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

[Keeta]

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?

 

GHScorpiosRule If you just want to know what happens, Wikipedia is a good place to go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlander_series There are links there to expanded articles on all the novels.

 

Here, I think you are in the minority on your dislike of the books (though certainly not alone). Even while most of us could probably give you a laundry list of issues we have with the writing or plotting or whatever, there's a reason the fanbase is so rabid and why a lot of us are here to begin with. But the books aren't for everyone. No point in trudging through if they give you little pleasure - that's a lot of pages!! 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Keeta

[GHScorpiosRule]

But Wikepedia is so borrrrring and dry!

 

Y'all's posts about what you love, hate, about what happens in the books are just so much more lively.

 

And it's not like I don't like the story. The story is wonderful.  Gabaldon is just not a very good writer, who really needed an aggressive editor to chop down on all the superfluous and unnecessary verbiage.  And at the risk of repeating myself and sounding like a broken record, I admit, I've been spoiled by better writers, who even when they started, were better. {shrugs} Sorry.

 

So I'm slogging through, because I do find it a good story--and here I'm going to contradict myself--a mark of a good writer is one who can get a reaction out of his or her readers: be it anger, happiness, sadness...the bottom line is the reader is reacting to the story. It doesn't mean the reader has to like or even love everything.

 

Sooo, the good thing about the Kindle version I'm reading? I can tap, tap, tap, tap all the boring shit or the wordy, wordy, wordiness and descriptions of things that just don't move the story along and serve no point.

 

And also, since there's no book talk allowed in the Unpopular thread, can I just add that aside from Jamie, Claire, Dougal and Colum, Jenny and Ian, I think....I really don't like how Gabaldon describes Murtagh as a rat-looking small tiny man...that

Raymond looks like a frog

. I mean, maybe my memory is failing, but when I went to Scotland, the one thing that stayed with me was that they grew them BIG, those Highlanders, and not pint-sized. You'd think Jamie was the size of Goliath or something. I know he's probably around, what, 6'5"? And yes, I realize this is a nitpick, but if I can't unload here, where can I, I ask ye?

 

I will end on a positive note--I'm loving all of ye's' posts in the book threads. Got up to Fiery Cross last night. Your many insightful and eloquent posts bring the characters and plots more to life than when I'm actually reading. But, I promised myself I would read the entire series again, and I wull.  I'll think o' it as a school reading assignment, for which I have to give a report.  And now I'll shut up.

[nodorothyparker]

I've had some real issues with pacing, and at times I've found some of the things the showrunners have chosen to focus on vs. rush through highly questionable. I'll admit I haven't been as wholeheartedly in love with the series in the back half as I was the first eight episodes, again I think because the pacing problems were more readily apparent, and I don't believe the show has done the job it could have in selling what should have been the foundation of everything that was to come. The show has done a lot of things incredibly well though just from a setting and production standpoint. I also do mostly enjoy the Claire and Jamie show even if it's not quite the Claire and Jamie show I envisioned.

Interestingly, the show has also made me really reconsider some of the serious problems the books have that maybe I hadn't given so much thought to before or was more willing to gloss over for the sake of the larger story. It took me much longer to be completely exhausted by all the sexual violence and threat of sexual violence in my original reading than it did here, for example. All still faithful to the book, just different presentation. I've enjoyed that they've fleshed out a number of characters and background things, like the MacKenzies and their internal struggles, even I really could have done without Arthur Duncan and his eternal flatulence or Laoghaire half naked by the river.

Edited May 12, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[WatchrTina]

 

I'll admit I haven't been as wholeheartedly in love with the series in the back half as I was the first eight episodes, again I think because the pacing problems were more readily apparent, and I don't believe the show has done the job it could have in selling what should have the foundation of everything that was to come.

