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

[chocolatetruffle]

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.

 

 

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.

 

I think you are both right.  We humans are very complex and there's room in our psyches for several motivations that lead to one single act.  You can't help someone if you are weeping uncontrollably while they are bearing their soul and once you've heard it, your relationship is going to be irrevocably changed. 

[MsProudSooner]

A post from BookBub popped into my Facebook Newsfeed today.  It said:  "I met the man of my dreams last night in Chapter 5!"  The next sentence was "Have you ever fallen in love with a fictional character?"  

There were a fair number of votes for Rhett Butler and Mr. Darcy, but the overwhelming majority of those I saw were for Jamie Fraser.  :-)

Edited May 22, 2015 by MsProudSooner

[AD55]

I just reread the scene where Claire "rescues" Jamie from death after Wentworth. I believe someone already expressed the same opinion on this thread or another, but I will add my two cents -- if they keep that bit where Jamie calls Claire "mother" after raping Claire posing as Randall, I am going to have to put my head under a pillow. It may sound strange, but I think I'll be more creeped out by that than the scenes between Randall and Jamie. Even if it can be defended on psychological grounds, and I have no idea whether it can be, I still want it cut. Given how many other scenes have been shortened or eliminated altogether, I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

In the preview, we see Jamie shout Claire with a shocked and panicked expression on his face, so I harbor some hope.

 

ETA. I found the earlier discussion about this. Chocolatetruffle, I don't mean to be judgmental. This is a matter of personal opinion, and I can see how the scene could be viewed more positively. Because I have issues with it doesn't mean I think everyone should.

Edited May 25, 2015 by AD55

[CatMack]

We talked a lot in the last episode thread about how much should or should not be shown with regards to graphic violence.  Since we know there's even more coming up in the next episode, though we don't know yet just how much they'll show, I thought I'd post this article.  My best friend wrote an article about Mad Max: Fury Road.  A good chunk of the article focuses on how it's a story about rape survivors that's actually friendly for rape survivors to view, and how as a rape survivor himself it was incredibly powerful.  I don't think what Fury Road did is the only acceptable way to deal with rape, but I think it's an important view point to consider.  Any time I see rape in a movie or TV show or book, I always ask myself, did actually showing it - not just dealing with the aftermath and other thematic elements but seeing the rape itself - add anything to the story?  Did I get anything out of it that I wouldn't have gotten if they hadn't shown the act itself?  I very rarely answer that question with a yes.  Very rarely.  (And before anyone brings up graphic non sexual violence as a counterpoint, I have the same problem with extremely graphic violence).  

 

https://newmediamayhem.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/we-dont-need-another-hero-the-new-mad-max-and-my-ride-historic-on-the-fury-road/

 

(also this was the best action movie I've seen in years, and I had no interest in this franchise prior, and y'all should go see it)

[GHScorpiosRule]

How do you think it's inconsistent? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, but genuinely wondering because I don't have that much insight on the character besides what I've read from book 1. 

 

My second thought after hearing he suggested that (my first being "whaaaaaat") was gee, that would be a tad uncomfortable, in many ways, for the poor fellow playing Morley. (Although actually I'm sure they would use a fake body or something. maybe. I hope.)

 

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought (spoilering because I can't recall if spoilers from other books are fair game )

it was the cows that had killed Marley? Or was it just his dead body they had trampled over? That's how Black Jack explained how he was still alive in Dragonfly to Claire. That it was Marley the kine had trampled and killed.

 

I don't feel like going back to check, because I'm too lazy.

Edited May 26, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[ulkis]

Yeah, in the book Jamie didn't kill Marley.

[lianau]

But it didn't look like Marley was going to survive . He was out for good.

[chocolatetruffle]

Claire goes through the stones on Halloween.

 

Eight episodes later (Both Sides Now) Frank says Claire has been missing for 6 weeks and in the same episode Jamie observes that when they return to Leoch it will be Christmas so that makes sense -- it must be mid-December.

 

it snows in the episode where Colum and Dougal are feuding over the money -- that's episode 9, The Reckoning.  And the great hall seemed to be decorated for Christmas during the impromptu party for the newlyweds.  So that's looking like the last part of December.  

 

Ned is told to write to the Duke of Sandringham in episode 9 and he arrives at the beginning of episode 10 so you have to assume a little time has passed.  A week or more so that puts us in January.

