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

[tcay]

As far as where they leave this season, I think they have to get to at least the pregnancy reveal if they're going to start next season in the '60s, so people think Bree is from this pregnancy. So some sort of happy ending at least? Maybe?

[auntlada]

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.

 

Have you read The Outlandish Companion? The revised version goes up through Drums of Autumn, and according to Amazon, a second volume covering the books since then is due out in October. It  has lots of stuff in it, including genealogies.

[Friendly Lurker]

Have you read The Outlandish Companion? The revised version goes up through Drums of Autumn, and according to Amazon, a second volume covering the books since then is due out in October. It  has lots of stuff in it, including genealogies.

 

I second this, I found the Outlandish Companion informative without being long winded. I'm pretty sure I read it online at my desk at work, so maybe if you do a google search you can find the .pdf version (I just tried but the first 3 links I clicked are firewall blocked at work. Rude!)

[GHScorpiosRule]

No, this chart helped immensely, but now that I've viewed it, I guess the show decided that Jamie only had two siblings. Jenny and Willie.  Because I don't remember them talking about Robert, nor the book, actually, now that I think about it. Unless, in the later books, he's mentioned???

Edited May 15, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[tcay]

Jamie's mother died during childbirth. I assume Robert is that baby and that he died too.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Jamie's mother died during childbirth. I assume Robert is that baby and that he died too.

 

D'OH! Right.  There was no legend that indicated that on the tree.  Nor dates of births and deaths. This tree could use those, actually.

[Petunia846]

Yeah, the baby died too. There's something somewhere in one book where Jamie talks about seeing them in the coffin together. (I think...or I might be remembering a fanfic. There aren't many for Outlander, but I did read a few.)

[ElsieH]

Did anyone else notice that the search episode covered just 20 pages from the book? This is assuming the page numbers on the Kindle are accurate of course. But after that, there are 100 pages left in the book to spread over two episodes. I think I will have to watch it at midnight because I don't think my husband will watch it with me. He hates torture scenes and I don't want to put him through it. Probably will be the same for the finale also, based on what I have seen on interwebs today. Do we know for sure at this point that they omitted that wolf nonsense? I sure hope so, but if they do, I wonder how McRannoch (or however you spell that) will be introduced since his men saved her from the wolfpack.

[tcay]

D'OH! Right.  There was no legend that indicated that on the tree.  Nor dates of births and deaths. This tree could use those, actually.

Yeah that would be pretty useful on the tree. 

 

ElsieH, based on what I read, I don't think there will be much of the torture this week. Evidence of it, surely, but it sounds as though most of it happens through flashbacks. But I'll probably check tonight and see how bad it is before watching with my husband. 

[bluebonnet]

One thing that always bothered me about the books is that when Claire is talking or thinking about her relationship with Frank after returning from the past, she never really thinks about how difficult it is to look at the face of the man who destroyed so many lives.  I remember always waiting for that to be mentioned, but it never was (unless I just missed it?).  I hope the show touches on this.  

Edited May 18, 2015 by bluebonnet

[bluebonnet]

 

I laughed as well when that unsullied poster nailed it.  But I have to disagree that Claire in anyway raped her husband. The "technicality" is: did Jamie rape Claire since when he had sex with her he thought (in his opium-ehanced fever dream) that he was taking eye-for-an-eye vengeance by "swiving" (raping) Black Jack.  I say it can't be rape since Claire was a willing participant.  Hell, she orchestrated the events and was very pleased with the outcome.  A few bruises were well worth pulling her husband back from the brink.

I agree, though I think there are consent issues all around.  Claire instigates a sexual scene with a delirious Jamie who can't consent to it and Jamie then reacts violently, thinking it's BJR.  I do tend to cut Jamie a bit more slack because, as you point out, Claire was a willing participant and assumed exactly this would happen and also because Jamie was delirious, insane, out of his mind.  I am unwilling to cut Claire slack this sort of slack since there was no consent and Jamie was delirious.

 

However, I do have to accept that neither Jamie nor Claire felt they were violated in a harmful way.  Still, there is likely a lot of author bias involved, and I can't be certain if DG just unconsciously did not consider that a woman could rape a man.  