I totally agree and, like you, I think the portrayal of Claire's decision at the stones (or the lack thereof) is a big factor in that feeling (see my complaints in the thread for that episode) but I also think the long long hiatus is partially to blame.  I voluntarily participated in the seven months of hype that was built up during the hiatus.  I want the show to be a success so I tweeted and posted and voted in online polls and generally behaved like a super-fan the whole time.  The down-side of that is, I think, that it raised my expectations.  The first 8 episodes succeeded for me, in part, because of my surprise and delight that they pulled it off -- that even though Cait and Sam look nothing like the Claire and Jamie that live in my head, I fell in love with their portayals.  The Wedding episode, in particular, was a tour de force in exceeding my expectations.  But after seven months of hype my expectations for the 2nd half of the season are REALLY high, which is a problem for the show-runners.  Add to that the fact that the back 8 episodes include the infamous spanking scene AND the rape and torture of our hero -- well I guess it would be impossible for the second half of season 1 to evoke as positive a reaction from me as the first half.

 

I definitely plan on taking a break from this fandom between seasons 1 and 2.  That way I can come to season 2 with (I hope) lower expectations, which the show can then surpass for me again.

Edited May 12, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

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 Ep05, a very tense episode with amazing performances. 

 

This was basically me, but it took me till episode eight to get drawn in. I love a the scenery and the score, but the actual story wasn't doing much for me. It's not that I'm not seeing the relationship between Claire and Jamie and all, I just don't think I was expecting a basic romance story going in. And no, I'm not suggesting that the whole romance genre is not worthy--although it just doesn't do much for me--it's just not what I thought the show would primarily be about.

 

It seems to me, most folks dissatisfaction appears to be expectations. All I knew going in was there was time travel and it was run by Ron Moore, so it took me a few episodes to realize the show wasn't really going to be much more than an epic love story. So, I needed to adjust my expectations. Now that I have, I think I can watch and judge the show for what it actually is.

[nodorothyparker]

Your experience makes me doubly glad that I mostly took a break from all the show stuff during hiatus, WatchrTina. I still enjoy talking books as much as anybody anytime anyone is willing but I wasn't particularly thrilled with episode 8, Both Sides Now, with all Frank Vision all the time and felt like I needed a clean break before I obsessed myself into disliking a show and series I've mostly loved. So while my expectations going into the back half weren't super sky high, it was a really long hiatus that somehow made the more rushed pacing in these later episode feel all the worse.

[Athena]

And also, since there's no book talk allowed in the Unpopular thread, can I just add that aside from Jamie, Claire, Dougal and Colum, Jenny and Ian, I think....I really don't like how Gabaldon describes Murtagh as a rat-looking small tiny man...that Raymond looks like a frog. I mean, maybe my memory is failing, but when I went to Scotland, the one thing that stayed with me was that they grew them BIG, those Highlanders, and not pint-sized. You'd think Jamie was the size of Goliath or something. I know he's probably around, what, 6'5"? And yes, I realize this is a nitpick, but if I can't unload here, where can I, I ask ye?

 

Just a note to say that this is the All Books thread so you can leave all book talk unspoilered. If you want to talk Dragonfly in Amber, there is Book 2. Which ever works for you. :)

 

I think something to remember about the descriptions is that the first two books are all from Claire's POV so it biases her. Jamie is very tall. I believe Claire was around 5'6" in the books? Definitely shorter than model Cait but not very petite. It would affect her view. Jamie is also well built so he is a Goliath. This was three hundred years ago too so even when they built Highlanders big, there were less tall men than now.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just a note to say that this is the All Books thread so you can leave all book talk unspoilered. If you want to talk Dragonfly in Amber, there is Book 2. Which ever works for you. :)

Thanks! I wasn't sure, so I erred on the side of caution, heh.

 

 

I think something to remember about the descriptions is that the first two books are all from Claire's POV so it biases her. Jamie is very tall. I believe Claire was around 5'6" in the books? Definitely shorter than model Cait but not very petite. It would affect her view. Jamie is also well built so he is a Goliath. This was three hundred years ago too so even when they built Highlanders big, there were less tall men than now.

 

I understand that, but the constant "little man", "rat-looking man", "amphibous looking little man" practically every single time (or so it seems to me) is starting to grate whenever she mentions Murtagh or Master Raymond. First time, okay, so we have an image. But not every time we see the characters again or when Claire is speaking to them. I mean, she's not forever talking about how tall or big Jamie is. Okay, she does, but there's a point to it when she does. I know, I'm contradicting myself, but I hope y'all know what I mean, heh.