 

The witch trial (11) follows immediately so, still January.

 

It's not clear how long Jamie and Claire are at Lallybroch (12) but it felt really fast.  Claire says she's starting to feel like she belongs there at the end of the episode so I'd like to think that they had at least a week of peace before The Watch (13) showed up.  Still probably January.

 

Murtagh and Claire are on the road for weeks in The Search (14).  That puts them into February.

 

So Wentworth had to have happened in late February or March.  I suppose one could fan-wank that THAT is why all those bodies are lying there unburied -- it's the end of the winter, the first thaw, and they'll be digging graves for them shortly.

 

But other than that one snow flurry in episode 9 the Clan MacKenzie does seem to have mysteriously gotten through a Scottish winter with nary a snow storm (unlike the books where a blizzard serve as a key plot point.)

 

I know that the stones are only open at certain times of the year.  Claire went through on Halloween. She returned six weeks later and Frank was listening to a report about Patton's death, which would put the date on or right after Dec. 21 - the winter Solstice.  This is where I get lost.  Is there a date that's magically connected to the seasons or the moon or whatever that accounts for the stones being open when Claire arrives with Jamie?  If it is indeed in January, which makes sense, would the stones have been open during that month?

[AD55]

I know that the stones are only open at certain times of the year.  Claire went through on Halloween. She returned six weeks later and Frank was listening to a report about Patton's death, which would put the date on or right after Dec. 21 - the winter Solstice.  This is where I get lost.  Is there a date that's magically connected to the seasons or the moon or whatever that accounts for the stones being open when Claire arrives with Jamie?  If it is indeed in January, which makes sense, would the stones have been open during that month?

 

Early on, Moore et al noted that since they needed to begin filming in the fall, Claire would go through the stones at Samhain. In the books, it's Beltane and Jamie brings Claire to the stones at Samhain. I always assumed they would keep to the six-month timeline and just flip the festivals, but If WatchrTina's timeline is correct, that doesn't work. There's a Gaelic festival called Imbolc that usually takes place on 1 February. If we stretch WatchrTina's timeline a bit, we could assume that show Jamie brings Claire to the stones during that festival, but it would be quite the fan-wank since there's no mention of either Imbolc or Beltane on the show.

[peacefrog]

I'm thinking that more time has passed than that and when Jamie brings Claire to the stones it's around the vernal equinox.

[lianau]

The book time line is something like that 

 

goes through stones around May 1st (Happy Birthday Jamie )

 

marries Jamie in mid June  

How in the name of God did this happen? I asked myself some time later. Six weeks ago, I had been innocently collecting wildflowers on a Scottish hill to take home to my husband. I was now shut in the room of a rural inn, awaiting a completely different husband, whom I scarcely knew, with firm orders to consummate a forced marriage, at risk of my life and liberty.

 

 

Jamie brings her to the stones on October 20th 

I said ‘Happy Birthday.’ It’s the twentieth of October today.”

 

 

Wentworth and aftermath  shortly before and around christmas.

“Oh, yes. Date of execution, December 23. Yes, we still have him.”

I swallowed, relaxing my hold on my bag, torn between exultation and panic. He was still alive, then. For another two days.

 

[Starla]

I always thought the portal was open around the eight pagan sabbats, with several days extended on either side:

 

Imbolc (February 1)

Spring Equinox (~ March 21)

Beltane (April 30/May 1)

Summer Solstice (~ June 21)

Lughnasadh (August 1)

Fall Equinox (~ September 21)

Samhain (October 31/November 1)

Winter Equinox (~ December 21)

 

With the show, it is very hard to keep track of the timeline, because days or weeks could have passed that weren't shown. I gave up trying to keep track and decided to think of it as six months difference from the books at all times, with lots of down time we weren't shown. They'll eventually need to sync back up with the books in season 2 for historical purposes. I always feel lost if I don't know where a story is in time and place, and these books are really hard to keep track. When I first started reading Outlander I flipped through the whole thing looking for the map that is always included with epic sagas... there is none! I still to this day don't have a clear picture of where everything is, and the timeline seems off in many places.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Starla

[chocolatetruffle]

I always thought the portal was open around the eight pagan sabbats, with several days extended on either side:

