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

[Dejana]

Not that I subscribe to this theory, but wouldn't the "revisionist history" have taken place after DiA but before Voyager? The "Jack uses Jamie to fulfill his desires for Alex" subplot (if you believe that's what's going on) is confined to the first two books. Lord John went by a different name in the second book, and was only meant to be some random teenager Jamie and Claire encountered during the war. Gabaldon gets slammed for stereotypical gay characters on the CompuServe forums after DiA and takes the opportunity to create a positive figure in John, or so the theory goes...

,

[AD55]

Not that I subscribe to this theory, but wouldn't the "revisionist history" have taken place after DiA but before Voyager? The "Jack uses Jamie to fulfill his desires for Alex" subplot (if you believe that's what's going on) is confined to the first two books. Lord John went by a different name in the second book, and was only meant to be some random teenager Jamie and Claire encountered during the war. Gabaldon gets slammed for stereotypical gay characters on the CompuServe forums after DiA and takes the opportunity to create a positive figure in John, or so the theory goes...

,

 

In all honesty, I don't know when Gabaldon began stating that Jack Randall is an equal opportunity sadist. I discovered the books about 3 years ago and only began reading interviews with her when the series was announced. I can only say what my interpretation of the books is as a reader. I'm less concerned with the incest plot, which always struck me as a kind of throwaway, than what I personally see as negative stereotyping of gay men. It goes without saying that this is just my opinion.

[ulkis]

Is there anyone in book 1 who, if they're not Claire, is attracted to Jamie and not evil/super-shady? (Randall, Duke, Loaghaire . . . am I missing anyone?)

[GHScorpiosRule]

Is there anyone in book 1 who, if they're not Claire, is attracted to Jamie and not evil/super-shady? (Randall, Duke, Loaghaire . . . am I missing anyone?)

 

 

The other young girls/teens at Leoch who resented Claire for marrying Jamie?

[WatchrTina]

I can't remember if we hear the story in book 1 or book 2 but Dougal's second daughter is the person who gave Jamie his first kiss.  The secret snogging goes on until Dougal's wife catches them.  She doesn't say anything to Jamie but shortly thereafter Dougal pays Jamie an early-morning visit and has a wee chat with him about respecting his daughters -- all the while holding young Jamie's morning cock-stand in a firm grip with one hand while his other hand is on his dirk.  So that's one relatively innocent case of Jamie-attraction.

 

There's also a lass mentioned in the graphic novel version of the first half of Book 1 (The Exile) but I don't recall if she's attracted to Jamie or it's just Jamie who is smitten with her.  Doesn't matter -- things don't work out -- but she wasn't evil/super-shady.

 

And there's the French women that Jamie fought a duel over in his youth -- we hear about it in book 2.  Jamie wins the duel but he loses the girl (she marries the other guy).  Presumably she must have given him SOME encouragement for him to feel called upon to fight a duel over over.

 

So yeah, not all of Jamie's admirers are . . . um . . . unfortunate.

 

ETA:  Edited because "snagging" and "snogging" are two completely different things (and my American spell-check doesn't like "snogging.")

Edited May 7, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

I can't remember if we hear the story in book 1 or book 2 but Dougal's second daughter is the person who gave Jamie his first kiss. The secret snagging goes on until Dougal's wife catches them. She doesn't say anything to Jamie but shortly thereafter Dougal pays Jamie an early-morning visit and has a wee chat with him about respecting his daughters -- all the while holding young Jamie's morning cock-stand in a firm grip with one hand while his other hand is on his dirk. So that's one relatively innocent case of Jamie-attraction.

.

It was the first book.

[lianau]

And there's the French women that Jamie fought a duel over in his youth -- we hear about it in book 2.  Jamie wins the duel but he loses the girl (she marries the other guy).  Presumably she must have given him SOME encouragement for him to feel called upon to fight a duel over over.

Jamie claims she flirted with everyone and that was ok , it only became a problem when she started to prefer her future husband .