 

I mean, I get it. She thinks they're ugly.

 

[chocolatetruffle]

I understand that the pacing issues of the second half have been a problem.  But for me, the major difference between the show and book has been that the book is Claire's story: how this woman comes to choose a life in 1743 over her former life in 1945 and the ramifications of that choice.  It's about her great love for a man, a way of life, family and community; the sacrifices that go along with that love as well as the strength that comes from it.  

 

Much of the show has been about a love triangle between Jamie & Frank, clan politics and Claire & Jamie vs. Black Jack.  Although the change in story focus has given us some great moments and more well-rounded characters (which I appreciate),  Claire's choice and journey to making that choice has at times been minimized. The choice at the stones with Jamie was the most egregious example of this - especially when you compare it to the scene of Claire & Frank calling to each other thru time, over the music crescendo, as the Redcoats rip her away (and there was never even a follow-up to this beat).  So yeah, I'm bitter.   

 

Nevertheless, there are moments and characters that I've grown to love, and the actors have been knocking it out of the park with everything they've been given to do, so that's why I'm still passionate about the show, despite my own personal disappointments.

[Hybiscus]

I understand that, but the constant "little man", "rat-looking man", "amphibous looking little man" practically every single time (or so it seems to me) is starting to grate whenever she mentions Murtagh or Master Raymond. First time, okay, so we have an image. But not every time we see the characters again or when Claire is speaking to them. I mean, she's not forever talking about how tall or big Jamie is. Okay, she does, but there's a point to it when she does. I know, I'm contradicting myself, but I hope y'all know what I mean, heh.

I mean, I get it. She thinks they're ugly.

I was a fan of the show before I started reading the books, starting the books during the hiatus. I stopped at Voyager, the third book. Some of Diana's writing is quite lovely. Her descriptions of certain things are very visual, and I like that. But yes, I agree she repeats things much too often—even the good stuff. I got rather tired of Jamie's "auburn gold lashes" or hair, or chest hair. We get it, he's a redhead.

With Dragonfly in Amber, I remember reading several chapters (during the Paris years) and thinking once I'd finished them, "Gosh, that didn't add a thing to the story." But I do understand people loving her work. I'm just as enthusiastic about it.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Hybiscus

[bluebonnet]

The lack of aggressive editing is really a disservice to the story and the author.  Poor editing can make a fantastic writer seem terrible.  I feel bad for being negative about some of the books because it really is a phenomenal story, one that I could see myself wanting to read over and over, at least reread every four years when a new book is released.  The lack of aggressive editing just gets in the way.  All those long-winded descriptions of swamps or red hair or that damn 500 page single day gathering are technically good prose.  It's just not really a very efficient way to tell a story.   DG might have put her foot down on certain suggested edits and changes.  But part of being a good editor is also being a good salesperson.  An editor must know how to make a pitch in order to guide the artist into agreeing that the story is better with these changes.  

[ElsieH]

The Game of Thrones books are like this too... it seems that the more popular they get, the longer winded they are, and the longer we have to wait for the next one. Is it because the authors get too big for their britches and the editors just can't control them? I've always wondered, as I see each book get longer and longer with stuff that really just serves no purpose.

[Keeta]

ElsieH And don't forget Harry Potter!

[bluebonnet]

The Game of Thrones books are like this too... it seems that the more popular they get, the longer winded they are, and the longer we have to wait for the next one. Is it because the authors get too big for their britches and the editors just can't control them? I've always wondered, as I see each book get longer and longer with stuff that really just serves no purpose.

I am curious what sort of changes we'll see with DG now that the show is successful.  She has a pretty consistent publishing schedule.  Even if there are years between the books, we know that every 3-4 years, we get a new book.  However, with the show, she may feel the need to speed up (if she has time?!) otherwise with her pace, the show would overtake her after the next book (if the next book isn't the last and assuming the show goes at least 7 seasons).  

For GRRM, he's so erratic with publishing.  There was a hope that we'd get the ending from the books.  Now, it's becoming very unlikely we'll even get the next book in the series before the show ends.  