[Nidratime]

I am perfectly willing to cut Claire slack because she was allowing Jamie to think she was Black Jack in order to allow her husband to fight Black Jack and win. She really put herself on the line because Jamie could've killed her. Furthermore, she was helping Jamie to reclaim his ability to feel love and make love again.

[bluebonnet]

"She did it for his own good" is a very unsavory excuse.

 

Certainly I got past this with the characters.  I still love Claire, still love Jamie.  But if it walks like a duck, I'm going to go ahead and call it a duck.  

Edited May 17, 2015 by bluebonnet

[sara217]

 

she never really thinks about how difficult it is to look at the face of the man who destroyed so many lives

Wasn't that the reason Claire tried to make Frank leave her, that she couldn't stand to look at him?  I don't remember if it was explicit in the text though.

 

So I guess Frank won't be finding the petition of complaint signed by Claire.

[GHScorpiosRule]

One thing that always bothered me about the books is that when Claire is talking or thinking about her relationship with Claire after returning from the past,

Heh. I saw this last night, after you'd posted it, bluebonnet, but I was too tired to quote from my phone, but I'm sure you meant "Claire's relationship with Frank", right?

 

I'm not sure whether the opening in Wentworth Prison was an expansion of what Jamie told Claire in Dragonfly or just made up.  In Dragonfly, no one was actually hanged.  I think Jamie said they brought them out to show them the scaffold and taunt them that that's where they'd find death soon enough or something like that. There was no Bastard Black Randall galloping at the last minute to "save" Jamie so he could rape him.  Moore didn't say one way or the other, like he did after "The Watch" where he told us that McQuarrie was a totally made up character.

 

[bluebonnet]

I know we've all probably wanted to move away from this topic but since it's coming up next week, I'm hammering away at it again.  I'm rereading some of the stuff at the Abbey, specifically where Claire is "summoning a ghost".  I forgot a lot of the elements.  Like the part where Claire drugs him with opium.  That's some Bill Cosby shit right there.  I'm really so eager to see how they deal with this entire scene in two weeks.  I would like to hear people calling her a Mary Sue after this.  (btw, super glad we are banned from any participation in the non book talk thread because grrr every time I click in there).

 

Heh. I saw this last night, after you'd posted it, bluebonnet, but I was too tired to quote from my phone, but I'm sure you meant "Claire's relationship with Frank", right?

 

 

Lol, wow, what a dumb, but funny mistake.  Wonder what I was thinking at the time.  

[AheadofStraight]

Like the part where Claire drugs him with opium. That's some Bill Cosby shit right there. I'm really so eager to see how they deal with this entire scene in two weeks.

It does look like they're going there based on the preview if I'm interpreting the end of it correctly...

[GHScorpiosRule]

Weel, I found something. Or maybe not. Maybe it was just a typo in the Kindle I read.  You know how in the show, Geillis kept saying "1968"? Well, in the book, it was 1967. Yes, yes, a small thing, but I'm wondering why they went with 1968.

 

If any of the nonbook readers stick around, they'll get their "Culloden" so to speak next season. Well, there was that skirmish that the Scots did win at Prestonpas.

 

That chapter did throw me for a loop for a bit, because Claire kept saying "The Scots win" and I'm like whuuut?  Then as I kept reading, it became clear this wasn't CULLODEN.

 

I know we've all probably wanted to move away from this topic but since it's coming up next week, I'm hammering away at it again.  I'm rereading some of the stuff at the Abbey, specifically where Claire is "summoning a ghost".  I forgot a lot of the elements.  Like the part where Claire drugs him with opium.  That's some Bill Cosby shit right there.  I'm really so eager to see how they deal with this entire scene in two weeks.  I would like to hear people calling her a Mary Sue after this.  (btw, super glad we are banned from any participation in the non book talk thread because grrr every time I click in there).

 

Lol, wow, what a dumb, but funny mistake.  Wonder what I was thinking at the time.  

 

Heh. You can still go back and edit it to read correctly. I believe we have a week to edit our posts.