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm DONE. Just finished Outlander and forced myself to read ALL of Wentworth scenes. But I was also right. While Jamie was telling Claire about what Randall has done, there were two paragraphs where the reader got Jamie's POV, that the scenes were coming from him and not what he was telling Claire. There was a sentence where he's describing the room and his thoughts about it "with grim humor" which told me we were in his head and it wasn't something he was relaying to Claire.

But Moore better have Claire's voiceover of when she's helping Jaime to break the grip Randall's rape has over him. And not just show Jamie attacking her when he pretty much gave up and was willing himself to die.

Huh. I really didn't remember the cows!

So it's off to the libary I go this weekend to get Dragonfly in Amber.

[chocolatetruffle]

There was also the woman (I think it was Ronald McNabb's widow) who came to Jamie when he was living in the cave at Lallybroch to ease his loneliness.  That was actually a very lovely scene.

[ScotchnSoda]

I have started on this post a number of times, but am finding it difficult to articulate what are merely a series of personal impressions.  To most of you, I am sure it is remarkable that I never focused on what has been called out as consistently unsavory depictions of homosexual characters.  For one thing, in the show (and then when I read books 1-3 during the hiatus) the first two times BJR sexually assaulted another's person was first with Claire, then with Jenny (as written; in reverse order chronologically).  He may indeed be a homosexual, but his evilness arises from his cruelty not his sexual orientation. At the time Jamie tells Claire how BJR propositioned him, he also tells her how he came to have Alexander MacGregor's bible, and that he intended someday to avenge MacGregor's suicide.  Later, at the Abby, when Jamie tell's Claire that BJR had called him Alex, I took it as a reference to MacGregor.  I imagined that any human being - even a sadist like BJR - must find it unbearable to accept that Alex would rather kill himself than live with the repulsion and self-loathing he felt for having engaged with BJR.  For me, BJR calling Jamie "Alex" is his way of revising history.  He is reliving his encounter with Alex and wanting a different ending; i.e. Alex's love.  When Alexander Randall is introduced in book 2, I saw Alex as the younger brother whose love (despite his knowing BJR's true nature) was unconditional and the only redemption in BJR's hellish existence.  I didn't then, and still can't now, read incestuous inclinations in what seems to be reciprocal brotherly love.

Also (now that I'm on a roll, might as well get it all out of my system) Jamie's desire to revenge Alex, his offer to take Leery's punishment, his connection to Claire (a stranger who seems to have lost everything) and his desire to prevent her from falling into BJR's hands all stem from his empathy.  Not many people feel, much less act on, empathy.  

[AD55]

I have started on this post a number of times, but am finding it difficult to articulate what are merely a series of personal impressions.  To most of you, I am sure it is remarkable that I never focused on what has been called out as consistently unsavory depictions of homosexual characters.  For one thing, in the show (and then when I read books 1-3 during the hiatus) the first two times BJR sexually assaulted another's person was first with Claire, then with Jenny (as written; in reverse order chronologically).  He may indeed be a homosexual, but his evilness arises from his cruelty not his sexual orientation. At the time Jamie tells Claire how BJR propositioned him, he also tells her how he came to have Alexander MacGregor's bible, and that he intended someday to avenge MacGregor's suicide.  Later, at the Abby, when Jamie tell's Claire that BJR had called him Alex, I took it as a reference to MacGregor.  I imagined that any human being - even a sadist like BJR - must find it unbearable to accept that Alex would rather kill himself than live with the repulsion and self-loathing he felt for having engaged with BJR.  For me, BJR calling Jamie "Alex" is his way of revising history.  He is reliving his encounter with Alex and wanting a different ending; i.e. Alex's love.  When Alexander Randall is introduced in book 2, I saw Alex as the younger brother whose love (despite his knowing BJR's true nature) was unconditional and the only redemption in BJR's hellish existence.  I didn't then, and still can't now, read incestuous inclinations in what seems to be reciprocal brotherly love.