[ElsieH]

See, that's what I mean. If she has even a vague idea about roughly where the story is going, it might not take 3-4 years to write each book if she just pared them down a bit. All those pages, all those words. And then someone has to edit it, which probably takes just as long. I just agree with others that the story could be told just as well without so much filler.

 

As for Game of Thrones, well at this point even if we got the next book today I'd probably opt to just watch the show. It's faster :)

[WatchrTina]

I have criticized Diana's writing in the past -- especially the first few books.  But I have to stand up for one thing and that is the fact that she has not run out of steam with the story.  She still manages to surprise me and delight me after all this time.  She also grosses me out from time to time (the medical stuff -- yikes) but I generally don't find myself thinking "this again?" the way I did in the last book of the Clan of the Cave Bear series.  She regularly introduces new characters that I grow to love.  She breaks our hearts with the occasional death. The story ranges all over the place - Scotland, Paris, the Caribbean, the American colonies in the south, and then the north.  the high seas, back to Scotland, now back to America (Boston), now back to the Ridge.  No she will never win a pulitzer prize for her prose and her use adverbs makes me cringe but, as Ron said, she knows how to write a "ripping good yarn."

 

I've just had a related thought that I think I will take to the "Unpopular Opinions" thread.  See ya there (I hope.)

[peacefrog]

Anyone care to discuss the Kristen eonline PSA that was posted in the spoiler thread? 

 

I'm not "afraid" of the upcoming episode and am starting to think all the warnings on social media are feeding a frenzy of some sort. It's kind of insulting to be given all these caution lectures, we are adults! 

 

That being said I am more intrigued by the comment that we will see something that has never been seen before? I'm pretty sure male rape has been shown before, and graphically. What could it be? The after effects? Is it the level of physical torture? Again, GoT went there. Any thoughts?

[ulkis]

When has male rape been shown graphically on tv? Oz? I can see it being different because the characters on Oz were inmates and Jamie is a Romantic Hero.

My instinct is to agree with you and say that an extra warning isn't necessary, and I'm not worried about watching it either. But then I was telling someone what was gonna happen just to warn them, because they didn't like the flogging scenes, and they replied "this show is for women, they're not gonna do that!" The show has shown that Randall wants Jamie but I guess there are a decent amount of people who think the show won't go there.

[GHScorpiosRule]

My instinct is to agree with you and say that an extra warning isn't necessary, and I'm not worried about watching it either. But then I was telling someone what was gonna happen just to warn them, because they didn't like the flogging scenes, and they replied "this show is for women, they're not gonna do that!" The show has shown that Randall wants Jamie but I guess there are a decent amount of people who think the show won't go there.

 

 

Here's what I don't understand. Those that were looking forward to this series, waaaay back last year...not here on this board necessarily, but I remember all these links to articles and videos that this would go there and if it didn't, it would be a copout.

 

I think the PSAs are because Randall managed to not only torture and rape Jamie, but made him feel pleasure too. Demanded that Jamie say "I love you" while yelling Alex's name. But this isn't network television or even basic cable, but a premium cable channel; and as difficult it was to read those scenes, I think they have to be portrayed on the show.  I don't think it's being shown for titillation or shock value. It's a very crucial aspect of the book and..dammit, I can't come up with the words of why it's important for Jamie's character. I'm sure someone else, who's much better at it, could say it.

[bluebonnet]

I wouldn't see the rape as different.  Inmates don't deserve to be raped just because they are in prison (and let's not forget that Jamie is technically an inmate in prison when he's raped).  I'm really curious, though, what this 'never seen before on tv' will be.  Maybe the author didn't see Oz?  

 

I do agree, peacefrog, I'm sick of being told I must prepare myself and get my little lace hanky because dammit, I'm an adult.  No one would be going on like this when we're preparing for a woman being raped. I'm debating whether or not I'm going to watch this Friday night when it's released online, Saturday during the day when it's released On Demand, or at airtime when I can immediately turn to the good people here for virtual hugs and soothing.  