 

Imbolc (February 1)

Spring Equinox (~ March 21)

Beltane (April 30/May 1)

Summer Solstice (~ June 21)

Lughnasadh (August 1)

Fall Equinox (~ September 21)

Samhain (October 31/November 1)

Winter Equinox (~ December 21)

 

With the show, it is very hard to keep track of the timeline, because days or weeks could have passed that weren't shown. I gave up trying to keep track and decided to think of it as six months difference from the books at all times, with lots of down time we weren't shown. They'll eventually need to sync back up with the books in season 2 for historical purposes. I always feel lost if I don't know where a story is in time and place, and these books are really hard to keep track. When I first started reading Outlander I flipped through the whole thing looking for the map that is always included with epic sagas... there is none! I still to this day don't have a clear picture of where everything is, and the timeline seems off in many places.

 

Thank you so much for the info! So the most likely date for show Claire's return trip to the stones would be Feb. 1.  I suppose more time could have passed between Jamie's banishment from Leoch and the witch trials.  Book Claire had been in 1743 for almost 8 months by Wentworth and show Claire has been there maybe 5 or so. They will need to make up some time next season, then if we are to believe she had been there 2 years.  Or, maybe they just hope we won't think too hard about this  :-)

[Petunia846]

I always thought that for the right people, the stones would work any time of year but that the journey would be easier at certain times of year (the equinoxes and whatnot). I thought that's why some people didn't make it (according to Geilis' research)...they tried to travel at the wrong time, and while the stones let them through, the journey was too rough to survive. (Though, theoretically if you had gemstones or fire or blood or some other special thing the journey would be easier so you might be able to survive even at the wrong time.) So, by my headcanon, Claire could have tried to go back whenever, it just might have majorly sucked.

[lianau]

I always thought the portal was open around the eight pagan sabbats, with several days extended on either side:

 

Imbolc (February 1)

Spring Equinox (~ March 21)

Beltane (April 30/May 1)

Summer Solstice (~ June 21)

Lughnasadh (August 1)

Fall Equinox (~ September 21)

Samhain (October 31/November 1)

Winter Equinox (~ December 21)

I think during those times the stones are wide open but travel is possible before and after those dates because Claire wouldn't have been able to go through on April 15/16th when she left Jamie .

[AheadofStraight]

 

. When I first started reading Outlander I flipped through the whole thing looking for the map that is always included with epic sagas... there is none! I still to this day don't have a clear picture of where everything is, and the timeline seems off in many places.

 

I have the Outlandish Companion and I think there are maps, family trees, etc. in that one. I'm not anywhere near it or I'd go verify...

[WatchrTina]

Random Outlander shower thought of the day:  I'll bet Fergus does not lose a hand in season 3.  Colum's legs and Ian's lack of a leg are both key to the plot but as far as a I an recall, Fergus' missing hand only comes into play during that trial where he is accused of hitting someone and it is revealed that he could not have struck a blow on that side of a man's face.  I predict this because there would be a HUGE hue and cry at the maiming of a child in the show.  And when that died down people would say the show was copying Game of Thrones and Jaime Lannister's predicament or, worse yet, aping Captain Hook from Once Upon a Time.

 

The missing hand does come into play in that it motivates Fergus to become a printer instead of something more active, but they could probably just ignore Fergus' motivations for making that life-choice.  

[ElsieH]

If they skip that, I wonder what they will do about Fergus and his "encounter" with Black Jack?:

 

ETA: just wondering because I can't remember, was there a huge outcry when Bran got thrown out of the window on Game of Thrones? 

Edited May 29, 2015 by ElsieH

[WatchrTina]

 

I wonder what they will do about Fergus and his "encounter" with Black Jack?:

 

TV is a visual medium so I'm betting a flash-back from Jaimie's point of view to finding Black Jack with Fergus is a strong possibility.  Eeek.  I don't know.  It would be very upsetting.  I think it's pretty clear we're in for a brutal depiction of male-on-male rape on Saturday.  But child-rape?  Would the show actually depict that?  It was depicted in The Prince of Tides via a flashback with just one anguished shot of the child's face showing his reaction.  Yeah, I would not put it past the show to go there.