Also (now that I'm on a roll, might as well get it all out of my system) Jamie's desire to revenge Alex, his offer to take Leery's punishment, his connection to Claire (a stranger who seems to have lost everything) and his desire to prevent her from falling into BJR's hands all stem from his empathy.  Not many people feel, much less act on, empathy.  

 

Very thoughtful post. All I can say is that you must be truly frghtening when you are able to articulate what you're feeling/thinking. ;)

[DittyDotDot]

To most of you, I am sure it is remarkable that I never focused on what has been called out as consistently unsavory depictions of homosexual characters.  For one thing, in the show (and then when I read books 1-3 during the hiatus) the first two times BJR sexually assaulted another's person was first with Claire, then with Jenny (as written; in reverse order chronologically).  He may indeed be a homosexual, but his evilness arises from his cruelty not his sexual orientation. 

 

I too never considered Black Jack's sexual sadism to be an unsavory depiction of a homosexual character. in fact, I'm not sure he is a homosexual myself, but I'm not very far into the first book and have only watched the first eight episodes so probably don't have enough information on that front yet. What the show has shown us thus far is Black Jack gets aroused by inflicting pain on others, male or female. I think of him as a sadist and his actual sexual orientation not at all important.

 

 

ETA: Sorry, got sidetracked...what I really wanted to ask of y'all was: will we ever learn (in the books or show) much about Claire's parents and where her ability to use the stones comes from?

Edited May 8, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[tcay]

We know almost nothing about Claire's parents. But we do know the ability to use the stones is genetic and that there's a sort of common ancestor for all time travelers. So it's a trait that can be passed down, and it's not limited to females. 

[DittyDotDot]

Thanks tcay! Based on other comments that's what I had pieced together. Glad to have it confirmed.

[ElsieH]

Okay so I was just watching the witch trial again and something occurred to me. I wonder if the show will try to spin it so that Laoghaire actually wasn't responsible for the arrest of Claire along with Geillis? Yes she was there when they got arrested, but when Claire asks Ned if Colum had something to do with it and he doesn't answer, it made me wonder. He deliberately sent Jamie off with Dougal, maybe to get him out of the way. And then, maybe Laoghaire found out somehow and was just there to be smug about it. I can't figure out why Colum would do such a thing, but I wonder if they might go this way to make it easier to explain why Jamie marries her later. 

[bluebonnet]

Okay so I was just watching the witch trial again and something occurred to me. I wonder if the show will try to spin it so that Laoghaire actually wasn't responsible for the arrest of Claire along with Geillis? Yes she was there when they got arrested, but when Claire asks Ned if Colum had something to do with it and he doesn't answer, it made me wonder. He deliberately sent Jamie off with Dougal, maybe to get him out of the way. And then, maybe Laoghaire found out somehow and was just there to be smug about it. I can't figure out why Colum would do such a thing, but I wonder if they might go this way to make it easier to explain why Jamie marries her later. 

I think Colum had a lot of reason to remove Claire from the picture.  He knows she's lying about why she's there.  In fact, everyone knows, including Jamie.  She was first his prisoner, where he could monitor her accordingly.  Then she heads off on a rent collecting mission, and he later discovers that his brother used that time to collect money on behalf of the Stuarts.  Colum also discovers that Claire has spent alone time with the British twice.  Finally, she's no longer a prisoner because she's become married to a Scots.  Sure, he knows the official story, which happens to be the real story (she was married to keep her safe), but it all must look very sketchy to Colum.  Couple that with Claire being such good friends with Geillis, who happens to be having an affair with Dougal, an affair which results in two spouses turning up dead.  It's all quite suspicious, and we haven't even gotten into the part where Jamie was someone that Colum considered a potential heir and having married Claire has removed him from consideration, not to mention Jamie's super valuable land that the book MacKenzie's really want.  A little whisper in Laoghaire's ear could go a long way.  