[peacefrog]

My instinct is to agree with you and say that an extra warning isn't necessary, and I'm not worried about watching it either. But then I was telling someone what was gonna happen just to warn them, because they didn't like the flogging scenes, and they replied "this show is for women, they're not gonna do that!" The show has shown that Randall wants Jamie but I guess there are a decent amount of people who think the show won't go there.

Please don't think I'm saying you think this, it's a general you.

It's disappointing that warnings are needed because this show is thought to be a "woman's show". We are not delicate, swooning flowers that need any more special warning than watching an episode of the The Walking Dead or GoT. The content advisory at the beginning of each episode is good enough. I'm not talking about personal warnings to people you know who you might have recommended the show to that might have issues with. 

 

I just read a few "warnings" today on different social media platforms and it started to feel condescending. 

 

GHScorpiosRule I know what you are sayinsaying and agree. It's an important part of the story. The best I've read about it was that when they get through the payoff is beautiful. It really shows the love and devotion to each other. DG,as much as she bugs me,does a really nice job of treating this event's aftermath in all the future books. It's never forgotten and Jamie and Claire need to live with it for the rest of their lives. 

[ulkis]

I wouldn't see the rape as different. Inmates don't deserve to be raped just because they are in prison (and let's not forget that Jamie is technically an inmate in prison when he's raped). I'm really curious, though, what this 'never seen before on tv' will be. Maybe the author didn't see Oz?

Oh I am definitely not saying anyone deserves to be raped, just that I imagine for a lot of people it's less hard to see hardened criminals do bad things to each other than see a character who is supposed to a romantic figure.

Please don't think I'm saying you think this, it's a general you.

It's disappointing that warnings are needed because this show is thought to be a "woman's show". We are not delicate, swooning flowers that need any more special warning than watching an episode of the The Walking Dead or GoT. The content advisory at the beginning of each episode is good enough.

I absolutely agree with you.

[Dust Bunny]

 

GHScorpiosRule I know what you are sayinsaying and agree. It's an important part of the story. The best I've read about it was that when they get through the payoff is beautiful. It really shows the love and devotion to each other. DG,as much as she bugs me,does a really nice job of treating this event's aftermath in all the future books. It's never forgotten and Jamie and Claire need to live with it for the rest of their lives.

 

This is what I'm most excited about. I've read several critiques that the show hasn't portrayed Jamie and Claire's love story very well. The healing and beautiful "payoff" will hopefully help overcome that.

 

Regarding what hasn't been shown on TV before, I haven't seen Oz, so I don't know. But if I were to guess, it's the depiction of alternating acts of hurting (well, it all is, but I mean the physical hurting and such) with what Jamie describes as "[acts] of love" by BJR. The breaking down of Jamie, the getting Jamie to respond -- all of it. It's all rape, but I think how the rape looks might be different than ever depicted on TV before.

 

As for warnings, I've actually warned two family member show-watchers about what's coming ("very tough viewing ahead"). They love the show, and I'm worried the rape and torture might cause them to quit the show. If they know that's the worst of it - and that there is beautiful payoff - then hopefully they can get through it. I hope the warning didn't come off as condescending. I was mostly trying to protect my family members' sensitivities and the show.

 

Again - hoping for some damn good beautiful payoff scenes. 

[Starla]

One thing I hope they cut in the upcoming episode is the wolf scene. My first thought when I got to it in the book was "are you freaking KIDDING me?!" I actually skipped it and came back to it later (i'm OCD that way... have to read every word, even if out of order). There is such a sense of urgency when Claire is dumped out of the prison door, and to spend such a long sequence with her wrestling and killing a wolf with her bare hands is completely frustrating and unbelievable. I really hope it is left out of this episode.

 

Also, I see on IMDB that MacRannoch has been cast. He is such a wonderful character, can't wait to see him. I hope this means the cows are included, as they actually serve some purpose to move the story along, unlike the wolves.

[GHScorpiosRule]

"The kine!"

[nodorothyparker]

Regarding what hasn't been shown on TV before, I haven't seen Oz, so I don't know. But if I were to guess, it's the depiction of alternating acts of hurting (well, it all is, but I mean the physical hurting and such) with what Jamie describes as "[acts] of love" by BJR. The breaking down of Jamie, the getting Jamie to respond -- all of it. It's all rape, but I think how the rape looks might be different than ever depicted on TV before.

