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

[ulkis]

I guess so, but I remember when I was reading I was like, well, guess he's dead because the author says so lol.

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if they did something sneaky like flashfoward to 1946 and have Frank clutch his chest or something.

[Hybiscus]

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.

For some silly reason (I think it's the fear that we're anticipating), I tried to read the part where Claire found Jamie in Wentworth, and he volunteers to let Jack Randall have his way with him.  It was so  painful reading about pale, defeated Jamie, I didn't anywhere near the volunteering.  And that's not even the bad scenes!  I may have to "watch" that episode with my eyes closed.

 

When you mentioned OnDemand, I was thinking you meant the podcasts.  I just finished the podcast for 113, and am so annoyed!  They took two of the very best scenes (Jamie and Ian with the hay wagon, and Claire and Jamie discussing children) and talked about some totally uninteresting thing.  And later, they talked for 20 minutes (I may be exaggerating) about the rain!  Sam has said he'd love to do a podcast with Ron, but I suppose it's all down to the schedule.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I guess so, but I remember when I was reading I was like, well, guess he's dead because the author says so lol.

 

Well huh. I didn't remember that. So I guess we have to assume that Randall is already married during this season to Mary, who is carrying the five great grandfather then? I admit, I don't remember any of this and am playing the guessing game here until I read it.

[kieyra]

I haven't read the books but I've read the plot synopses. I wonder how the later arcs will translate to a television show, and whether it will be the show the audience is expecting. For example, they did all this character work at Castle Leoch with Dougal and Geillis and everyone else, but it sounds like all of that is essentially over at this point in the books? (I understand Geillis comes back, but as far as the milieu established in the first couple of episodes, that's all over?)

[bluebonnet]

I haven't read the books but I've read the plot synopses. I wonder how the later arcs will translate to a television show, and whether it will be the show the audience is expecting. For example, they did all this character work at Castle Leoch with Dougal and Geillis and everyone else, but it sounds like all of that is essentially over at this point in the books? (I understand Geillis comes back, but as far as the milieu established in the first couple of episodes, that's all over?)

We see many of the characters again.  Some in the next couple of episodes, some in future seasons.  The milieu of Castle Leoch serves to establish Highland and clan life before the Scots were broken at Culloden.  I don't recall that we ever actually return to Leoch or Cranesmuir, but we know what happened to Castle Leoch.  

[AD55]

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.  

 

I've always wished Outlander did more with the time travel plot, mainly because I'm a fan of stories that mess with time. In the first book, at least, it's just a device to get Claire to the eighteenth century. I've read that DG needed an explanation for why Claire speaks like a modern woman.

 

I recently attended a conference with a friend who loves the TV series but hasn't read the book. It was hard enough keeping my mouth shut, but the main problem was that I don't have a poker face. Each time she speculated wrongly, I tried to look blank -- without much success.

[nodorothyparker]

If they stay true to the book, all the groundwork laid with Dougal where both Claire and Jamie is concerned (and the previews look like they're going there) is going to bubble up in the next episode in Claire's efforts to get help rescuing Jamie.

 

As far as all the clan politicking with Dougal and Colum, yes, unless Ron Moore adds more of it in and he might because he seems to like it, that doesn't come up again until the second book during the Rising.  We're only later told what the English did to Castle Leoch.

[lianau]

I guess so, but I remember when I was reading I was like, well, guess he's dead because the author says so lol.

 

 

When I read the books for the first time I hadn't realized that it's a book series and started with book 2 so I never had that moment where I thought Jack had been killed (or went all wtf at Claire being in the 20th century again).

 

Well huh. I didn't remember that. So I guess we have to assume that Randall is already married during this season to Mary, who is carrying the five great grandfather then? I admit, I don't remember any of this and am playing the guessing game here until I read it.

Mary Hawkins is supposed to marry an ugly old French guy  and Claire and Jamie take this as proof that Jack is really dead , they don't really have an answer for the existence of Claire's golden wedding ring though . Claire is sure that Frank's ancestor is not an illegitimate child (Frank being very thorough with his family tree) and they don't have an answer until Jack returns and shit hits the fan and even then they only get the true answer later when they find out about Alex and Mary .

 

 

Claire, Jamie, Jack , Alex and Mary have one scene together that I really would love to see on screen, Mary's and Jack's wedding with Claire and Jamie in attendance . 

[Liser78]

 

Claire, Jamie, Jack , Alex and Mary have one scene together that I really would love to see on screen, Mary's and Jack's wedding with Claire and Jamie in attendance . 

If they don't include mention of Alex in the next episodes (which we have established already per Ron), it drastically undercuts the tension of this scene.  And I really want to see this scene, 

[bluebonnet]

I don't think it undercuts the tension at all.  There is still a lot of drama and tension with Jamie standing in for Mary and Jack's marriage.  By this point, Claire and Jamie have lost so much to this man all because they needed Frank to exist in order for Claire and Jamie to be together, only now they discover that Jack isn't even the direct ancestor.  

[Keeta]

2 things:

 

I'm looking forward to Wentworth as little as anyone. However, I'm hoping for a silver lining. I've been seeing comments from critics and viewers about the amount of rape and/or captures-and-rescues in the show, and how they are becoming a bit repetitive. I think Wentworth, then, will be genuinely shocking (for more than the obvious reason), that Claire doesn't just swoop in at the nick of time like Jamie did at the mid-season break. Her rescue mission fails. Yes she eventually "saves" him, but from the emotional aftermath, not the event itself.