 

They have sort of set up the idea that it's possible for Jamie to not know Laoghaire's involvement.  It's ridiculous, but apparently there is no communication coming into Lallybroch as Ian tells us that they didn't even know if Jamie were alive until they received the chest from Castle Leoch.  So Jamie could just be sucked into the Lallybroch circle of silence and perhaps not know.  

 

All of that seems really unlikely since he'll spend  lots of time away from Lallybroch.  There is no way a tv audience would believe Jamie not knowing based on how it's played out on the show.  Laoghaire had a huge part in the trials, everyone knows she is the one who got Claire arrested and the reasons why.  But she's just a dumb, ignorant girl and I think there is potential for Jamie to forgive her, especially if he knows or thinks that she was manipulated by Colum.  Laoghaire (and apparently jamie himself) believes in witches and magic.  She has cause to think Claire is truly a witch and that Claire stole Jamie away.  After that scene at the river, I think she even had reason to believe that Jamie was trapped.  We know it's all untrue, but Laoghaire is too dumb to not realize that she's ignorant.  So, unless the showrunners are crazy and think we would believe that Jamie had no idea Laoghaire was involved, I think there is enough room for him to feel as though marrying her is the right thing to do.  

 

Or they could have a one night stand, she end up "pregnant", and he decides he has to marry her despite everything.  Then there's a "miscarriage".  

Edited May 8, 2015 by bluebonnet

[absnow54]

I really hope they find a way for Murtagh to survive Culloden, because Ducan Lacroix is the best thing about this show. 

[tcay]

Yes, I want Duncan to become Innes, although Innes does some questionable things later. But at least Murtagh will be with them in Paris! I'm excited to see him grunting around that city.

[tcay]

What do y'all think: will they rescue Jamie at the end of the Wentworth episode, or leave that till 116? I don't think I can stand to watch the episode live if Jamie is still in peril at the end.

 

I also saw Maureen Ryan tweet that 116 left her "ugly sobbing." So I wonder if most of the Wentworth ugliness gets depicted through flashbacks as Jamie explains to Claire what happened in 116. I am not prepared.

[Dust Bunny]

Honestly, and part of me is surprised (even upset) I'm thinking/typing this, I hope Wentworth is not done in flashbacks via Jamie's narration. Having it done in real time makes it very real stakes, instead of showing the torture from a safer place (after it's over). In no way am I suggesting that flashbacks makes it better/easier. Just that, if I were a showrunner, and if I were really going to do this, then I'd have it play out in real time. There is the ever-ticking clock, with Claire trying to get to Jamie as soon as possible. However it's done, it will incredibly tough viewing.

 

I hope the rescue will be done by the end of the episode. One episode of Wentworth is far more than enough. 

Edited May 10, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm thinking with the extended preview I saw in that it might be in real time

you hear Jamie screaming as Claire runs and I think he gets saved here too as a picture was posted from 115.

I'm hoping the finale is Claire bringing Jaime back from dying by bringing forth his demons.

[WatchrTina]

I predict that they will follow the book and that we will see only what Claire sees in Wentworth -- Jamie having been physically abused (his hand smashed) and then, at the end, after the rescue, all the clues as to what he went through.  I predict the depictions of rape will happen in the last episode, along with Claire's bringing him back from the brink.  The scene where Jamie tells Claire all that happened is powerful because he tells her everything so that she will understand that he is broken beyond repair.  He tell her so that she will leave him.  I don't think those scenes being depicted as flash-backs are going to be any less powerful than if they had been shown in "real" time.  I also don't think there is time to do justice to the rape & physical/psychological torture in the same episode where they stage the rescue.  There's a lot that has to happen between now and the scene of Claire setting Jamie's broken fingers by the fire.  Cows are involved.  I predict the Wentworth episode will end with Claire killing the soldier as they make a run for the coast.  She said in this week's episode (The Search) that she would kill for Jamie and I think she's going to do it.  Of course, now I think about it, she actually kills a guard with a knife in Wentworth so maybe that's where the blade Jenny gave her will come into play and they'll skip the young soldier on the downed horse that she kills on the road.  But it's a great scene so I think it would be a shame to cut that.