My hunch is that this is where the issue is going to lie too. Don't forget that we live in a country where a number of national politicians and at least part of our population believe it isn't "legitimate rape" if the rapist doesn't have a gun to your head while he's beating you bloody and you're not kicking and screaming the entire time. And for it to happen to a man who doesn't fight tooth and nail throughout, he's obviously less of a man and maybe even gay and enjoying it.

Now throw in that it's the male romantic lead. He agrees to this, even though he's under extreme duress and in no position to be giving free consent to anything. He acknowledges feeling arousal, despite how badly he's hurt and degraded, because we know that can happen in rape and that the body is a physical thing that sometimes reacts as it will. That's generally not something we see on TV. It's a hard and confusing thing for Jamie to make sense of. It's likely going to be hard and confusing for a lot of viewers to make sense of too.

But yeah. As much as I'm still not sure I really want to see this, all of the warning hysteria is starting to feel really condescending. And maybe a little titillating on all ends too, like the show needed to see just how far they could push it because they are on premium cable and now you have to watch it to prove you can handle really shocking TV.

Edited May 13, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[DittyDotDot]

I'm assuming that agreeing to all the warnings is the only way the show was allowed to include these scenes. Standards and Practices can be so weird sometimes. I once listened to a commentary where the showrunner said their Standards and Practices wouldn't let them show them beheading a human body, but they could show all the blood spurting everywhere, the main character using the most filthy language while doing it and they could show them cutting up a corpse after it was beheaded...but the actual beheading was off the table for some reason. It's a strange world out there sometimes.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, Spartacus, also on Starz showed the character of Caesar being raped, and I don't recall seeing any PSA for it. Then again, this show is different and if they're going to show how Black Jack put his arms around Jamie and Jamie did the same for a minute, because he didn't know what else to do. Or even Jamie's confession how that psychotic sadistical rapist made him feel pleasure, I suppose the show had to agree to PSAs if the channel required it.

 

All I know is, I hope I'm strong enough to see it play out on the screen, and I have no doubt that Sam will totally ROCK it and do an amazing job.

[insubordination]

Many years ago I saw an episode of an Australian series called 'GP',  and I never forgot it. It portrayed a groom who was raped by his best man on the buck's (stag) night. I can still remember the traumatic scene where the victim broke down while talking to the doctor because he felt so confused for having an erection during the rape. It was powerful stuff and not something I have seen on TV before or since. I hope this show does these scenes well because it's such a sensitive topic, but the BlackJack scenes have been salacious so far.  I'm very reluctant about tuning in.

Edited May 13, 2015 by insubordination

[Hybiscus]

insubordination, I think you've hit on the  gist of the "never seen before on tv" thing.  I think we might see an erection or two.  I thought they weren't allowed on television, but looking into it, apparently it is allowed on pay cable networks, it's just that no one's done it.  If so, I kind of shudder.  Personally, I have no desire to watch either Sam Heughan or Tobias Menzies become aroused.  There are just some things that should remain personal to the actor.

(Didn't put in under a spoiler tag because it's just speculation on my part.)

 

Or, maybe the "never shown on tv before" is a herd of cattle running through a prison. *snark*

Edited May 13, 2015 by Hybiscus

[peacefrog]

Sam did say he had a full body prosthetic...they made amazing breast for Jenny and Geillis' pregnancy belly. 

[ScotchnSoda]

Okay . . . Starting with Nodorothyparker's comment regarding her enjoyment of the first 8 being greater than that of the recent 6, and most every one of your (the collectives) follow-up comments . . . I wholeheartedly agree (even with the contradictions) !

In re the first 8:  I loved all the additions/ changes made, with only one really huge exception. I will never cease lamenting the omission of the "honesty oath" during the wedding scenes. It was the only oath Claire made that day that she meant to keep. It revealed so beautifully Jamie!s honor code. Truth is rarer than love or lust, commitment or obediance.  Truth precedes trust, and together truth and trust make the unfathonable, believable and the unendurable, bearable.  What a missed opportunity for the show !