 

I partly agree with those who are feeling less love for these recent episodes due to dread over Wentworth. I also think it's partly because in the first half of the season, each episode had the underlying theme or driving force of "Claire trying to get back to the stones". Now there's not really much motivation. We haven't gotten to the goal to try and prevent Culloden, and while we know the confrontation with Black Jack is coming, it doesn't feel as momentous. I also think the show is most successful when the emotional stakes are high, and Claire and Jamie become closer as a result. I loved the quieter moments at Lallybroch in the book, but I'm not sure the show has been totally successful in translating them to the screen. Episodes 109 and 111 weren't perfect, but for me they had peak Claire and Jamie moments that were significant in their relationship.

[DittyDotDot]

Was just reading the non-book thread for the latest episode and I think the show is starting to have major problems selling the show's central love story, problems almost entirely of their own making. Because they've built up Frank, he's seen as her true love with whom she was perfectly happy. You have people who don't get why Claire is content to remain in 1743 just because she's met some hot Scottish guy, especially when she was thisclose to getting back to Frank not very long ago. From what they've seen, she was a respected professional in her own time, rather than a combat nurse pushed back into the homemaker role, now that the war was over. Why can't she take Jamie to the future, and why does he just believe her about the technology in the twentieth century? They've already had it with what a creepy sadist Black Jack is, and all the rape/attempted rape that's already been shown. So good luck to the show, stemming the revolt once Wentworth comes along, not to mention S2, if those viewers haven't bailed already. 

 

I've read this sentiment quite a bit in this thread and I have to say I'm perplexed by this. I haven't read the books (although, I did start reading Outlander last night) and I've only watched up to episode eight.

 

Personally, I appreciate they gave more dimension to Frank on the show. But, I'm one of those weirdoes who doesn't think there is only one true love for everyone. I think Claire can love Frank and Jamie at the same time and for different reasons. I think giving Frank more dimension makes it an actual choice for Clair rather than a given--like the decision to marry Jamie--and actually gives more depth to Claire's character. IMO, that's actual conflict rather than drama for drama's sake.  Claire will be loved in either life she chooses, but what life does Claire want to live?  Man or not; does she want the safety and security of the 1940s or the adventure and thrill of the 1740s? I just want her to commit to whatever decision she chooses, but I see reasons why she would choose either.

 

Sorry, got off on a little tangent there...my original point was that even though I see there is a real relationship between Clair and Frank, I don't think it detracts from seeing the budding relationship of Claire and Jamie. Plus, no matter what TPTB do, some people will never like it. You can't please everyone and everyone watches for different reasons, so I wouldn't get too worried over some viewers dropping out, others will likely drop in.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've read this sentiment quite a bit in this thread and I have to say I'm perplexed by this. I haven't read the books (although, I did start reading Outlander last night) and I've only watched up to episode eight.

The problem for me? After having started reading the book again after watching it? Because I didn't remember Frank being so awesome.  And like I posted in the Unpopular thread--if the show had shown Frank's flaws/faults as well, and no, just his asking Claire if she'd had an affair during the war doesn't prove to me, at any rate, see! He's not perfect! If they'd had the scene where Claire approached adopting, and Frank's absolute quick shutdown of that as a possiblity, that he wanted a child of his own blood, because he didn't think he could accept a child not biologically his. That might've made it a more even playing field. Plus, the show also failed to demonstrate or, show us (sorry with all these puns), Claire's struggle to stay or go. And why she stayed.

 

As for me dreading Wentworth; Aye, I'm verra much dreadin' it, but the dread hasna impacted how I feel about the previous episodes leading up to it. I'm enjoying them immensely.

[chocolatetruffle]

I think giving Frank more dimension makes it an actual choice for Clair rather than a given--like the decision to marry Jamie--and actually gives more depth to Claire's character. IMO, that's actual conflict rather than drama for drama's sake.  Claire will be loved in either life she chooses, but what life does Claire want to live?  Man or not; does she want the safety and security of the 1940s or the adventure and thrill of the 1740s? I just want her to commit to whatever decision she chooses, but I see reasons why she would choose either.

 

This is actually the central point of the conflict.  It's Claire's decision that is the story here and I'm glad you got this from the show.  There are some viewers that lost sight of this because they can't see past the multiple rape attempts (although there hasn't actually been a rape, yet).  Also, the show saved the major character development for Jamie until the second half of the season.  In the front half, there is actually a lot of time devoted to establishing Jamie's character, but it is a lot more subtle because it's seen through Claire's eyes.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm just thankful we didn't hear Claire call Jamie "The lad Jamie...the young lad Jaime..." in the show.

[DittyDotDot]

The problem for me? After having started reading the book again after watching it? Because I didn't remember Frank being so awesome.  And like I posted in the Unpopular thread--if the show had shown Frank's flaws/faults as well, and no, just his asking Claire if she'd had an affair during the war doesn't prove to me, at any rate, see! He's not perfect! If they'd had the scene where Claire approached adopting, and Frank's absolute quick shutdown of that as a possiblity, that he wanted a child of his own blood, because he didn't think he could accept a child not biologically his. That might've made it a more even playing field. Plus, the show also failed to demonstrate or, show us (sorry with all these puns), Claire's struggle to stay or go. And why she stayed.

