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

[bluebonnet]

The only reason I don't want more Frank is because they've dropped the ball wrt Claire examining her feelings about her life and loves in each era.  As a bookreader, I still find myself questioning wether or not Moore meant for Claire to have made a decision on her own or if the stones didn't work and made the decision for her.  Sure, I know what happened in the books but that doesn't mean that the adaptation can't change things up a bit.  Just watching the show, I'm still not entirely sold on the idea that the 18th century and all the people in it are Claire's deep, true loves.  

 

All of those voiceovers and there haven't been any really exploring Claire's complicated feelings about Frank, who looks exactly like the murderous torturing BJR, and the 20th century where she would have been relegated to the home after having spent several years in a profession that quenched her spirit.  I get that the voiceovers will likely turn out to be for Bree and Roger, but they still need to convey something to the audience.  Without Claire discussing these complicated feelings, or even mentioning Frank, spending more time on Frank is just not going to work for me, and that's regardless if he's whitewashed into some messiah figure or made into a mirror of BJR.  I just don't care anything about Frank if the heroine no longer cares.  

[AheadofStraight]

I wonder if/how they'll handle the Master Raymond stuff. There was supernatural going on there....

[GHScorpiosRule]

The only reason I don't want more Frank is because they've dropped the ball wrt Claire examining her feelings about her life and loves in each era.  As a bookreader, I still find myself questioning wether or not Moore meant for Claire to have made a decision on her own or if the stones didn't work and made the decision for her.  Sure, I know what happened in the books but that doesn't mean that the adaptation can't change things up a bit.  Just watching the show, I'm still not entirely sold on the idea that the 18th century and all the people in it are Claire's deep, true loves.  

 

All of those voiceovers and there haven't been any really exploring Claire's complicated feelings about Frank, who looks exactly like the murderous torturing BJR, and the 20th century where she would have been relegated to the home after having spent several years in a profession that quenched her spirit.  I get that the voiceovers will likely turn out to be for Bree and Roger, but they still need to convey something to the audience.  Without Claire discussing these complicated feelings, or even mentioning Frank, spending more time on Frank is just not going to work for me, and that's regardless if he's whitewashed into some messiah figure or made into a mirror of BJR.  I just don't care anything about Frank if the heroine no longer cares.  

 

 

I'll just add that I still don't care about Frank, wouldn't care about Frank, even if Claire did or would.

[bluebonnet]

I'll just add that I still don't care about Frank, wouldn't care about Frank, even if Claire did or would.

I must admit that I also don't care much about Frank because he's mostly just a vehicle to get two modern women to the 18th century.  It's just that if the show is going to spend a lot of time on Frank, they have to do it better because they can damage the believability of Claire's relationship with Jamie and then time in which he lives.  Mostly, though, I'd prefer little to no Frank.  BJR is enough of the Tobias face.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I must admit that I also don't care much about Frank because he's mostly just a vehicle to get two modern women to the 18th century.  It's just that if the show is going to spend a lot of time on Frank, they have to do it better because they can damage the believability of Claire's relationship with Jamie and then time in which he lives.  Mostly, though, I'd prefer little to no Frank.  BJR is enough of the Tobias face.  

 

 

Not only that, bluebonnet, but since Moore seems to love Menzies so much, it's only fair and right that all facets of Frank should be shown. Not just the nice, unselfish and loving sides, which, thus far, does him no favors. If you must show him, show ALL of him, warts and all.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've only read through book 5 but I can say that up to that point, there has not been anything like the brutality of Wentworth.  The 1740's were a violent era and there is violence from time to time, but nothing like what was done to Jamie and my overall perception (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the violence is not as frequent as it is in Outlander either.

 

Yeah, that's what I've heard as well, but there is the issue that Gabaldon pretty much has every single character that appears in the books, raped. But like I mentioned in the Season 2 Speculation/Wish thread, I think next season, they don't have to show Mary and Fergus' rapes.

[DittyDotDot]

Alright, I started reading book one and got distracted from it. I started back up again last night and when I got to the part where they have the concert at Leoch and Claire is thinking about the stones and the 200 year gap...is this true? Do all the time travelers in the books always jump 200 years? Because how does that work with Geillis, then? I'm gathering that she went through the stones in the 1960s, but arrived before Claire? Did I misinterpret?

 

I know, I should just read and find out, but I wanna know now!

[basil]

Do all the time travelers in the books always jump 200 years? Because how does that work with Geillis, then? I'm gathering that she went through the stones in the 1960s, but arrived before Claire? Did I misinterpret?

 

Geillis had a theory that you could"steer" using blood and gem stones..

[DittyDotDot]

Hmmm? Thanks basil, food for thought.

[Athena]

Alright, I started reading book one and got distracted from it. I started back up again last night and when I got to the part where they have the concert at Leoch and Claire is thinking about the stones and the 200 year gap...is this true? Do all the time travelers in the books always jump 200 years? Because how does that work with Geillis, then? I'm gathering that she went through the stones in the 1960s, but arrived before Claire? Did I misinterpret?

 

I know, I should just read and find out, but I wanna know now!