Edited May 11, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

WatchrTina I completely agree with you.  The structure of the book is very powerful and the show would be wise to follow it.  While Claire is trying to get Jamie out, we are left to imagine the horrors that are going on inside (and in my case hope beyond hope that it's not as bad as I imagined it to be).  Then once we see the description of Jamie's wounds it's another gut punch. Finally, we hear the horror, which was somehow even worse than imagined, from his lips .  Each beat is like being dragged down into the uttermost disgusting regions of Hell and the reality turns out to be worse than we could even imagine.  I recall a line from Jamie right after he has recounted the worst of the ordeal - he says something like "now I'm going to be verra, verra sick" and he asks Claire to leave because he doesn't want her to see it.  As I reader, I was gutted and was nearly sick right along with him.  That's powerful stuff and the effect would be lessened if we had already seen it two weeks before.

 

And as you said, there is plenty of stuff to fill an hour's worth of television without showing Jamie's torture in real time.

[peacefrog]

I agree that it will be flashbacks also. I feel it's obvious to viewers who are unspoiled that Jamie will be rescued but the real shock is the reveal of how much he had to endure. 

[Dust Bunny]

Well, crap. I think you guys might be right. That bums me out because now I think that would make the finale harder viewing than "Wentworth". Damn. 

 

I expected the finale to be tough regardless, but I was hoping "Wentworth" would be the worst of it. 

 

That's like spreading "The Red Wedding" out between two episodes. Crap.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[justmehere]

If they keep it in flashback, at least we'll get the torture and the healing together with the sweet ending all in one episode. If they showed the torture in 115 and then skipped a week before showing the healing, I'd worry they'd lose some viewers. This way, it's horrible, and horrible, and then better to end the season for the long hiatus. I hope this is the case.

[GHScorpiosRule]

This probably should go in the book thread, but since it deviated from the book on the show and in this episode, can someone, who's read all the books, clarify/confirm

the scene where Dougal didn't really say if Geillis was actually burned? In the book, we got explanation points! that she was burned for the witch she was and that he put their son in an orphanage.  In the episode, none of that was mentioned.  And I know I read (here probably), that Geillis does show up again, so then, she wasn't killed, right?

 

I am prepared to have my light throw to hide my face in during the worst of the torture. Bad enough I have a verra creative imagination and was sick to me stomach reading the description of Jamie's mangled/smashed hand, but to actually see it? Nae, I'm not strong enough for that.  As those who watch Game of Thrones, I don't want the sound effects to be like when Oberyn was killed.

 

And I'm wondering if they'll have Sam wear a wig to show how long Jamie's hair has gotten, down to the one braid he wears in France?

[AheadofStraight]

 

And I know I read (here probably), that Geillis does show up again, so then, she wasn't killed, right?

 

Correct, she shows up in Book 3. I was taken aback by him saying the baby was dead as well. 

 

 

And I'm wondering if they'll have Sam wear a wig to show how long Jamie's hair has gotten, down to the one braid he wears in France?

 

Sam's been letting his hair grow in real life (I remember him saying in an interview they told him he couldn't cut his hair). I'm not a fan of the braid look. I absolutely love his hair on the show right now. 

 

In terms of these next couple of episodes, I really hope they will keep the dialog about his soul and how it is destroyed...and then later when he says it is coming back. (obviously I'm mega-paraphrasing here). I also really hope they keep the scene of him examining his hand and crying, where Claire thinks he is upset about her work but he is actually very happy he still has his hand. 

Edited May 11, 2015 by AheadofStraight

[Nidratime]

Correct, she shows up in Book 3. I was taken aback by him saying the baby was dead as well.

 

 

I must've missed something. Who said the baby was dead? I didn't even hear them say Geillis is dead.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I must've missed something. Who said the baby was dead? I didn't even hear them say Geillis is dead.