 

I guess I'm perplexed as to why Frank has to be bad or unlikeable for Claire to choose to stay in the past? I think Frank could be the most perfect person ever (which I never got the impression he was) and she love him completely, but Claire could still choose a life without him. Why is Claire's choice a competition between who is the better man? Can't they both be good men and yet flawed men? This is my problem with the whole romance genre in general. They make too much out of who is the better and more awesome man and not enough out of what the woman wants for her life.

[AD55]

Personally, I appreciate they gave more dimension to Frank on the show. But, I'm one of those weirdoes who doesn't think there is only one true love for everyone. I think Claire can love Frank and Jamie at the same time and for different reasons. I think giving Frank more dimension makes it an actual choice for Clair rather than a given--like the decision to marry Jamie--and actually gives more depth to Claire's character. IMO, that's actual conflict rather than drama for drama's sake.  Claire will be loved in either life she chooses, but what life does Claire want to live?  Man or not; does she want the safety and security of the 1940s or the adventure and thrill of the 1740s? I just want her to commit to whatever decision she chooses, but I see reasons why she would choose either.

 

I also don't think the development of Frank and Claire's relationship detracts from Claire's decision to stay with Jamie. If Frank is a nonentity as he is in the book, then the decision is a no brainer.

 

As I think someone already mentioned  in this thread or another, it's possible to exaggerate how safe and secure the 1940s would seem to Claire. She just survived the bloodiest war in history -- one that included the dropping of the atom bomb, the Holocaust, and the Battle of Britain. Scotland in the 1740s might have looked like a walk in the park by comparison. The book emphasizes the hot baths and toilet paper, but I think the savagery of the modern world might also have given Claire pause.

Edited May 4, 2015 by AD55

[GHScorpiosRule]

I guess I'm perplexed as to why Frank has to be bad or unlikeable for Claire to choose to stay in the past? I think Frank could be the most perfect person ever (which I never got the impression he was) and she love him completely, but Claire could still choose a life without him. Why is Claire's choice a competition between who is the better man? Can't they both be good men and yet flawed men? This is my problem with the whole romance genre in general. They make too much out of who is the better and more awesome man and not enough out of what the woman wants for her life.

 

 

I wasn't saying that Frank has to be unlikeable. If you're going to flesh out a character, then flesh him or her out, with good points and bad points. To me, they painted Frank as perfect--with nary a flaw. The whole running toward the stones "toward Frank" and screaming when the dragoons dragged her away, demonstrated that Claire didn't have any feelings for Jamie. Not deep, conflicting feelings.  It was too one-sided, and that's why I'm not a fan of that episode.  Because in the book, we see Claire's struggle to decide which is best for her. What she feels at the thought of just leaving and disappearing and what she thinks Jamie will feel about that.

 

As for your last line, I don't see any of that in the romances I read, so I can't really respond to that, except with what I've said. {shrugs}

 

 

As I think someone already mentioned  in this thread or another, it's possible to exaggerate how safe and secure the 1940s would seem to Claire. She just survived the bloodiest war in history -- one that included the dropping of the atom bomb, the Holocaust, and the Battle of Britain. Scotland in the 1840s might have looked like a walk in the park by comparison. The book emphasizes the hot baths and toilet paper, but I think the savagery of the modern world might also have given Claire pause.

 

I'm sorry AD55, I know you mean 1740s, right? I promise, last time I correct ye! :P

Edited May 4, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[AD55]

 

I guess I'm perplexed as to why Frank has to be bad or unlikeable for Claire to choose to stay in the past? I think Frank could be the most perfect person ever (which I never got the impression he was) and she love him completely, but Claire could still choose a life without him. Why is Claire's choice a competition between who is the better man? Can't they both be good men and yet flawed men? This is my problem with the whole romance genre in general. They make too much out of who is the better and more awesome man and not enough out of what the woman wants for her life.

 

 

 

I wasn't saying that Frank has to be unlikeable. If you're going to flesh out a character, then flesh him or her out, with good points and bad points. To me, they painted Frank as perfect--with nary a flaw. The whole running toward the stones "toward Frank" and screaming when the dragoons dragged her away, demonstrated that Claire didn't have any feelings for Jamie. Not deep, conflicting feelings.  It was too one-sided, and that's why I'm not a fan of that episode.  Because in the book, we see Claire's struggle to decide which is best for her. What she feels at the thought of just leaving and disappearing and what she thinks Jamie will feel about that.

 

As for your last line, I don't see any of that in the romances I read, so I can't really respond to that, except with what I've said. {shrugs}

 

 

As I think someone already mentioned  in this thread or another, it's possible to exaggerate how safe and secure the 1940s would seem to Claire. She just survived the bloodiest war in history -- one that included the dropping of the atom bomb, the Holocaust, and the Battle of Britain. Scotland in the 1840s might have looked like a walk in the park by comparison. The book emphasizes the hot baths and toilet paper, but I think the savagery of the modern world might also have given Claire pause.

 

I'm sorry AD55, I know you mean 1740s, right? I promise, last time I correct ye! :P

 

 

 

Feel free to correct me anytime I mess up. I edited my post.

[DittyDotDot]

I wasn't saying that Frank has to be unlikeable. If you're going to flesh out a character, then flesh him or her out, with good points and bad points. To me, they painted Frank as perfect--with nary a flaw. The whole running toward the stones "toward Frank" and screaming when the dragoons dragged her away, demonstrated that Claire didn't have any feelings for Jamie. Not deep, conflicting feelings.  It was too one-sided, and that's why I'm not a fan of that episode.  Because in the book, we see Claire's struggle to decide which is best for her. What she feels at the thought of just leaving and disappearing and what she thinks Jamie will feel about that.