 

As for Game of Thrones and Bran's de-fenestration, I'm sure there was strong reaction but of course that WAS done for shock-value and so the reaction wouldn't have bothered the show runners.  The crippling of Bran is pretty much ground zero for much of the plot that follows.  It had to be depicted.  Jack's encounter with Fergus is also necessary -- it has to be something big to cause Jamie to break his promise to Claire and go after Jack -- so I think they'll have to keep it in the plot.  But how much they show is a choice and yeah, there will be back-lash.

[SunDevil]

I see no reason the Fergus encounter with Black Jack can't just be another thwarted attempt. As far as I recall Fergus was more traumatized by the violence anyway. Do the books ever touch on Fergus' emotional scars from life as a child prostitute?

 

I don't mind if he loses a hand as much. It seemed an odd outcome from a skirmish with soldiers, but I appreciated the tie in with Jamie's promise to take care of him for life. 

[ElsieH]

That's where I'm afraid the viewers will start to leave, because really, if they stay after what Jamie goes through, and then they get invested in this little kid Fergus who has to go through the same thing, I can imagine that will turn off a LOT of people. Dang these books are really dark. It's part of why I had trouble getting through them I will say. I love them, but I kept thinking, why can't they just catch a break sometimes?

[Petunia846]

The lack of a hand also factors in during 'A Breath of Snow And Ashes' when he gets depressed and tries to commit suicide, doesn't it? That's what prompts them to leave the Ridge and get into printing, isn't it? I always found that part very touching. I hope they don't change it.

[lianau]

I see no reason the Fergus encounter with Black Jack can't just be another thwarted attempt. As far as I recall Fergus was more traumatized by the violence anyway. Do the books ever touch on Fergus' emotional scars from life as a child prostitute?

 

I don't mind if he loses a hand as much. It seemed an odd outcome from a skirmish with soldiers, but I appreciated the tie in with Jamie's promise to take care of him for life. 

Later when the missing hand  becomes an issue on the Ridge he also laments that he's now far to  old to be a prostitute and that's just another way he can't make a living . I was never really sure how much Fergus really sees his pre Jamie childhood as traumatic though , given how much at home he feels in various brothels .

[chocolatetruffle]

Also, seeing Fergus lose his hand was what motivated Jamie to finally turn himself in.  After almost getting caught by the Redcoats in Jenny's bedroom after she had given birth, then watching helpless as Fergus had his hand cut off, Jamie realized that he couldn't stay there any longer.

[WatchrTina]

Well, I'm stepping out of the finale episode thread to say, damn, it's hard to be an Outlander fan today.  I have to give a huge bravo to the cast and crew for a terrific 16 episodes.  They're not perfect but taken as a whole -- it was an amazing season.  It's going to be a LONG hiatus as we wait for DIA and next Saturday is going to feel very sad with no new episode to watch.

 

The other reason it is hard to be a fan today is the back-lash I'm seeing on-line about the violence in the last episode.  I always knew it would happen but it's still hard to read.  And as much as I want to tell people "but in the book . . . " you really can't say that.  Even Diana and George RR Martin (Game of Thrones' author) have said, "The book is the book, the show is the show."  The show has to stand on its own and this was a tough episode to have to adapt.  As a reader I cannot help but miss Jamie being given the chance to "fight back" against Jack in his opium-enhanced fever dream.  I'm sorry they chose to cut it.  I also get what they were doing by making the brand such a big deal -- making it a metaphor for Jamie's surrender -- and then cutting it out of him.  Having a potent symbol like that is very useful in a visual medium.  But it's such a minor detail in the book I'm having a hard time imbuing it with the same significance the writers did. As for all the brutal rape imagery -- that was hard to watch but what was harder for me is the fact that I was watching instead of hearing Jamie recount it to Claire as you do in the book.  Somehow my eavesdropping on Jamie telling Claire about the worst part -- how ashamed he was at having been "roused" by Jack -- was easier for me than watching Jack's final "seduction" of Jamie.  The "think of Claire" scene was difficult for me because it WAS erotic.  Jamie/Sam was cleaned up and looked, dare I say it, really beautiful in that scene.  The fact that I noticed that -- at that time -- creeps me out a bit.  Thank goodness they had him breakdown and cry in the aftermath to remind us what was really happening.