 

The time travel is explored further in the later books. If you want to know more, the book readers that have read the books can elaborate on it.

 

This is an all spoilers thread so it covers all books so there no spoiler tags necessary. If you do not wish to be more spoiled beyond one or two books, you can post in the individual book threads such as Book 1: Outlander.

[Glaze Crazy]

I don't expect Fergus' rape to be shown at all, just told to Claire when Jamie goes off to fight the duel, just as it was in the book.  Plus it's a child, so I'm OK with them not filming it.  Mary's though I don't know what to expect there. It could go either way.

[DittyDotDot]

The time travel is explored further in the later books. If you want to know more, the book readers that have read the books can elaborate on it.

 

This is an all spoilers thread so it covers all books so there no spoiler tags necessary. If you do not wish to be more spoiled beyond one or two books, you can post in the individual book threads such as Book 1: Outlander.

 

Thanks for the warning Athena; I had come into the thread aware. I don't mind being spoiled here, but I appreciate you making sure everyone has a great experience.

[lianau]

Alright, I started reading book one and got distracted from it. I started back up again last night and when I got to the part where they have the concert at Leoch and Claire is thinking about the stones and the 200 year gap...is this true? Do all the time travelers in the books always jump 200 years? Because how does that work with Geillis, then? I'm gathering that she went through the stones in the 1960s, but arrived before Claire? Did I misinterpret?

 

I know, I should just read and find out, but I wanna know now!

My fanwank theory , the stones default setting is around 200 years and people stumbling into them accidently are the majority of travelers so the mythology is 200 years (the songs and stuff like that) but people who know what they're doing are able to use them better in terms of save passage and  time jump .

[stormy]

Interesting theory lianau.

I don't think I've read why Claire or other characters from the 20th century can go back but characters from the 18th century don't seem to be able go into the future.

Having only read the first two books so far, maybe I haven't gotten to that part of the story yet?

Edited June 6, 2015 by stormy

[Petunia846]

Yeah, you've got a lot more time traveling in your future (if you keep reading).

[WatchrTina]

I try to not think too hard about the stones but yes, there does seem to be an ability to "steer" by a traveler that goes knowingly into the stones.  But it doesn't always work -- we hear in later books of travelers who tried that and failed -- overshooting their time or just dying in the process.  And travelers can be pulled off track by a connection to another traveler (that has to be the reason why Roger and Buck end up so far back in time in Book 8 -- Roger's father's presence there called him back.) And of course I fan-wank that Claire's unerring accuracy in getting to Jamie is due to her overwhelming desire to reach him -- just and Bianna's desire to reach her mother and Roger's desire to reach Brianna explain their success in ending up in the right time (though I think Roger has a bad experience on his first try because he gets distracted and nearly "crosses the steams" by nearing a time in which he is already living.)

Edited June 6, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, I feel stupid now. I've never thought about when it's possible to go through the stones. I just accepted it as part of the story.  Of course I've read here, why certain characters, like Jamie, I think? can't, but can't remember why. If that was discussed. I really don't think about it.

[WatchrTina]

When Roger starts writing his book about the stones for the kids I think he makes clear the belief that the ability to travel through the stones is a rare, inherited trait.  Jamie doesn't have the gene.  Most people don't (which is why the ladies who do the druid dance don't vanish.).  But Claire has it and so does her daughter, Brianna.  Geillis has it and so does her son, Buck, and her many-times-great-grand-son, Roger.  Jem and Mandy have a double-dose of it since both their parents carry the gene and that (I think) is the reason they have that super-spidey-sense regarding knowing where each other is at any time.

[Petunia846]

Roger's father had it too, from Geilis' line.

 

I really wish Diana would delve more into Claire's parents and who she got the gene from.

[Nidratime]

I really wish Diana would delve more into Claire's parents and who she got the gene from.

 

 

That would be fabulous, but I'm guessing we'll never hear about this. To be frank, I'm thinking Claire's parents were "sophisticates" who didn't give this whole thing much credence and were too busy living their lives in the present, i.e., they had no curiosity or knowledge about their latent abilities.

[Glaze Crazy]

Could it be that Claire's parents probably had no idea that one (or both) of them would have had the gene in the first place? Unless you either had some family lore about it or you stumbled through the stones like Claire and a bunch of others noted in Geillis' diary did, it could easily be an unknown ability.  I don't think it's been told how Geillis knew she could do it but with the Native Americans who traveled through, I think Donner says the person who guided them and tested them for it was named Raymond.  I think it's assumed he was the same Raymond that Claire knew and was someone who sometimes shared the potential ability where ever he might have landed in his travels through the stones.

[chocolatetruffle]

I've always thought it would be cool if it turned out Claire was her own ancestor.

[Petunia846]

Oooh...interesting.

[DittyDotDot]

I've always thought it would be cool if it turned out Claire was her own ancestor.

 

I've been wondering about this too, so I think it would be very fascinating if the books did eventually delve into Claire's parents.

Edited June 8, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[ElsieH]

Ooh, what if they didn't die in a car crash after all and instead are back in the 1700's also? I guess that would be a little too easy though.