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm stating it very well. What I'm saying is, whether she has feelings for Jamie or Frank seems immaterial to me. Claire could choose to stay in the past simply because she loved Jamie the best even though she didn't want to be in the past, but Jamie could die in their next skirmish and then what where would she be? She could decide to go back to the 1940s because she missed Frank, but maybe Frank moved on and married someone else and then where would she be? What I'm saying the choice isn't (or shouldn't be) about what man she loves more, but what life she wants to live. The men will come and go, but does Claire want to live in the 1740s or the 1940s with or without a man? That's why I prefer what the show did with Frank. Not to flesh out Frank's character, but to add more depth to Claire's character.

 

As to whether her running to the stones demonstrated her lack of feelings for Jamie...I don't think that was a factor at that time. She was totally disoriented and surprised to see where she was after she had been almost raped earlier that day and killed a man to save herself. Her instinct was to flee. Pure and simple. To me, she wasn't running to Frank and away from Jamie, but to safety and away from danger. Personally, I think they showed us plenty how much Claire cared about Jamie all season--it wasn't the same type of love she shared with Frank, but I think it's obvious myself. Which is why I'm perplexed that people feel like they haven't built up Jamie and Claire's relationship enough.

[chocolatetruffle]

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm stating it very well. What I'm saying is, whether she has feelings for Jamie or Frank seems immaterial to me. Claire could choose to stay in the past simply because she loved Jamie the best even though she didn't want to be in the past, but Jamie could die in their next skirmish and then what where would she be? She could decide to go back to the 1940s because she missed Frank, but maybe Frank moved on and married someone else and then where would she be? What I'm saying the choice isn't (or shouldn't be) about what man she loves more, but what life she wants to live. The men will come and go, but does Claire want to live in the 1740s or the 1940s with or without a man? That's why I prefer what the show did with Frank. Not to flesh out Frank's character, but to add more depth to Claire's character.

 

As to whether her running to the stones demonstrated her lack of feelings for Jamie...I don't think that was a factor at that time. She was totally disoriented and surprised to see where she was after she had been almost raped earlier that day and killed a man to save herself. Her instinct was to flee. Pure and simple. To me, she wasn't running to Frank and away from Jamie, but to safety and away from danger. Personally, I think they showed us plenty how much Claire cared about Jamie all season--it wasn't the same type of love she shared with Frank, but I think it's obvious myself. Which is why I'm perplexed that people feel like they haven't built up Jamie and Claire's relationship enough.

 

I think you stated it perfectly.  You are a very thoughtful viewer as are most of the people who post on this board. It's one of the reasons that I enjoy coming here to read and post.  However, there are people who make up their mind about something and will only see those facts that support their views.  I've seen posts on the non-book thread that view Jamie as merely Claire's bed-buddy with no character development of his own.  I wonder what show they are watching.  Did they fast-forwarded thru all of Jamie's scenes??  It's fascinating how the human mind works sometimes and I'm glad that people can safely express their thoughts here.

 

The show has mostly done a good job with setting the ground work for Jamie & Claire's love story.  Have there been missed opportunities to clarify or enhance?  Absolutely.  I've often complained that sometimes they sacrifice opportunities to show vulnerability and caring for Jamie on Claire's part in order to show how "strong" she is.  However, these last two episodes (since the decision) have been excellent at portraying Claire & Jamie, the couple.

[Athena]

Hello, Sassenachs. As of today, we have made the decision that book posters should not post or like in the Non-Book threads. Please read the full announcement post here.

 

While you all have been generally good about not posting spoilers, we've had a couple of reports and certain unsullied have preferred no book poster influence whatsoever. This will be the best solution and most of you post exclusively in the book threads now any way.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

[AD55]

As to whether her running to the stones demonstrated her lack of feelings for Jamie...I don't think that was a factor at that time. She was totally disoriented and surprised to see where she was after she had been almost raped earlier that day and killed a man to save herself. Her instinct was to flee. Pure and simple. To me, she wasn't running to Frank and away from Jamie, but to safety and away from danger.

 

I hadn't thought of it in terms of her situation at that precise moment, but it makes perfect sense. Claire was probably still in shock. I recall that line where she says she knows that Jamie is worried about her, but she is afraid to talk to him. I assumed it was because she was worried she would blurt out the story of how she got to Scotland. Running away from danger also means returning to someone who knows who she is. Staying with Jamie is a more tenable choice once she no longer has to lie to him.

[WatchrTina]

 

If they don't include mention of Alex in the next episodes (which we have established already per Ron), it drastically undercuts the tension of this scene.  And I really want to see this scene,

If there is no mention of Black Jack's brother Alex during the Wentworth rape/torture scenes that suggests to me that the show-runners have decided that Jack is a sufficiently sick mofo of a villain without adding an incestuous obsession with his little brother into the mix.  I also think that the show wants to portray Jack as an equal-opportunity sadist and not a gay sadist (in accordance with Diana's recent views on the matter) so they don't want a scene of Jack calling Jamie "Alex" and demanding that he say "I love you."  

 

But even if Alex is not addressed in the next three episodes, I think it's possible for him to be introduced (and almost killed in a case of mistaken identity) in that scene at Versalles in a very powerful way.  And I see no reason why his delayed introduction should rob the Jack/Mary wedding scene of any of its power and tension.