 

Yeah, tough day to be an Outlander fan.  I look forward to hearing Ron's podcast and reading Bear's blog.  I hope we will see more positive reviews from legitimate new sources today.  But right now I've got the post-Outlander-finale blues.

Edited May 31, 2015 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

I should post this in the Outlander in the Media thread, but since you mention reviews, the WSJ one is overwhelmingly positive:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/05/30/outlander-season-finale-recap-episode-116-to-ransom-a-mans-soul/

[WatchrTina]

 

Be prepared to see Jack (and his 20th-century counterpart, Frank) again in Season 2. But other than the knowledge that Jack is still alive, the episode came as close to a fairy-tale ending as it possibly could after putting its heroes through the kind of hellish emotional wringer you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy.

That's a quote from the WSJ review (thanks AD55) and I'm putting it here and not in the media thread because he just spoiled the fact that Jack is not dead!  Okay I doubt if anyone really thinks the main villain of the story is dead and I'm sure Tobias' involvement in the filming of season 2 will be revealed many times over the coming year but, woah! -- talk about spoiling it IMMEDIATELY.

 

That being said -- what a nice review.  I'm glad to see it.  I'm still planning to drink at brunch today.

[AD55]

That's a quote from the WSJ review (thanks AD55) and I'm putting it here and not in the media thread because he just spoiled the fact that Jack is not dead!  Okay I doubt if anyone really thinks the main villain of the story is dead and I'm sure Tobias' involvement in the filming of season 2 will be revealed many times over the coming year but, woah! -- talk about spoiling it IMMEDIATELY.

 

That being said -- what a nice review.  I'm glad to see it.  I'm still planning to drink at brunch today.

 

My son, who is quite a savvy viewer, assumed he is dead and I had to bite my tongue. He offered a fairly cogent analysis of what it means that BJ's death was as undramatic as it could get. Squish and he's gone -- no big ending speech, etc. I think we can talk about the episode here, but I'll use spoiler tags just in case.

He thinks it's in some ways it's the sort of nihilistic death JR would have wanted. There's no meaning to life other than what you impose on it yourself. I argued that it's just the opposite -- Randall would have wanted to control his own death, which is why the revelation by Claire strikes terror in his heart.

[absnow54]

The "think of Claire" scene was difficult for me because it WAS erotic.  Jamie/Sam was cleaned up and looked, dare I say it, really beautiful in that scene.  The fact that I noticed that -- at that time -- creeps me out a bit.

Personally, for me, this was the scene that I found most contentious, and I think that most negative reviews are highlighting this scene in particular, and it is for the exact reason you stated. I know the phrase "torture porn" is being thrown around liberally, but I found the blocking of that scene to be frighteningly similar to the sex scenes in the Wedding, and that was incredibly disturbing for a rape scene. I preferred the way the book relayed it second hand and this Mad Max meme encapsulates my feelings on the subject perfectly. 

[WatchrTina]

 

the eventual mind games (Jack wetting his brown hair to make it curly like Claire’s) to make a woozy, battered Jamie believe he was making love to Claire.

That's another quote from the WSJ review and it gave me an "aHA!" moment.  I think he's right and I think the writers co-opted Claire's trick from the book (make Jamie think I'm Black Jack so he can fight me) and put that trick in the hands of Black Jack (make Jamie think I'm Claire so he'll let me make love to him.)

 

Woah.  That was clever  And wicked.  Wicked, tricksy OutlanderTV writers!  Damn.  I noticed the curly "Claire hair" in that  scene but I had interpreted all that as Jack "inviting" (for lack of a better word) Jamie to pretend he was Claire.  It's easier for me to stomach that scene if I go with the WSJ's interpretation that in Jamie's woozy state he actually believed he was with Claire, even if it was just a momentary hallucination.  Yeah, I'm going with that interpretation.

Edited May 31, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bluebonnet]

Can someone remind me, what was the timeline of Jamie's recovery at the abbey?  Was it a couple of weeks or closer to a month?  Or more?