In re the second half (6 so far): The stones! Oh, those blasted stones! So many ways to show (pun intended) the agony of the decision each one made for his/her love of the other.  Instead, we got a cheap "fade to black".  Where was the eloquence to pierce our hearts? The depiction of the strength that will carry them - together and separately - through the travails of life? Woe is us for having been so denied !

Lastly, regarding the contradictions:  for me, the contradictions make the books and the show intriguing; provocative, if you will.  I get all kinds of emotional:  disgusted, happy, confused, satisfied, sad, judgmental, afraid, cozy.  I get all kinds of involved, too.  I rewrite, in my head, things I want to be different.  I speculate, and love all your speculations, on what's coming.  And, I look forward to Saturday night.  In short, I'm feeling vastly entertained. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I admit it: I am my own worst enemy sometimes.

 

I read all the book threads to see what to look forward to--I'm a spoiler whore. And now I've got the aching head and am left with this thought:

 

I need a FUCKING FAMILY TREE. Just so I know who is who and related to whom.

 

I also need a drink. There's a glass of Chivas Regal with my name, waiting for me at home.

[Athena]

I need a FUCKING FAMILY TREE. Just so I know who is who and related to whom.

 

Here you go. I'm going to link it above as well.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Here you go. I'm going to link it above as well.

 

 

Thank you, Athena! You're a doll!

 

I was truly expecting to be teased about my comment, heh.

[Starla]

Thanks for the family tree, Athena. How funny that Ellen MacKenzie's middle name is Caitriona, same spelling and all.

[Dejana]

Thanks for the family tree, Athena. How funny that Ellen MacKenzie's middle name is Caitriona, same spelling and all.

That was only revealed in the most recent book, as a shout-out to the then-upcoming series. There's also a "Heughan" mention in there as well.

[Nidratime]

I guess that goes right along with the Davina Porter and the Emma Watson.

[WatchrTina]

 

As much as I'm still not sure I really want to see this, all of the warning hysteria is starting to feel really condescending. And maybe a little titillating on all ends too, like the show needed to see just how far they could push it because they are on premium cable and now you have to watch it to prove you can handle really shocking TV.

Yeah I feel the same way.  As a reader I really don't need the teaser trailers and so I am voluntarily tuning out.  I've only watched the last episode on demand, which means I was not exposed to the preview for next week.  I'm not clicking on any trailers in my Facebook or Twitter feeds and I'm just avoiding most PR.  I thought the "warnings" that have been tweeted by media personalities who are friends of the show, while well-meaning, are counter-productive.  They are spoilers -- they are hinting at the content.  I wish they would stop.

 

So . . . I'm guessing that the next episode will be available on demand 'round about midnight on Friday night.  Anyone going to stay up an watch as soon as it is available? 

[bluebonnet]

 

So . . . I'm guessing that the next episode will be available on demand 'round about midnight on Friday night.  Anyone going to stay up an watch as soon as it is available? 

I probably will.  Though this week might suck not to be able to come here and immediately talk about it.  

[peacefrog]

I have to wait until 10 ET because my husband watches with me and we like to watch for the first time together. He has no idea what is coming.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I probably will. Though this week might suck not to be able to come here and immediately talk about it.

But we can talk immediately about it. See Athena's note in the episode thread. Once it's available on demand, those of us who watch it that way, don't have to wait until 10 to talk about it.

[WatchrTina]

He has no idea what is coming.

I envy you that. I've watched some YouTube videos of mixed groups of people watching key Game of Thrones moments together (the Red Wedding, Oberons's fight with The Mountain) and it is SO interesting to see the different reactions of those who have read and those who have not. It would be really . . . I won't say "fun" . . . how about "interesting" to see the next couple of episodes with an unsullied viewer beside me.

So here is a line I really really want to see in the episode. I want Jamie, when he regains consciousness after the rescue, to look up and say "Were there . . . cows?" It may be the only laugh in the whole episode so I think we're really going to need that.