 

Yeah, confused here as well. In the book, end of Outlander, Dougal told Claire that Geillis was dead as she deserved to be, but that she gave birth to a boy, who he put up in an orphanage. It wasn't even mentioned on the show, except that she died. So in Voyager, we learn the baby died after all?

[Athena]

 

Yeah, confused here as well. In the book, end of Outlander, Dougal told Claire that Geillis was dead as she deserved to be, but that she gave birth to a boy, who he put up in an orphanage. It wasn't even mentioned on the show, except that she died. So in Voyager, we learn the baby died after all?

 

Since you're here, I won't mind spoiling. The baby is not dead, grows up, and ends up as a character in the later books.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Since you're here, I won't mind spoiling. The baby is not dead, grows up, and ends up as a character in the later books.

 

Thanks Athena.  When it comes to this series, and since I've read the first 3 and a 1/4 of the books, I don't mind being spoiled. Hell, just spoil me regarding other books as weel. 

 

Side note, I think I mentioned this in the Small Talk, but I've been to Culloden and I remember being verra upset that I couldn't feel the ghosts/spirits of the Highlanders that lost their lives. Or that it was bright and sunny when I was there.

 

I remember seeing pictures of the Duke of Cumberland and likening him to a grotesque, fat Pillsbury Dough boy. Apologies to the adorably cute Pillsbury Dough Boy.  There was such anger in me, and I don't even have a strain of Scots blood in me!

Edited May 11, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[AheadofStraight]

 

I must've missed something. Who said the baby was dead? I didn't even hear them say Geillis is dead.

 

In the latest episode, didn't Dougal say both Geillis and the baby were burned at the stake? (Or did Claire say it and he didn't correct her - can't remember now). I was surprised they changed it from him telling her the baby was born safely and adopted. That's all I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

Since you're here, I won't mind spoiling. The baby is not dead, grows up, and ends up as a character in the later books.

 

Technically, a descendant of the baby is a character, no?

Edited May 11, 2015 by AheadofStraight

[GHScorpiosRule]

In the latest episode, didn't Dougal say both Geillis and the baby were burned at the stake? (Or did Claire say it and he didn't correct her - can't remember now). I was surprised they changed it from him telling her the baby was born safely and adopted. That's all I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Claire said it, Dougal didn't correct her, and remained silent. So no, we didn't get the dialogue where he said the baby was given away for adoption.

[Nidratime]

This is fun. An interview by Ginger and Summer of The Outlander Podcast web page with Outlander director Mike Barker. He directed The Devil's Mark and Lallybroch. Scroll down their webpage to Episode 94. At first, it's a little annoying because it sounds like he's in The Thieves' Hole himself (or on a speaker phone) but it gets better and you get used to it. He had some very interesting things to say about The Devil's Mark episode, especially.

 

http://www.outlanderpod.com/

[Petunia846]

Technically, a descendant of the baby is a character, no?

Well that too, but Athena's statement was correct.

[bluebonnet]

Geillis' descendants are all sorts of messed up.  It's all kissing and killing between them.  

[Lobster Pileup]

Okay, I'm not sure where else to go with this opinion, so I'll post it here. Am I the only one who loathes the show? I mean, I hate it. My entire family (bookreaders all) hates it. We're not yet to the point where we're hatewatching it - we're still watching it in the hopes that at some point we'll start to feel differently about it - but we're unanimously in agreement that we don't enjoy it and we're all really disappointed, and I was wondering if there is anyone out there who shares this opinion. 

 

I am NOT the sort of person who gets all in a flap when books I like are adapted and scenes and characters I like are changed. I enjoy movies and television based on my favorite books and understand that changes have to take place to adapt stories to different mediums. But I find Outlander to be not only an exceptionally poor adaptation (if I go by many unsullied forum posts on Previously and elsewhere on the internet, it's essentially failed to convince the audience of the romance between Jamie and Claire, the central arc in the entire series) but also a poor television series in its own right even if I had never read the books. The pacing and writing is atrocious. I honestly don't know what I just watched with 50 minutes of Claire singing Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy and a weird side plot about gypsies and intellectual property. We almost turned the episode off. 