[SpiritSong]

 

The other reason it is hard to be a fan today is the back-lash I'm seeing on-line about the violence in the last episode.  I always knew it would happen but it's still hard to read.  And as much as I want to tell people "but in the book . . . " you really can't say that.  Even Diana and George RR Martin (Game of Thrones' author) have said, "The book is the book, the show is the show."  The show has to stand on its own and this was a tough episode to have to adapt.  As a reader I cannot help but miss Jamie being given the chance to "fight back" against Jack in his opium-enhanced fever dream.  I'm sorry they chose to cut it.  I also get what they were doing by making the brand such a big deal -- making it a metaphor for Jamie's surrender -- and then cutting it out of him.  Having a potent symbol like that is very useful in a visual medium.  But it's such a minor detail in the book I'm having a hard time imbuing it with the same significance the writers did. As for all the brutal rape imagery -- that was hard to watch but what was harder for me is the fact that I was watching instead of hearing Jamie recount it to Claire as you do in the book.  Somehow my eavesdropping on Jamie telling Claire about the worst part -- how ashamed he was at having been "roused" by Jack -- was easier for me than watching Jack's final "seduction" of Jamie.  The "think of Claire" scene was difficult for me because it WAS erotic.  Jamie/Sam was cleaned up and looked, dare I say it, really beautiful in that scene.  The fact that I noticed that -- at that time -- creeps me out a bit.  Thank goodness they had him breakdown and cry in the aftermath to remind us what was really happening.

 .

I agree the show has to stand on its own but that doesn't mean I'm not going to complain about the choices Ron Moore made in his adaptation, especially the second half of the season. I hate the way he beats us over the head with the flogging, and the rape/torture in these last two episodes. Show what happened, yes, but he lingers so lovingly on the violence that it's off putting.

And I'm tired of the repetitiveness. How many times do we have to see Jamie's flogging? Is it really necessary to show Claire singing Boogie Woogie Bugle boy a dozen times? (I'm sure it wasn't that many, but it seemed like it). How many shots of the crowd shouting "Burn the witch!" are necessary to get the point across? I felt like half of the last episode was rape, rape, rape. Then he gives us a weak conclusion to Jamie's beginning recovery. Even if he wanted to show how Claire really healed Jamie emotionally there wouldn't have been time, because we have to have constant flashbacks to the what happened in the prison. I would hardly call what Claire did in the show entering the darkness with Jamie. So instead he seemed to recover way too quickly. It wouldn't be so bad if this was 25 episode season, but he had to cut so many more intimate, personal scenes to repeat things we've already seen over and over that a lot of magic was lost. Not to mention the basic story gets so changed that non book readers think the stones didn't work so that's why Claire decided to stay with Jamie. That could have all been so much clearer.

Action scenes are good. Violence in the context of the story is realistic. He just overdoes it. I've read Outlander multiple times but in the series I didn't really FEEL Claire's love for Jamie until the last two episodes. But I've felt Ron Moore's love of Tobias Menzies from episode one. He's almost as obsessed with BJR as Randall is with Jamie.

One last gripe: he completely shies away from anything surreal or supernatural. It's a book about time travel, for Pete's sake! There a lots of ways he could have shown the horror of going through the stones, and the dread Claire must have felt having to face that again. Instead we get 3 seconds of fade to black. Color me underwhelmed.

This comment makes it seem like I don't like the show, but I really do, for the most part. The weaknesses just became more glaring in the second half. Some of the blame goes to Gabaldon. It's her writing that have people referring to this as Rapelander.

[Petunia846]

That's exactly how I feel, SpiritSong. I feel like I might get pegged as a book reader who can't deal with the show doing anything different, but that's not how I feel. I don't mind things that were done differently, in the spirit of the book, but I feel like as a whole, Moore does not get what the actual spirit of the book is.

 

Outlander is the story of Claire finding a real home and family for herself. Look at where we begin the series, she's staring at that vase and thinking about never having had a place for one. She's kind of inching towards that with Frank, but in the book she's very unsatisfied with him, so when she goes through the stones and finds the Scots, she ends up getting what she's been looking for. By the time she gets to Lallybroch she's found her place in the world, and when Jamie's taken she has to fight tooth and nail to save their family.