And you know what is NOT in the book but I would love to see in the show? Jamie asking Claire to sing the song from "The Search." for him. That could make for be a really sweet moment after he bounces back in the last episode. And a discussion of Murtagh's dancing could make for another laugh.

Edited May 14, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Yeah I feel the same way.  As a reader I really don't need the teaser trailers and so I am voluntarily tuning out.  I've only watched the last episode on demand, which means I was not exposed to the preview for next week.  I'm not clicking on any trailers in my Facebook or Twitter feeds and I'm just avoiding most PR.  I thought the "warnings" that have been tweeted by media personalities who are friends of the show, while well-meaning, are counter-productive.  They are spoilers -- they are hinting at the content.  I wish they would stop.

 

 

I think the show is thrilled with all of these dire warnings by their media supporters. They are no doubt hoping this will build the audience even more out of curiosity.

[bluebonnet]

But we can talk immediately about it. See Athena's note in the episode thread. Once it's available on demand, those of us who watch it that way, don't have to wait until 10 to talk about it.

I meant more that no one will be around talking about it.  I've come online several times after catching the earliest on demand viewing but no one else has responded until after air time.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I meant more that no one will be around talking about it. I've come online several times after catching the earliest on demand viewing but no one else has responded until after air time.

Oh, right. Well I'll be here!

[Glaze Crazy]

Now that I know I can watch it at midnight On Demand that's what I've been doing also.  I do watch it real time on Saturday while commenting and snarking on twitter, for my own entertainment.

 

I am curious what sort of changes we'll see with DG now that the show is successful.  She has a pretty consistent publishing schedule. 

 

Me too, but my curiosity leans towards how a successful TV adaptation of her books might influence how she tells the rest of the story, since it very likely will end up on the small screen.  Also now that her characters have real life actor counterparts, will that influence the page versions in the future.  The fact that she inserted the two homages into Heart's Blood makes me wonder what the future holds for the book stories.

 

I am also finding myself less over-invested in the second half of this season.  I think it's just that I was more concerned about it's success at the beginning and was more interested in the extras being put out there to support the series.  I think now that it's at least assured a 2nd season I'm more at ease about the whole thing being a success. 

 

I'm finding it interesting to read the POV's of those who are now working their way through the book series.  I see it like this: if the books are too much to get through but you like the series, just watch the show.  They are doing a reasonable job getting the main story across so far and it might just be easier to enjoy it that way.  The only downside of that way is that the books do fill in the sometimes subtle details that the show has to pass over to make an entertaining hour of TV.

 

I never participated in any discussion forums about the books over the years but I appreciate the POV's of those here who point out the excessive wordiness and/or lack of editing in places where it might have been needed.   Because I've been a long time reader of the series I just kept at it to find out what happened to these characters in each book. Now when I go back through them I can skip the parts that drag for me and pick and choose what I want to revisit, so that is the upside of reading through the book series.

[nodorothyparker]

For some reason, I was laboring under the notion that we had to wait until the episode aired to comment. That's certainly helpful to know.

Not that I have any idea when I'll be able to catch it. I certainly don't want to do it with my kids around, and I already know the subject matter is going to make my nonbook reader husband intensely uncomfortable to the point that I don't know if he'll sit through it or not.

[Athena]

For some reason, I was laboring under the notion that we had to wait until the episode aired to comment. That's certainly helpful to know.

 

Each show forum has its own little characteristics so it really depends. Since this show is available On Demand and we are getting closer to the end of the season, I thought it would be alright to allow for discussion on episodes when they are made available by the network.

 

I am not looking forward to this next episode. I do wonder how and where they will end the season.

[Dust Bunny]

My stupid local cable company (evil Integra) doesn't do Starz Play/On Demand (or HBO Go or...) because it's stupid. My stupid city did an exclusive deal with Integra, not even allowing for any of the big cable companies to compete, thus screwing over every consumer in the city.

 

Thus, unless I watch/pirate online (and I don't want to, in order to see this on a large TV screen), I have to wait until air time. I doggedly stay off all Outlander-related websites until after 10/9 pm Saturday. The bonus is I have a day where I get to enjoy being outside and stuff until watching the darkness that is Wentworth.