 

 

ETA:

 

I also think the show went out of its way to show what a great guy Frank is, but didn't show any of his flaws.  The one scene of Frank's reaction when Claire swears at the dinner table after burning herself would have gone a long way to illustrate that Frank was not always accepting of who Claire is and tarnish the St. Frank halo a bit.  Ah well, on to the finale...

 

Not only that, but the scene where Frank tells Claire he's against adopting, and that he wants a biological child, that has both their DNA. How he couldn't love a child not of his blood. Of course we learn later, that's not true, but the way he shut Claire down regarding adoption would have been a more realistic view of him. At least to me.

Edited May 18, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[ElsieH]

Weel, I found something. Or maybe not. Maybe it was just a typo in the Kindle I read.  You know how in the show, Geillis kept saying "1968"? Well, in the book, it was 1967. Yes, yes, a small thing, but I'm wondering why they went with 1968.

 

I wonder if it has to do with how they changed the whole timeline of when she goes back. In the book it was near Beltane I think but in the show they made it Samhain for some reason. Just six months but I wonder if that is why they did it.

 

Speaking of that six months, I wonder how much stuff they'll have to cut out to get to Culloden. I guess there probably is a lot of stuff that happens in Paris they could omit, I just wonder what it will be.

[Dejana]

There was a timeline change between the British and American editions of the book. UK readers found it implausible that Claire and Frank were honeymooning in Scotland in May 1945, so apparently the British editors shifted the date of the first book to 1946, which shifted all the other years in the 20th century timeline. Then, I think that messed with how long Claire was in the 18th century, so depending on which edition or revised version you have, the dates don't completely match up.

[chocolatetruffle]

I wonder if it has to do with how they changed the whole timeline of when she goes back. In the book it was near Beltane I think but in the show they made it Samhain for some reason. Just six months but I wonder if that is why they did it.

 

Ron said somewhere (in a podcast I think) that they had to change her trip thru the stones to fall because leaves were already coming off the trees and there would soon be snow on the ground during filming.  There was no way they could make the topography look like spring into summer.  That's why they changed Claire's age to 27 when Jamie asked her on the way to Lallybroch.  Her 28th birthday, which is in October, hadn't happened yet, whereas in the book, she turns 28 the same day she confesses to Jamie about being a time traveler.

[ElsieH]

Seems to me if that is the case, then Claire would have already been 28 at Halloween when she went through. Unless they just backed everything up a year. Except for Geillis who came a year later than originally written. Ehh, it's making my head hurt already. Where's my whisky? :)

[bluebonnet]

Was there something in 1968 that they might want to link with Geillis' reason for going to the past?  Or maybe even something in 1967 that happened that spurned her to learn about time traveling to change things?  Like maybe a parliament vote or some sort of protests, just something that would anger a Scottish Nationalist.  

[chocolatetruffle]

Was there something in 1968 that they might want to link with Geillis' reason for going to the past?  Or maybe even something in 1967 that happened that spurned her to learn about time traveling to change things?  Like maybe a parliament vote or some sort of protests, just something that would anger a Scottish Nationalist.  

 

You know, the books (and I've only read through #5 so far) didn't mention anything about what made Geillis such a patriot.  This would be a great addition on the show's part if it does give us more background on Geillis.  The character has become very popular and I, for one, would love to know more about her before we get to the Caribbean section of Voyager (assuming there is a season 3 and I think that's a pretty safe assumption at this point).

[Dejana]

You know, the books (and I've only read through #5 so far) didn't mention anything about what made Geillis such a patriot.  This would be a great addition on the show's part if it does give us more background on Geillis.  The character has become very popular and I, for one, would love to know more about her before we get to the Caribbean section of Voyager (assuming there is a season 3 and I think that's a pretty safe assumption at this point).

 

From Roger's comments in the books, he made it sound like she was simply a very familiar type among his compatriots. In following the referendum news out of Scotland last year...yeah.

 

The pining for Frank puzzles me, since I don't find him more compelling than Jamie (and all the time we've spent *with* Jamie) or even Dougal! I think the wish to get back to Frank is actually code for wishing Claire could get back to the 1940's so we can be rid of the violence of the 18th Century, Jamie's fugitive status, Black Jack, and the looming Scottish Rebellion -- not necessarily some tremendous longing for the Frank character.