 

On the show, it feels like the story is not Claire finding a home and family, it's the story of Claire and Jamie fighting back against Black Jack. Obviously Jack has a place in the books, but he doesn't feel like as much of a focus. I agree that Moore got stuck on Black Jack and on the stunt of having Tobias play both him and Jack. Look back and try to pinpoint what the climax of the show's story was...I'd say it was the cows getting into the prison, smashing Jack, and rescuing Jamie. If that's the climax, then the story must be Jamie and Claire against Jack...that's the point when they beat Jack. In the book, I'd say the climax is where Claire gets Jamie drugged up and gets him to fight back...that's the point where Claire gets Jamie back, gets her family back, and on the show, that scene felt flat to me. It was there in a muted version without as much drama or desperation, lead up, or time spent on it, because for Moore, that wasn't the climax of his story, it was just another step in the denouement.

 

The same argument could be made about the scene where Claire decides not to go back through the stones. It's there, because it's a stepping stone in the story, but it doesn't get the lead up, level of drama, or aftermath like it does in the book, where it's a major plot point. For Moore's story it's just another thing to get through so that Jamie can get to Lallybroch, so he can get taken to Wentworth. For the book, that's the huge turning point where Claire really realizes that she's gotten what she's always wanted.

 

So, I think my problems with the season all stem back to a basic misunderstanding of what the underlying story of Outlander is. We still got glimpses of that real story, and they were lovely, but as a whole, the season leaves something to be desired.

 

I'm not sure I wrote that out very coherently. I did it better on another site, but I'm too lazy to go find it and copy.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't want this to sound nitpicky, I really don't, but in the pilot, when we first hear Claire's voiceover, she said if she had to do it over again, she would make the same choice.

 

That said, I also had my issues with Moore not showing us that Claire had made the choice to remain. I said a lot about how I was giving him the side eye for his reasons for cutting that short; he wanted "more" of the witch trial, which was ridiculous. More drama in that, I think he said or something.

 

I already posted what I thought would happen if the rape scenes were cut back and we did see Claire enter the darkness with Jamie, and drug him in his fevered state. We know what happened.  And I'm certain there would have been outrage over that as well.  Like I said, it's a no-win situation.

 

There was something else I wanted to say, but now I've forgotten. I'm sure it will come back to me.

[absnow54]

In the book, I'd say the climax is where Claire gets Jamie drugged up and gets him to fight back...that's the point where Claire gets Jamie back, gets her family back, and on the show, that scene felt flat to me. It was there in a muted version without as much drama or desperation, lead up, or time spent on it, because for Moore, that wasn't the climax of his story, it was just another step in the denouement.

I'm grateful that they didn't go with the opium induced pseudo rape, but I think that it was important to see Jamie and Claire overcome the darkness, and I think the levity of that scene as it played on the show was heavily under minded by cutting back to the dungeon. We should have stayed at the abbey with Jamie and Claire through that scene, and her bargain should have been more than "I would die without you."

[AheadofStraight]

 

But I've felt Ron Moore's love of Tobias Menzies from episode one. He's almost as obsessed with BJR as Randall is with Jamie.

Based on all of the post-finale interviews with Ron & even mentioned by Diana in a Q&A yesterday, 

we're gonna see even more of Frank than the book in season 2. Again. All because of how much Ron loves Tobias's acting. Alrighty then.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Based on all of the post-finale interviews with Ron & even mentioned by Diana in a Q&A yesterday, 

we're gonna see even more of Frank than the book in season 2. Again. All because of how much Ron loves Tobias's acting. Alrighty then.

 

 

I hate that spoiler. Nothing against

Tobias Menzies, but we see Black Jack in Dragonfly, and I don't recall (even if I did just recently re-read it again), Frank being "shown" or mentioned in a flashback.  Makes me think, again, a lot of the happiness that Jamie and Claire actually have here, will be undercut.

[absnow54]

I actually don't mind. I thought Claire's return to the 40's was kind of glossed over because of the 20 year time jump, and I'm hoping that will be explored more, but with a shorter episode order and a longer book than the first, I can see why people would be upset. 

[AheadofStraight]

I have the same concerns, GHScorpiosRule. Wait, 

Don't we start book 2 with Claire back with Frank in the hospital? So there *is* Frank in the book. But I don't need any extra. Also, Ron has said the book has so much going on that it is difficult to adapt. So we're going to bring in more Frank to the story???

[GHScorpiosRule]

I actually don't mind. I thought Claire's return to the 40's was kind of glossed over because of the 20 year time jump, and I'm hoping that will be explored more, but with a shorter episode order and a longer book than the first, I can see why people would be upset.