 

I still hope Tobias plays Alex.

 

I will be amused to read (but not respond to) the unsullied reaction to hearing that Jack was trampled to death by cows and their discussion of the time-travel paradox that creates.

Edited May 8, 2015 by WatchrTina

[CatMack]

I honestly have no issue with them cutting that reference to Alex, because IMO it implies an incestious feeling from Jack that I don't think ever really affects book 2.  I mean, maybe there was something overt I'm forgetting, or maybe there was subtext I didn't pick up on, but their relationship in book 2 seemed like a fairly normal brotherly one to me.  Maybe a touch obsessive, but I read it more as Jack being obsessive/possessive because Alex was his one real close relationship, rather than it being something sexual and incestous.  I don't even remember if Claire or Jamie ever bring it up, that Jack calls out Alex's name, when they meet his brother named Alex.  Does anyone else remember?  Am I just forgetting a lot about Jack and Alex in book 2?

[WatchrTina]

No CatMack, you are remembering correctly (or at least you and I remember the same way.)  I remember thinking it was odd that Jamie & Claire never discuss the fact that Jack's brother is named "Alex" and that Jack called Jamie "Alex" during the rape/torture.  At least, I wondered at Diana's decision not to revisit that little factoid.  But in retrospect, it actually makes sense.  I'm sure Jamie & Claire did not talk about the specifics of what Jamie went through after that one soul-bearing conversation.  I also recall Roger-the-historian making a comment in DIA that Alex or Alexander is one of the most common names in 18th century Scotland.  So it's actually credible that Jamie never made the connection (he assumed Jack was calling him by his own second name) and Claire would probably have no good reason to bring it up and make Jamie think of that terrible time.

Edited May 5, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Dejana]

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm stating it very well. What I'm saying is, whether she has feelings for Jamie or Frank seems immaterial to me. Claire could choose to stay in the past simply because she loved Jamie the best even though she didn't want to be in the past, but Jamie could die in their next skirmish and then what where would she be? She could decide to go back to the 1940s because she missed Frank, but maybe Frank moved on and married someone else and then where would she be? What I'm saying the choice isn't (or shouldn't be) about what man she loves more, but what life she wants to live. The men will come and go, but does Claire want to live in the 1740s or the 1940s with or without a man? That's why I prefer what the show did with Frank. Not to flesh out Frank's character, but to add more depth to Claire's character.

 

The books, though, showed more of Claire finding a useful place in life, outside of being in love with Jamie, in the 1700s. You saw more of her settling in and really enjoying her work as a healer and having a sense of home and family that she'd lacked in the twentieth century. It hasn't been completely omitted from the series, but at times the priority of the showrunners has seemed to be ramping up the threats of kidnapping and capture and rape.

 

If a viewer knows the general career trajectory of the women who pitched in and did their part during World War II, they'd know that 1945 Claire wasn't going to get to continue in nursing and was expected, by Frank, no less, to be the dutiful professor's wife. But some non-book readers think Frank is so loving and supportive that of course, he'd have no problem with her continuing to work outside the home, so that can't possibly be a factor in Claire's decision to stay in 1743. When you largely minimize/erase any conflicts or issues that Claire had with life in general (and Frank) in 1945 as the series has, it skews the story and leaves the viewer filling in gaps that didn't exist on the page. Now, when Claire came back to the twentieth century, she did eventually go to medical school and Frank did help out with Bree, but he did not come to that choice because he was this super enlightened guy who thought working women were so awesome! It was more that she'd made her decision and being supportive of it would be the best thing for their daughter.

 

I just think the creative choices made in portraying Frank so far are rather...curious, considering that Book 2 starts with the character dead, with him not coming back to life, or traveling back in time to win Claire's heart, or Claire traveling to the future to save Frank's life, as of Book 8. More often than not, the infrequent glimpses of their life together in the twentieth century show an increasingly unhappy couple held together by their love for their daughter, but even that falls apart by the bitter end. Sure, there are always people who are going to watch a series and not like its central couple, but when the writing greatly helps along that sentiment, is it any wonder some viewers might end up being biased toward the largely rosy picture that was painted of Claire's old life?

Edited May 5, 2015 by Dejana

[lianau]

I will be amused to read (but not respond to) the unsullied reaction to hearing that Jack was trampled to death by cows and their discussion of the time-travel paradox that creates.

I feel soo sorry for them , they don't know what is about to hit them . And I really hope they kept the cows , it's the only bit to break the tension.

[WatchrTina]

 

I really hope they kept the cows, it's the only bit to break the tension.

And they should be Highland cows.  Big, shaggy, ginger Highland cows.  Because they are ADORABLE.

[DittyDotDot]

I just think the creative choices made in portraying Frank so far are rather...curious, considering that Book 2 starts with the character dead, with him not coming back to life, or traveling back in time to win Claire's heart, or Claire traveling to the future to save Frank's life, as of Book 8. More often than not, the infrequent glimpses of their life together in the twentieth century show an increasingly unhappy couple held together by their love for their daughter, but even that falls apart by the bitter end. Sure, there are always people who are going to watch a series and not like its central couple, but when the writing greatly helps along that sentiment, is it any wonder some viewers might end up being biased toward the largely rosy picture that was painted of Claire's old life?