 

Yes, let's go back to the 1940's so we can watch a show about Claire's adventures as an English professor's wife at Oxford. The second season can be called "Hello Again, Mr. Randall!"

 

I don't know how much the non-book readers know about the series as a whole. Yes, there's Scotland and time travel and romance, but a neophyte could read that in any number of ways, to assume how the books will progress. Maybe they think Claire will travel to other eras, that Frank will get to see the history he so loves for himself, that Roger is their son who somehow traveled to the future, etc.

 

While I do think the downsides of Frank and 1945 have been downplayed, it's not like Starz could sell the series with, "Frank's a Muggle, and doomed. Sorry!" I know they wanted to get all the viewers they could, and there's more to the show than romance, but trying to run from that label maybe lulled people into watching a show that's really not for them. All the "Finally, the female gaze!!1!11!!!" hype that TPTB have been happy to revel in probably brings along the sort of viewer who has very strong, very 21st century feelings about how sexual assault should occur in a story. Maybe that audience is not the most natural fit with the Outlander story.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Dejana

[lianau]

You know, the books (and I've only read through #5 so far) didn't mention anything about what made Geillis such a patriot.  This would be a great addition on the show's part if it does give us more background on Geillis.  The character has become very popular and I, for one, would love to know more about her before we get to the Caribbean section of Voyager (assuming there is a season 3 and I think that's a pretty safe assumption at this point).

I think she started out as a normal nationalist and then went down the rabbit hole into really nationalistic territory until she lost the plot , killed poor Greg and went stone surfing .

[Petunia846]

Geillis was also part of the druid dance group first, right? Isn't that how she got interested in the stones and what they could do? That combination of nationalist, unhappy wife, and knowledge of magic set her off on her journey. (With a little psychopathic willingness to murder thrown in for good measure.)

[Cirien]

From Roger's comments in the books, he made it sound like she was simply a very familiar type among his compatriots. In following the referendum news out of Scotland last year...yeah.

Ummmmm 55% of the people in Scotland voted to stay in the Union. And many of those were young people. And many people who voted "No" were scared to tell people they were voting no because they were labelled as traitors.

 

If I had written the Books Gellis would have been from the late 70's-80's when Thatcher placed Scotland under the poll tax a year earlier than the rest of the U.K. Because I can't think of anything taking place in the 60's that would anger a Scottish nationalist.

[WatchrTina]

If I recall correctly, membership in the Druid group was handed down within a family over the centuries and Geillis actually had to manipulate her way into information about the group -- I don't think she was ever actually a member.  I think she sought them out after something (perhaps her research into witchcraft) brought the legends about the standing stones and time-travel to her attention.

 

And now on a completely different topic, can we talk about the cows?  I love the cows.  I love the originality of the cow-based rescue.  It's completely absurd that they could sneak the cows INTO the prison with no one noticing because, really -- if you could pull that off, just go in yourself.  But nevermind, I LOVE the cows.

 

I predict there will be no cows next week.  Oh we'll HEAR about them.  Rupert and Angus will, I suspect, give a particularly thrilling account of their exploits involving the cows.  There will be off-screen mooing while redcoats look shocked and Sir Fletcher loses his mind over what he is seeing.  And perhaps there will even be a few fake cow heads in the corner of a shot or two (held by production assistants) -- maybe even a few CGI cows on screen briefly.  But there is NO WAY British Health & Safety are going to allow a herd of cows to be filmed inside an enclosed space that also contains actors.  I heard on The Graham Norton show last month that they just about lost their minds over the sheep-dipping scene in "Far from the Maddening Crowd", wanting the actors to fake it with sheep-skin covered balloons (it didn't work.)  No way are we seeing close ups of real cows in Wentworth Prison next week.

 

Too bad.  Because Highland cows are ADORABLE.

Edited May 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[ulkis]

You're probably right about the cows. boo/moo :(

[chocolatetruffle]

Well, Ira Steven Behr said in the podcast that the cows were very well-behaved, so maybe we'll see them hanging out at Wentworth's back door right before the stampede, or a shot of them being led down a road... (fingers-crossed) 

[Dejana]

55% of the people in Scotland voted to stay in the Union. And many of those were young people. And many people who voted "No" were scared to tell people they were voting no because they were labelled as traitors.

