Heh.

[lianau]

And at the risk of getting beaned, and asked if I can't tell abuse when I read/see it, I have to now mention my thoughts on Claire's "beating." Why Gabaldon had Claire state that Jamie had "beaten her within an inch of my life" I will never understand. That sentence would lead me to believe he used his fists on her. Her face, her body. Which wasn't the case at all. I cringed every time Claire or Jamie called it a beating. It was a very harsh spanking.  And Claire also got her licks in--bloodied Jamie's nose and gouged his cheek. 

Claire is the narrator and at that point mad as hell , of course she's not going to be impartial and analytic.

[chocolatetruffle]

Okay then, I stand corrected--but just for that one word. It doesn't change the fact that there are a bunch of hyphenated words that shouldn't be, misspellings of Geillis's name (after the first mentions, her name shows up as Geili), and other typos. Ridiculous.

 

GH don't shoot the messenger but Claire calls Geillis by that dimuntive "Geillie" in the hardcopy book (although I'll have to check on the spelling), pretty much 5 minutes after she meets her.  I remember thinking it was rather soon for Claire to be using nicknames, but I guess she was desperate for a friend. She rarely refers to her by her full name.  Not to let Kindle off the hook about errors though, because I have noticed punctuation errors.

 

ETA: fixed spelling cause we're not living in a hood...

Edited April 30, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[GHScorpiosRule]

Hmmm...but the Geilli was not in "quotes", meaning we were in Claire's head, and she was talking about when she first met her...and so far the only scenes, if you will, with her, was when she sees her in the forest and then in her home, when Jamie comes to collect her and save that boy pinned to the pillory.

 

I could understand if her name was like that had I'd seen that Claire used her name when speaking to her, but that wasn't the case here.

 

And I noticed the stoopid auto-correct got you, because I'm sure you meant "off the hook", no' "hood."

[chocolatetruffle]

Thanks, fixed that.  Yeah I'll have to go back and check.  I remember her referring to Geillis that way and I'm sure a lot of it was in her head like, "I wondered what Geilli would think about this."  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah I'll have to go back and check.  I remember her referring to Geillis that way and I'm sure a lot of it was in her head like, "I wondered what Geilli would think about this."  

 

UGH. Referring to her by a nickname only hours after meeting her? Whatever, Gabaldon.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Sae....I just now finished Jamie and Jenny's reunion at Lallybroch. I don't understand the reasoning for why dialogue and scenes are being done out of order. Like the ending with Jamie and Jenny about her honor and his life, took place right after their reunion in the book, but in the show, at the end.  And Claire telling Ian about water pepper was while Jamie and Jenny were screaming at each other, etc.

The show has done a horrible job of showing why Claire chose to stay, and for not showing Claire's struggle as to how she came to that decision.

 

Now, I'm not pulling my hair out, as I suspect I would if I were attached to this series, as I know many of the book readers are. And I still love this show. But catching up to where we are in the show, in the book version I'm reading...man...I'd like tae ken the reasonin' behind leaving so much of the substantive stuff OUT, that would explain SO much to the non-book readers.

 

And I like Book!Jenny more. She didn't call Claire a trollop in the book when they met. I'm at 65% in the Kindle version, but at the same time, it says I've a little over 8 more hours of reading time left. I"m wondering how they'll be able to tell the rest without us feeling it 'twas rushed, and what not. I'm already peeved at Ron for admitting that

there will be No mention of Alex at all

in this season. And that is yet ANOTHER pivotal moment that "didn't make it in editing." What utter bullshit.

 

It's not as if Ron and company got the green light to do this show at the last minute. This just smacks of laziness and not caring.

[NoNeinNyet]

I think they did the scenes out of order because they used the one about her honor and his life to relieve the tension between Jamie and Jenny. They clearly made a decision not to have the knock-down drag-out fight that the book had and having them fight and get it over with was how they broke a lot of the tension in the book. Instead, we had that tension through the end with the relief at the end.

[AD55]

I think they did the scenes out of order because they used the one about her honor and his life to relieve the tension between Jamie and Jenny. They clearly made a decision not to have the knock-down drag-out fight that the book had and having them fight and get it over with was how they broke a lot of the tension in the book. Instead, we had that tension through the end with the relief at the end.

 

I agree. Granted, I'm not attached to the books the way others are, but FWIW, TV is a different medium. Moore has said, and I think he's right, that an episode has to have an arc -- a beginning, middle, and end. It makes sense that he would begin with the fight between Jamie and Jenny and end with their reconciliation. In between, we have the progression from Jamie trying to be someone he is not to gradually coming round to realizing that being laird doesn't mean disregarding the opinions of others. With a few quibbles, I've liked the series more the book. That huge fight between Jenny and Jamie, with her grabbing his balls, never rang true for me. It portrayed both of them as unreasonable hysterics, which neither of them is. I don't recall if Jenny's skepticism about Claire in the book stems in part from her being English, but if not, I think that change makes sense. It also rings true to me in the context -- Jamie is lecturing Jenny about being a fallen woman (really, Jamie?), but he's brought some unidentified woman home. If news of Jamie's marriage didn't make its way to Lollybroch along with the trunk or even if it did, Jenny might be getting a little of her own back in matching her brother in the jumping to conclusions department.