 

I guess I just never had the sense that Claire's life was all that rosy with Frank on the show. On the surface, it looks somewhat perfect, but once she travels back in time she starts to see the cracks in the façade, IMO. I find it makes perfect sense for the show to show a more idealized version of Frank early-on; that's how Claire is seeing him at that time and the show is seen through Claire's eyes. But I also I fully expect that viewpoint to change as the seasons progress. (And, not just because I spoiled myself, but that's how I actually felt watching the first couple episodes.) But even though he appears somewhat idealized at first, he also came off as safe and not really someone I would think Claire would be happy with long-term. I do see they love and care for each other, though, but love and happiness aren't always the same thing.

 

In my mind, Claire seemed bored and unengaged with her life in the 1940s, on the show, but came alive in the 1740s. She seemed to thrive on solving her own problems, learning about medicine in the 1700s, helping people and such. So, I think they showed us quite a bit of Claire settling into her new life in the episodes at Leoch and the episodes of them on the road showed us how much she was growing to appreciate this family she'd never had before. And I think they showed us her budding friendship/attraction and growing attachment to Jamie quite well too. I thought the show did a great job of making both Jamie and Frank both on par (for different reasons) thus making Claire choosing one life or the other a real conflict.

 

To sum up: I was only responding to the worry some of you seemed to have in thinking non-book readers wouldn't understand why Claire would want to stay in the past with Jamie--I'm a non-book reader and I'm standing here saying I do understand why Claire would be drawn to a life with Jamie and found it spelled out quite clearly on the show.

 

Was I actually successful in calming any of your worries it the real question though? ;)

[AD55]

If a viewer knows the general career trajectory of the women who pitched in and did their part during World War II, they'd know that 1945 Claire wasn't going to get to continue in nursing and was expected, by Frank, no less, to be the dutiful professor's wife. But some non-book readers think Frank is so loving and supportive that of course, he'd have no problem with her continuing to work outside the home, so that can't pssibly be a factor in Claire's decision to stay in 1743. When you largely minimize/erase any conflicts or issues that Claire had with life in general (and Frank) in 1945 as the series has, it skews the story and leaves the viewer filling in gaps that didn't exist on the page. Now, when Claire came back to the twentieth century, she did eventually go to medical school and Frank did help out with Bree, but he did not come to that choice because he was this super enlightened guy who thought working women were so awesome! It was more that she'd made her decision and being supportive of it would be the best thing for their daughter.

Viewers may know what happened to many career women after the war, but Claire didn't. We don't know that Claire and Frank had the talk, "so, darling, you will have to give up nursing and host garden parties for the other tutors and their wives." If Frank was inclined to be draconian, perhaps Claire would have convinced him otherwise. (Jamie can be pretty draconian himself.) I think the show does depict conflicts between Frank and Claire -- his wanting to pull strings when she is posted to the front, their awkwardness with one another, her boredom at his interests. I think of Frank and Claire as decent people who might have made a go of their marriage, even if it wasn't ideal. In some ways, that's a more realistic view of marriage than the endless honeymoon of Jamie and Claire. Don't get me wrong -- that fantasy is one of the charms of the books and I really enjoy it. I just don't find it all that realistic.

 

I've always thought that Frank's infidelity in the books was largely motivated by his living with a woman who disappeared for a lengthy period of time, came back pregnant, and no longer loves him. Perhaps he should have divorced her -- Claire makes it clear that she is not only willing to let him go but is indifferent to what he does. I don't know why he didn't. I'm pretty sure I would have. I've never found his falling immediately in love with Brianna to be all that convincing.

 

ETA. Just to clarify, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say. It's more that I think that the show does depict the cracks in Frank and Claire's marriage, even though it's more subtle than the books.

Edited May 5, 2015 by AD55

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, not sure where to put this, but I'm confused. Is Claire pregnant with Bree when she first returns to the 20th century? or with Faith? I've seen talk of Bree and what happens to her, how Frank accepts and loves her...but nothing about Faith? And talk about how Faith was conceived in the abbey? If this is the wrong place to ask, Mods, please feel free to move to appropriate thread.

 

And as for Jamie and Claire' relationship not being realistic? Personally, I don't care. Realism is not why I read romances, romantic suspense, historical romances. It's for the romance, and just seeing how the hero and heroine fall in love, fight obstacles, get their happily ever after, or if in a series, how they manage married life, children in other books (i.e. Johanna Lindsay's Malory series).  Even if said couple show up as secondary characters in future books. Just saying that's how I feel.

 

And y'all know I'm not a purist here--heck, I only got so far as 1/3 through Voyager. But I plan to amend that and try to read the entire series, though I understand that it's still ongoing.

[AheadofStraight]

 

Okay, not sure where to put this, but I'm confused. Is Claire pregnant with Bree when she first returns to the 20th century? or with Faith? I've seen talk of Bree and what happens to her, how Frank accepts and loves her...but nothing about Faith? And talk about how Faith was conceived in the abbey? If this is the wrong place to ask, Mods, please feel free to move to appropriate thread.

 

Yes, she is pregnant with Bree.  If my swiss cheese memory is correct, she was pregnant with Faith earlier in the 2nd book but she doesn't survive and Claire almost dies too but Master Raymond does some magical healing with blue light and she is suddenly all better. 