If I had written the Books Gellis would have been from the late 70's-80's when Thatcher placed Scotland under the poll tax a year earlier than the rest of the U.K. Because I can't think of anything taking place in the 60's that would anger a Scottish nationalist.

I wasn't saying Geillis held a majority or even typical point of view, just that in Scotland, someone with her intensity/fervor/fanaticism (minus the time traveling/murdering part, of course) would be on the fringes yet not seem that unfamiliar as a type.

DG had Geillis/Gillian go through the stones in the late 1960s so 20 year old Bree could see and be completely convinced that Claire was telling the truth. Even without a broader wave of nationalism afoot, at any time in the last two or three centuries in Scotland, there have probably always been a certain number of true believers ever-passionate about the cause.

[peacefrog]

I don't think we are finished with a lot of these characters like Geillis and BJR. Both are in MOBY, having a device like time travel enables DG to circle back and fill in more of their story. It may not be much more but I think at least these 2 May get further development.

[Cirien]

I know we've all probably wanted to move away from this topic but since it's coming up next week, I'm hammering away at it again.  I'm rereading some of the stuff at the Abbey, specifically where Claire is "summoning a ghost".  I forgot a lot of the elements.  Like the part where Claire drugs him with opium.  That's some Bill Cosby shit right there.  I'm really so eager to see how they deal with this entire scene in two weeks.  I would like to hear people calling her a Mary Sue after this.  (btw, super glad we are banned from any participation in the non book talk thread because grrr every time I click in there).

 

Lol, wow, what a dumb, but funny mistake.  Wonder what I was thinking at the time.  

Well it would depend on the response to the character in the show. Felicity drugged Oliver over on Arrow and he forgave her. And yes people call Felicity a Mary Sue

[bluebonnet]

Well it would depend on the response to the character in the show. Felicity drugged Oliver over on Arrow and he forgave her. And yes people call Felicity a Mary Sue

These aren't really comparable.  Felicity didn't drug a recently raped Oliver, then reach down and grip his buttocks while pretending to be Oliver's recent rapist then using a knife to break open recent wounds. 

[Hybiscus]

 

Too bad.  Because Highland cows are ADORABLE.

I only say this because WatchTina reminded us that pictures are "hung," but people are "hanged" in her delightful Outlander/Game of Thrones crossover...

 

That would be Highland cattle, not cows.  Cows are female.  :)  Ok gosh, my Iowa farm community roots are showing.

[bluebonnet]

I only say this because WatchTina reminded us that pictures are "hung," but people are "hanged" in her delightful Outlander/Game of Thrones crossover...

 

That would be Highland cattle, not cows.  Cows are female.  :)  Ok gosh, my Iowa farm community roots are showing.

To be fair, the cattle we see on the show are likely to be an all female herd.  

[Hybiscus]

To be fair, the cattle we see on the show are likely to be an all female herd.  

Really?  How so?  Perhaps because adding a bull or two (not sure if there are "gelded" cattle, so my farm-adjacent upbringing isn't necessarily that reliable) might cause a bovine orgy?  ;)

[Cirien]

These aren't really comparable.  Felicity didn't drug a recently raped Oliver, then reach down and grip his buttocks while pretending to be Oliver's recent rapist then using a knife to break open recent wounds. 

Again. It would depend on how people reacted to it in show.

[bluebonnet]

Really?  How so?  Perhaps because adding a bull or two (not sure if there are "gelded" cattle, so my farm-adjacent upbringing isn't necessarily that reliable) might cause a bovine orgy?  ;)

Gelded cattle are called steers.  I suppose it could be a herd of steers.  Having a bull in the mix of cows just seems needlessly dangerous for something like a tv set.  Might cause an orgy, but more than that, bulls can be (for lack of a better term) bull-ish.  I think it's most likely that it was just a few head of cows, young ones, heifers maybe, though I'm not familiar with Highland cattle so I don't really know what size they are meant to be.  