 

The

20 year time jump doesn't happen until Book 3.

 

I have the same concerns, GHScorpiosRule. Wait, 

Don't we start book 2 with Claire back with Frank in the hospital? So there *is* Frank in the book. But I don't need any extra. Also, Ron has said the book has so much going on that it is difficult to adapt. So we're going to bring in more Frank to the story???

 

 

No.

Book Two opens with Claire having morning sickness

I think y'all are confusing Book 2 with Book 3.

Edited June 1, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[absnow54]

Doesn't Dragonfly in Amber open in 1968? We're still in 1740's Scotland, but the time jump technically takes place in book 2 with her returning to the "time jumped" Scotland in book 3. Also, I don't think these are spoilers.

Edited June 1, 2015 by absnow54

[AheadofStraight]

I just pulled the book up on my phone and 

Book 2 starts in Inverness in 1968 with Roger. OK, so I'm mixing up some things and not others, lol! Books 2 & 3 are such a blur to me. So now I'm really concerned about more Frank. Hrmph.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Doesn't Dragonfly in Amber open in 1968? We're still in 1740's Scotland, but the time jump technically takes place in book 2. Also, I don't think these are spoilers.

 

Oh shit! You're right! Sorry. Ignore me.  I'm still in pain from a surgical procedure I had a few days ago.  I still hate that spoiler, but I suspect I know which parts will be expanded.  And they better damned well

show that Frank was an ASSHOLE and racist, and not this very, very good man, who accepted another man's child and loved her like she was his own.

[AheadofStraight]

I'm gonna guess the latter but hope I'm wrong. (Hope you recover well from your surgery!)

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm gonna guess the latter but hope I'm wrong. (Hope you recover well from your surgery!)

 

 

It should be both, because the latter was also true. But I want Moore to show EVERYTHING.  Alas, this surgery is just another complication among others I've had to deal with these last four months or so.  And I forgot to bring my drugs with me to work.

[ulkis]

I wonder if, funnily enough, Ron is shying away from the supernatural because he doesn't want to be accused, or accidentally fall into the trap of, making this Battlestar Galactica 2.0 (or 3.0 if you will, since his BSG was already a remake).

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well I read here on this site, how he says that even though it's a time travel show, he was making it "grounded in reality" meaning, I think to not delve into the more fantasy aspects. Which I think is a cheat.

 

Kind of like how aliens don't exist in Nolan's Batman. Which is STOOPID. Both of them.

Edited June 1, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[chocolatetruffle]

I wanted to post my thoughts on the series highs and lows somewhere today, but SpiritSong, Pestilentia846 and GHScorpiosRule, you guys have said everything I wanted to say and said it much better.  

 

Regarding Frank in DIA:  He's dead when the story starts, but during Roger's investigation into the survivors from Culloden he finds the newspaper accounts of Claire's return in 1947/8.  At some point, I'm sure we will see flashbacks from that period, because otherwise Frank doesn't appear at all.  And since RDM is so enamored with the character, I have no doubt those flashbacks will be more extensive than the book, offering us a thoroughly detailed, multi-episode glimpse into Frank's inner struggles, angst and conflicts surrounding his beloved wife's sudden reappearance (just kill.me.now.).

[Nidratime]

Since we did have more of Frank than the first book gave us via the "Both Sides Now" episode, and we saw that there were two sides to Frank as a result of his wife being missing and the accusations she ran off, I would say that any additional *new* scenes featuring Frank in season two *have* to show the two sides of his nature. After all, faced with his wife's inexplicable return -- and pregnant, no less -- has to bring out some of that "BlackJackness" in Frank.

 

I also don't like how Ron Moore seems bound and determined to underplay all the supernatural/spiritual aspects of the show. I heard that Diana argued with him to keep the Claire confession scene in the finale episode. I *do* understand that -- other than the occasional trips into the supernatural -- the show is very grounded in the reality of living in that time, the politics of that period, and the dangers, but that doesn't negate how some characters do have this extra-specialness and abilities about them. There is magic and mystery in the world -- even if we might eventually be able to explain it. And that certainly holds true for Outlander.

[Petunia846]

He didn't seem to have any trouble with the extra special magicalness of Geilis when she was rolling around in the forest naked. Maybe Geilis is the only one allowed to be magical and spiritual.