[CatMack]

Yes, the structure of the story makes it sound like she's pregnant with Bree during the beginning of the 1700s parts of book 2, but then she miscarries and nearly dies and Faith Fraser is buried in France and everything is sad and horrible.  Claire and Jamie realize she's pregnant again with Bree literally right before she goes back through the stones.  In fact it's pretty much the only reason she agrees to go back instead of staying to, she assumes, die with Jamie.  If I recall correctly, she mentions to someone (though I can't remember if it's Jamie or Roger or Bree) it was a difficult pregnancy again and neither would have probably survived if she hadn't been back in the 20th century. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks AheadofStraight and CatMack! Now my confusion, it is a cleared!

[CalamityBoPeep]

No CatMack, you are remembering correctly (or at least you and I remember the same way.)  I remember thinking it was odd that Jamie & Claire never discuss the fact that Jack's brother is named "Alex" and that Jack called Jamie "Alex" during the rape/torture.  At least, I wondered at Diana's decision not to revisit that little factoid.  But in retrospect, it actually makes sense.  I'm sure Jamie & Claire did not talk about the specifics of what Jamie went through after that one soul-bearing conversation.  I also recall Roger-the-historian making a comment in DIA that Alex or Alexander is one of the most common names in 18th century Scotland.  So it's actually credible that Jamie never made the connection (he assumed Jack was calling him by his own second name) and Claire would probably have no good reason to bring it up and make Jamie think of that terrible time.

 

I also fanwanked that they could have assumed right after the fact that "Alex" referred to the former owner (the one that killed himself after submitting to Randall) of the Bible that Jamie meant to return.  Wasn't that person an Alex too?  If that's the case, it may just never have crossed their minds to rethink the first assumption.  In the aftermath of Wentworth, that tidbit may have just gotten lost in the mental shuffle.  

 

Or I'm just creating a story in my head to make up for the one not on the page.  Heh.

[ulkis]

I also fanwanked that they could have assumed right after the fact that "Alex" referred to the former owner (the one that killed himself after submitting to Randall) of the Bible that Jamie meant to return. 

 

I thought that's who was meant too.

[bluebonnet]

I think this goes to show that "Alex" could have been anyone and yet no matter who it was, it was still about Black Jack hurting someone and perhaps also about his wanting to be accepted or even loved for the dark sadist that he is.  

[AheadofStraight]

Diana has said that she doesn't know which Alex it was...

[GHScorpiosRule]

Diana has said that she doesn't know which Alex it was...

 

Seriously???? I have no words.

[WatchrTina]

Yeah, I'm not buying that Diana doesn't know which Alex it was.  I think Diana created a big, bad, gay villain who harbored an incestuous love for his little brother (in the novel she wrote for practice and never expected to show to anyone) and then when she started getting backlash she decided to deflect criticism by saying "Oh he's not gay -- he's an equal-opportunity sadist."  But the hint in book one that he was sexually attracted to and romantically loved his little brother contradicts that so . . . now she claims not to know who he meant.

 

Whatever.  I think the backlash from her book 1 gay villain led her to create Lord John, a gay hero, as a counter-point and I love that character so . . .  silver lining!

[AheadofStraight]

Yeah, I didn't say I bought her explanation, just putting out what she has said recently. :)  I enjoy Lord John as well!

[bluebonnet]

Yeah, I'm not buying that Diana doesn't know which Alex it was.  I think Diana created a big, bad, gay villain who harbored an incestuous love for his little brother (in the novel she wrote for practice and never expected to show to anyone) and then when she started getting backlash she decided to deflect criticism by saying "Oh he's not gay -- he's an equal-opportunity sadist."  But the hint in book one that he was sexually attracted to and romantically loved his little brother contradicts that so . . . now she claims not to know who he meant.

 

Whatever.  I think the backlash from her book 1 gay villain led her to create Lord John, a gay hero, as a counter-point and I love that character so . . .  silver lining!

But if this were the case, why would she even bother naming Jack's brother Alexander?  What would be the point if she had already decided that the backlash from her 'gay villain' (which, YMMV, he always appeared to be just a sadist to me) was enough to change her direction?  

[AD55]

Yeah, I'm not buying that Diana doesn't know which Alex it was.  I think Diana created a big, bad, gay villain who harbored an incestuous love for his little brother (in the novel she wrote for practice and never expected to show to anyone) and then when she started getting backlash she decided to deflect criticism by saying "Oh he's not gay -- he's an equal-opportunity sadist."  But the hint in book one that he was sexually attracted to and romantically loved his little brother contradicts that so . . . now she claims not to know who he meant.

 

Whatever.  I think the backlash from her book 1 gay villain led her to create Lord John, a gay hero, as a counter-point and I love that character so . . .  silver lining!

 

This. A thousand times this.

[lianau]

Yeah, I'm not buying that Diana doesn't know which Alex it was.  I think Diana created a big, bad, gay villain who harbored an incestuous love for his little brother (in the novel she wrote for practice and never expected to show to anyone) and then when she started getting backlash she decided to deflect criticism by saying "Oh he's not gay -- he's an equal-opportunity sadist."  But the hint in book one that he was sexually attracted to and romantically loved his little brother contradicts that so . . . now she claims not to know who he meant.

 

Whatever.  I think the backlash from her book 1 gay villain led her to create Lord John, a gay hero, as a counter-point and I love that character so . . .  silver lining!

I don't think Jack is capable of normal affection and Alex is obviously the only really close relationship he has so I have no trouble believing that this relationship is also fucked up .

[WatchrTina]

 

But if this were the case, why would she even bother naming Jack's brother Alexander?  What would be the point if she had already decided that the backlash from her 'gay villain' (which, YMMV, he always appeared to be just a sadist to me) was enough to change her direction?