 

ETA:  Actually, I rewatched and maybe an editing expert can chime in because the cattle may not even be on set and were added in later.  

Edited May 19, 2015 by bluebonnet

[bluebonnet]

Again. It would depend on how people reacted to it in show.

That's a point I repeatedly make upthread.  But it actually depends on how it's presented on the show, rather than how the characters react to it. If you want to use Arrow as some sort of bizarre comparison with this show, consider Ray Palmer and Felicity.  The audience viewed Ray's behavior as creepy and stalkerish, while the characters perceived it as cutesy and romantic.  The writers can intend one thing while the audience see it in a completely different way.  

 

In the books, the characters don't think they did anything wrong in this scene.  However we readers can clearly point out that this is, at best, an extremely unsavory event.  Our own reactions need not be bound by authorial intent.  

[DittyDotDot]

Really?  How so?  Perhaps because adding a bull or two (not sure if there are "gelded" cattle, so my farm-adjacent upbringing isn't necessarily that reliable) might cause a bovine orgy?  ;)

 

Gelded cattle are called steers. Although, the use of cattle is proper in this instance, cows are also used colloquially. So I think the use of cows here works just fine for me and did not offend my farm upbringing in the least.

[Hybiscus]

Gelded cattle are called steers. Although, the use of cattle is proper in this instance, cows are also used colloquially. So I think the use of cows here works just fine for me and did not offend my farm upbringing in the least.

It was never my intention to offend anyone.  Nor was I offended.  I was just trying to be humorous.  Sorry everyone seemed to take it wrong.  And yes!  Steers!  I knew there a term, I just couldn't remember it.

[WatchrTina]

 

 

I only say this because WatchTina reminded us that pictures are "hung," but people are "hanged" in her delightful Outlander/Game of Thrones crossover...

That would be Highland cattle, not cows.  Cows are female.  :)  Ok gosh, my Iowa farm community roots are showing.

I know, I know.  I live in Texas.  In fact one of my favorite expressions is "All hat, no cattle" (about someone who is fake.)

 

I just like the word cows better in this context.  It's cuter.  I mean just look at him/her.

 

[chocolatetruffle]

ETA:  Actually, I rewatched and maybe an editing expert can chime in because the cattle may not even be on set and were added in later.  

 

Bluebonnet, I'm no editing expert, but in RDM's podcast this week the writer said that there were real cows on set.  He said that everyone was worried all day because they didn't know if the cows would cooperate, do what they needed them to do in order to get the shot.  But when they arrived that evening, he said they were wonderful, very well-mannered and did exactly what the camera crew needed them to do.  He actually sounded like he was quite charmed by them.

 

And look at how cute that picture is!

Edited May 19, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[Nidratime]

That one above looks like Jamie ... I mean if he were a cow. Long red, wild hair, slanty eyes. ;-)

[DittyDotDot]

It was never my intention to offend anyone.  Nor was I offended.  I was just trying to be humorous.  Sorry everyone seemed to take it wrong.  And yes!  Steers!  I knew there a term, I just couldn't remember it.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't offended at all and never meant to convey that I was. I understood you were making a joke...I was just being silly myself, I sometimes have the hardest time getting that intonation thing across over the internet. Sorry, sorry, sorry!

Edited May 20, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[mledawn]

A friend of mine has Scottish parents, and when we were in high school (yeaaaars ago) she brought me back this tshirt after visiting family there.

 

It's long since met its demise, but when I watched this episode I yelled out "HEILAN COO!"

[peacefrog]

After Jamie is rescued from Wentworth and recovering at Macrranoch's and the abbey I really hated that Claire kept thinking and hoped that Jamie would talk about what happened but not with her. Now I think it's a really good bit of writing. It's very uncomfortable to admit maybe in my mind I was hoping for the same. You can't make it about you, the person affected needs to have their voice heard if they choose. I sincerely hope this is conveyed in the next episode. I feel it's a good parallel for all the discussions that are going on.

[tcay]

That fear of hers felt more like a nurse fear to me. When you caretake for someone for an extended period of time, it really kills romantic feelings. So I always thought she was trying to preserve their ability to be together in that way, rather than making it about her feelings.