 

Is it just me? Is it possible that it might get better next season, if they don't have to force insane pacing to accommodate a six-month midseason break? 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Lobster Pileup

[Nidratime]

You've hated every episode? All the writing, direction, acting, cinematography, and music? If so, I would say you should not bother to continue with it.

[WatchrTina]

 

Am I the only one who loathes the show?

I think there is an "Unpopular Opinions" thread and if you go there you might find some like-minded people but I think for the most part people don't invest the time and energy to read and post here if they are not enjoying themselves most of the time.  I've read all the books (some more than once) and I think the STARZ adaptation is wonderful.  Not perfect, mind you -- but great fun for the most part.  If I "loathed" a show, I'd stop watching.

[bluebonnet]

I've been disappointed with the show's failure to sell the Jamie and Claire love story.  But hate it?  No.  I couldn't imagine watching a show on premium cable if I actually hated every part of it.  It's a very well-done adaptation and certainly has been an improvement on the books in many places.  

 

I actively watch shows I hate on network tv, when I don't have to pay for it.  But for a premium cable, this sounds like a serious "wah wah wah, I'm a hipster and need to go against the grain" sort of problem.  

Edited May 12, 2015 by bluebonnet

[Lobster Pileup]

Actually no! I forgot, the music is the one part I absolutely adore. I wouldn't ordinarily watch a show just for that, though. At this point I'm still watching because I want to like it so hard! And i keep thinking something will happen that will help the characterizations ring true or something that will help it click for me. 

 

And I also hope you don't think that I am just trolling or complaining or some such. I'm honestly a bit confused at my own reaction here and just wanted to know if anybody was in the same boat. 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Lobster Pileup

[Nidratime]

I think if I were in your boat, I would not be watching the show or -- hate to say this -- posting to this board because I wouldn't be watching the show. Seriously, someone who's read the books and enjoyed them is not required to like the show, watch it, post about it, or anything else. No need to get reinforcement from others. The show's not for you.

[Lobster Pileup]

I actively watch shows I hate on network tv, when I don't have to pay for it.  But for a premium cable, this sounds like a serious "wah wah wah, I'm a hipster and need to go against the grain" sort of problem.  

 

Wow, that's pretty shitty way for you to put that. The whole reason I came to this thread was because it's full of book readers and I was desperate to see if there was anybody else in my boat, not because I want to feel special and alone. I actually feel majorly bummed that I'm having such a hard time enjoying an adaptation of one of my favorite series of books, which is why I was wanting to talk about it. I have *absolutely* seen people continue to watch shows they weren't actually enjoying due to devotion to the source material - Game of Thrones is just the biggest example i can think of - and continuing to participate in the shows' fandoms, so I didn't think I would get such a negative reaction just from trying to find somebody to talk to. Sorry. (Legitimate apology, not sarcasm.)  

 

(Also I was a huge proponent of Outlander being adapted because the books have some uh... problems, you could say, and I guess the one thing I do appreciate is the changes/upgrades, which you mentioned. So thanks for pointing that out, that in itself is kind of a reason to give it another try next season.) 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Lobster Pileup

[bluebonnet]

Actually no! I forgot, the music is the one part I absolutely adore. I wouldn't ordinarily watch a show just for that, though. At this point I'm still watching because I want to like it so hard! And i keep thinking something will happen that will help the characterizations ring true or something that will help it click for me. 

 

And I also hope you don't think that I am just trolling or complaining or some such. I'm honestly a bit confused at my own reaction here and just wanted to know if anybody was in the same boat

 

Wow, that's pretty shitty of you to say. The whole reason I came to this thread was because it's full of book readers and I was desperate to see if there was anybody else in my boat, not because I want to feel special and alone. I actually feel majorly bummed that I'm having such a hard time enjoying an adaptation of one of my favorite series of books, which is why I was wanting to talk about it.