She named him Alex in book 1 -- before the backlash happened.  When Jamie bares his soul to Claire at the Abbey at the end of book 1, telling her all the agonizing details of his time at Wentworth, he tells her that bit too -- that Jack had held him in a lover's embrace, calling him Alex and demanding that he say "I love you." (Jamie won't, Jack loses his temper and beats him mindlessly -- in contrast to the meticulous lashings he had administered before.)  When Jamie tells her that Claire  recollects Frank's family tree and recalls the younger brother named Alex.  If Diana didn't want us to assume that Jack had an incestuous love for his younger brother Alex, then why did she have Claire have that flash of insight?  Nope, I still stay Diana regretted what she wrote and is now engaging in a bit of revisionist history.

 

As further evidence of my point of view, I argue that Jack's story and John's story parallel one another in that both include an episode in which a gay man takes to wife a woman who is loved by the man he loves but cannot have, helping the man he loves by taking his (Alex's / Jamie's) beloved under his own protection.  Jack does it in Book 2 when he marries Mary and John does it in book 7 when he marries Claire.  I think Diana repeated herself -- perhaps deliberately, perhaps not -- and I find it darned interesting.

Edited May 5, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bluebonnet]

Again, if she were engaging in revisionist history, it would have made more sense to not have used Alex in the next book.  Or to have changed his name, like how she changed the name of the older Randall brother.  It's very possible that DG regretted having Claire lead readers to a possible incestuous love, but the way it plays out in future books doesn't support the revisionist history theory.  

[AD55]

Again, if she were engaging in revisionist history, it would have made more sense to not have used Alex in the next book.  Or to have changed his name, like how she changed the name of the older Randall brother.  It's very possible that DG regretted having Claire lead readers to a possible incestuous love, but the way it plays out in future books doesn't support the revisionist history theory.  

 

I'm sure I'm being dense -- probably because my memory of the details of future books is woefully inadequate --  but I don't follow your argument. Doesn't the fact that DG doesn't change the name in book 2 mean that she always intended that readers view Jack's love for his brother as incestuous?

 

I still maintain that she's engaging in revisionist history, if not with respect to the incest angle, then at least in terms of having created a character who fits the stereotype of the predatory gay man. As I recall, Jack can't get it up with either Claire or Jenny. He only succeeds with Jamie and Fergus. I continue to think that her special pleading has to do with the criticism she encountered.

 

On a somewhat unrelated note, it would be nice if every straight woman and gay man in Outlander world wasn't attracted to Jamie. I mean, I know he's hot and all, but surely, there are a handful of people who can resist his charms.

[bluebonnet]

I'm sure I'm being dense -- probably because my memory of the details of future books is woefully inadequate --  but I don't follow your argument. Doesn't the fact that DG doesn't change the name in book 2 mean that she always intended that readers view Jack's love for his brother as incestuous?

 

I still maintain that she's engaging in revisionist history, if not with respect to the incest angle, then at least in terms of having created a character who fits the stereotype of the predatory gay man. As I recall, Jack can't get it up with either Claire or Jenny. He only succeeds with Jamie and Fergus. I continue to think that her special pleading has to do with the criticism she encountered.

 

On a somewhat unrelated note, it would be nice if every straight woman and gay man in Outlander world wasn't attracted to Jamie. I mean, I know he's hot and all, but surely, there are a handful of people who can resist his charms.

From what I understand, the revisionist history theory argues that the fact that Jamie didn't react to meeting Alex in a way to suggest that he made the connection and that DG stated that she didn't know who Jack was talking about is evidence of this revisionist history.  If this is actually true and she had intended to revise the character after backlash from the first book, she would have.  She wouldn't have used Alex considering Jack had another brother and also considering she's perfectly content to change the names of characters seeing as she's changed the name of Jack's other brother.  If it's revisionist, then there would be evidence of revising in that second book. There isn't any, imo.

 

Jack doesn't get it up with Jenny for two reasons.  She's just kicked him madly in the balls, he's likely in pain.  Then she's not expressing fear or pain and she's laughing at him.  Someone who becomes sexually aroused by inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation probably isn't going to become aroused when the other person isn't experiencing these things, especially after a receiving a testicular injury.  Claire pointedly remarked on how she was not frightened and how she realized what Randall wanted was for her to be afraid and that he seemed to only react when he screamed.  

 

Now, I recognize that DG is a product of her time and of her culture.  She's Catholic, she was born and raised in Arizona, she started writing this book at the height of AIDS hysteria when gay men were particularly villainized.  I don't deny that she could have very well been writing from a biased perspective.  However, I had never read Black Jack as anything but a sadist with an undiscriminating attraction to all genders and ages, though leaning towards those who he perceived would experience the most humiliation and suffering (that being children and men).  I was surprised to read that others saw Jack differently, though unsurprised that DG would be accused of bias against gays (aka as homophobia).  So I'm not completely unaware.  I just reject the evidence presented for this revisionist history theory because it's not really supported based on the text.  

[tcay]

I read the books straight through without ever reading anything about them, and I definitely thought Black Jack was motivated by an incestuous love of his brother that went unrequited. He's a sadist, to be sure, but I thought he was a gay sadist. 

 

I think DG's compulsion to recast those events is a more recent thing than something she considered in the early '90s, when DiA came out. Personally, I ignore all of her "clarifications"--if the textual evidence is there, her intentions are irrelevant to me.