Edited May 1, 2015 by AD55

[GHScorpiosRule]

I tend to post whatever I'm feeling as soon as I've seen a show or read a book, so I tend to ramble or come across as meaning one thing, than what I want, heh.

 

I'm not saying what Moore did out of order, etc. was wrong, per se, what ADSS posted makes sense. I guess I mean the more pivotal stuff, that would help the non-book readers understand Claire's actions, ye know?

 

I love this show. Re-reading and posting where I've read up, has me wanting to go back and watch from the beginning!  But I'm still pissed about the you know what not making it in the first season, because WTF?! And I say this as a casual reader. 

[mledawn]

I am reserving judgement on that particular plot point, GHScorpiosRule - it could be delberate misinformation.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I am reserving judgement on that particular plot point, GHScorpiosRule - it could be delberate misinformation.

 

 

I hope you're right, because I read a quote by Ron who said

that mention of Alex got left on the cutting room floor due to editing or something like that and it came off as he didn't know until it was done.  It's stupid.

 

 

But as you say, we shall see.

[bluebonnet]

Based on the newest episode.  I suppose I'll spoiler tag this even though I'm not saying anything about what's in the episode.  Better safe than not.

 

Loved it.  Loved the changes.  I missed some things, but the changes worked really well.  This episode made me think that I can get over all the stuff that resulted from the changes at the rocks that just kept wearing everything else down.  It was a slow episode in some ways, but the characters, I love them so.  Jenny and Ian are so wonderfully cast.  I'm already feeling sad that soon we won't be seeing them for a while.  

[absnow54]

You know, I barely noticed Murtagh and Rupert in the book, but I've missed the clansmen something fierce on the show. They've done a great job giving those characters life, and I can't wait to see them pop up again next week.

[WatchrTina]

Okay, here's my speculation for how TeamRon will alter the show vs. the book.  I always thought it was just TOO convenient that the person who finds Claire outside Wentworth just happens to be yet another admirer of Ellen MacKenzie.  So now I think the head of the watch (McQuarrie?) is some how going to come into play instead of the guy who picks up Claire.  He'll come back into the story and will help with the rescue because Jamie "wouldn't leave him" when the Redcoats attacked.  Though I can't figure out how he won't also be a prisoner -- and a wounded one at that.  Maybe he gets loose when Claire sets all those prisoners free and then, instead of running away, he stays in the area, saves Claire from the wolf and then reaches out to people he knows in the area (people with cattle) and that's how he helps with the rescue.

 

Bottom line -- I like that actor and I don't think we've seen the last of him.  He'll come into play a second time -- much like Horrocks.

[GHScorpiosRule]

As horrific as Jamie's torture and rape was in the book, just from Jamie telling Claire about it, I think it needs to be shown on the show, and not just as Jamie telling Claire--unless there will be flashbacks. As long it's not gratuitous, which, really is an oxymoron, because I remember cringing, wincing, having to put the book down when I read it the first time. I'm up to 70% in the book right now. But I know it's coming. I don't know if I'll just tap, tap, tap until it's over or not. I know I've said upthread here I think, that when I re-read the In Deaths, I always skip the horrible parts; because I've done about 10 re-reads since the series reached the 10th book I think.

 

I know I won't be re-reading this book again, for reasons I've already stated.

 

And someone mentioned this in the episode thread, and I'm wondering as well, where is all this talk about Randall dying this season coming from? He's supposed to marry Alex's fiancé? or whoever that woman was that Alex got pregnant, right?

 

And to be honest, when I watch the On Demand episodes, I would much, much RATHER hear from Sam and Cait about the show instead of Ron. There, I said it.  I also wish Starz would put out the 2 minute, 4 minutes little interviews that HBO and Showtime have done for their shows. Just because I'm shallow enough to want to hear Sam just speak.

[ulkis]

And someone mentioned this in the episode thread, and I'm wondering as well, where is all this talk about Randall dying this season coming from? He's supposed to marry Alex's fiancé? or whoever that woman was that Alex got pregnant, right?

 

I just meant, if they follow the first book, the viewers are gonna THINK that Randall died. Well, maybe some of them will. A good deal of people will realize I'm sure no body = not dead.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I just meant, if they follow the first book, the viewers are gonna THINK that Randall died. Well, maybe some of them will. A good deal of people will realize I'm sure no body = not dead.

 

Ohhh, I see what you mean. But if they think that, then it means Frank will never be born,  considering a good deal of them think that Frank is directly descended from Black Jack and not Alex.

[bluebonnet]

The time travel paradoxes has been discussed to death among my unspoiled friends.  I'm the only one who has read the books, so I have to keep my mouth shut a lot.  They all actually think the rocks didn't work for Claire to return and have offered a number of speculations for how in another timeline Claire could have come to Scotland in order to first go through the rocks.  One is the Scottish lover Frank wondered Claire might have had.  They use the 'ghost' as evidence that a Scottish boyfriend might exist in a different timeline.