Well, it all looks a little trolly.  There are likely tons of people who liked the books and hate the show, and vice versa.  There are many in these threads, including myself, who have loathed certain parts of episodes.  There's a whole hate fest that was had when the last stones scene.  It's not like there's a requirement to feel a certain way about something.  It's just super suspicious for someone to come in and remark on how horribly terrible they find the whole thing, and implying that it's unimaginable that anyone else could like it.  It feels insulting and ridiculous.  If you hate it, then you hate.  Stop watching.  14 episodes in, you should know whether it's worth your time or not.  

[ulkis]

I don't think you sounded like you were trying to bait, Lobster Pileup. I'm sure there are bookreaders who completely hate the show, but you probably won't find them posting on a forum for the show, at least, not posting too often.

I do think the show has flaws but I think those flaws are there in the books, too. I think Jamie and Claire fall in love pretty quickly in the book too, for example.

[Athena]

Posters are free to express their opinion about the show and the books. This is neither a fan site or a hater site. Just a gentle reminder to please be respectful and watch your tone. Thank you.

[chocolatetruffle]

Lobster Pileup, when the show started I was not a bookreader.  I watched because I was a fan of Ron Moore and because I had heard that this Jamie Fraser character was like a God to fans of the books.  My first impressions were that it was O.K. - not great and it really barely held my interest at times.  The acting was fine, the cinematography was amazing but I could not get invested in the characters.  Then came The Garrison Commander, a very tense episode with amazing performances.  And when Sam H. as Jamie Fraser said that line in response to Claire's question about minding that she's not a virgin,  "No. As long as it does not bother you that I am," something clicked for me emotionally and I was all in.  Such that I read books 1 thru 5 during the break and look forward to finishing the rest this summer.

 

So if you find that you have reasons to stick with the show, then please stick with it.  You never know when something might happen on screen that will have you fully engaged and loving the show as a visual companion to the wonderful books.  If nothing else, the production values are some of the best on TV (arguably cinematic quality) and it's clear that the showrunners, cast and crew are striving to do their best work.

Edited May 12, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[CatMack]

I think it's fine to just completely hate an adaptation, even if you feel like you shouldn't.  I've tried to appreciate the movie Ella Enchanted for its own merits, but no matter how many times I watch it I can't help but loath that Shrek-wannabe travesty of a "film" and I will die on that hill.

 

Ahem, where was I.

 

Oh, right.  Hating something is fine even if you wish you didn't.  If you really, really want to keep trying, maybe wait until next season?  This season was all in the can before we ever saw an episode, so there was no chance of any criticism ever being incorporated.  Maybe the writers will listen to some of the complaints people had about this season, and maybe some of the things you don't like will be better next season.

 

And as WatchrTina said, there's an unpopular opinions thread.  You might find a bit more support there.  But overall, on this forum at least, we may be critical of the show (very critical at times) but as a whole it usually skews at least a little more positive than negative, even on the most unpopular episodes.  Which doesn't mean you can't post here of course, just trying to answer your question as to whether you're alone in completely hating it.  For me, I certainly have issues with some of the pacing.  And there were things I had issues with in the books that I was hoping the show would improve on that I was disappointed with.  But overall, no, I don't hate it.  I think the writers took on a tremendous challenge in adapting this series, and they did so on a network and on a schedule that didn't allow them any real time feedback.  As such, I'm willing to give them time to grow into the parts of the show I don't like as much.

Edited May 12, 2015 by CatMack

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm really conflicted. The books themselves are very difficult to read/get through. Hell, hearing all you guys who have read and re-read the series, makes them sound better than they actually are.  Maybe I should just pm y'all and ask for a book report for each book? Though I have to admit I howled during the scene in Dragonfly In Amber when Jamie discovers that Claire has waxed her underarms and legs, while sneezing due to his allergy to hyacinth.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Athena
Removed spoiler tags.