[AheadofStraight]

I'm pretty sure Diana has said they really did die in the car crash.

[Petunia846]

Well Uncle Lamb was an archaeologist. Maybe he had a special way to do research... *wink wink* He sure didn't tell Claire about it though.

[DittyDotDot]

I was thinking it might be cool if one of her parents traveled from the past and got stuck in the future somehow. Is that something that any of the time travelers have done in this series? It seems like most of them traveled from the future to the past.

Edited June 8, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[ElsieH]

Roger's ancestor William Buccleigh Mckenzie did I think

[DittyDotDot]

So, I finally made a bit more progress through the first book--I'm up to the fishing stuff just after the wedding--I gotta say, I find the changes from the book to screen fascinating. I can't say I prefer one to the other exactly, but I think each version suits their respective mediums rather well, so far. It's weird, I was really hesitant to read the books because I rarely can enjoy the screen versions after I read the books. I always feel like so much gets lost in translation. Here though, I think I kinda appreciate each version more and see why the show made some of the choices it made...so far anyway.

 

Like Frank. He is pretty nonexistent physically in the book, but he's ever-present on Claire's mind. I feel like the reason Moore inserted more Frank on the show was due to the limitations of being able to adequately show Frank was in Claire's mind. And we'll be coming back to him eventually, the show didn't want the audience to forget about him. I didn't find I have any different opinion of Frank on the show versus the book, so far. I've found it to be a fairly good representation of the spirit of the character.

 

The only changes I think didn't really help the show much, was some of the wedding stuff. That episode really didn't work for me. I understand why they did it the way they did, but somehow it felt out of step with the show to me. And, I'm not sure the show really sold me on Claire's mindset very well.

 

Anyway, it's been an interesting exercise for me, now if they'd just release the back-half of the season on disk so I can get caught up and finish the book. Eh, I'll probably just go ahead and finish the book anyway...why wait, right?

[stormy]

Did Jenny ever know Claire had lost baby Faith?

I thought she must not have because she never mentions anything about the pregnancy which I kept waiting for since her baby's due any minute when Claire and Jamie return.

[Laurie]

If Claire or Jamie did tell her it was a conversation that was held "off stage".  I do remember a reference to it in MOBY when Claire and Jenny are sitting together at the wake for Henri Christian and crying quietly because Marsali has joined their small club of mothers who have lost children.  I can't remember if there was actual conversation about that or if that was the author describing the thoughts.

 

Heck!  I'm not sure if Jamie or Claire ever told them about Brianna when they came back to Lallybroch in Voyager.  Because the Murray's all seemed pretty surprised when Brianna showed up in Drums of Autumn.

[WatchrTina]

Yes, they were surprised.  Which makes sense.  Claire never expects to see her again -- Brianna isn't really "alive" in the 1760s, so talking about her would very painful.  If they mentioned her there would be questions about where she was and how she got there, which would lead to more questions about where Claire has been all these years, how she managed to get away from Culloden in the middle of a war, and why (if she went to France) she never contacted Jared Fraser to enquire after her in-laws.

 

I think I've just come up with a theory that the whole Laoghaire-shoots-Jamie-and-he-nearly-dies plot was included so that the family was too distracted to demand that Claire explain where the hell she's been these past 20 years.

[DittyDotDot]

OMG, you guys, I was literally laughing out loud when I read the part where Claire does the hedgehog joke last night...very carefully indeed! Was that in the show? If it was I totally missed it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I hope this is the right thread....if not, Mods, please move to the correct one.

 

Full discloure: (though many of you ken how I feel and it might sound redundant)--I'm not a big fan of Diana Gabaldon--I find her smug and arrogant. I know, that some people who have actually met her have found her to be nice. But what I've seen of her, well, there it is. And I have a LOT of difficulty in reading this series, and feel she is in dire need of an aggressive copy editor. Like the one who managed to sneak in for The Scottish Prisoner.  That said, the story she has written, the world she has created, is wonderful. The characters are great. And this show is why I decided to give the books another try.

 

So, I avoid any interviews, artlces, blogs, and what have you.  And especially the comments. I know if I read, my fingers won't be able to resist reading the comments, and it will make my head explode.

 

For me, since I have such an active imagination, I guess, you could say, I get a pretty clear picture of the characters when I read.  And if I feel an actor I love who could be said character, I just replace him or her in me mind when reading.  So now when I'm reading this series, I see Sam, Cait, Tobias, Duncan, etc,.

[chocolatetruffle]

And I don't get where  Jamie the muscle dude comes from . I've got a brother who is about 6 feet , he is a forest worker (cutting down trees ... stuff like that, 8 hours a day  ) and it shows , he looks like somebody with a physically demanding job but not like he spends time in a gym doing extensive weight training .

 

 

I read the book during the midseason break so I came to the show with no visual ideas about what the character should look like.  I knew he was a "highlander," but for me that conjures an image of a big strong man who lives a physical lifestyle (like your brother, lianau) and I think Sam looks perfect in my mind.  He looks like a warrior/soldier, someone who's survival depends on being physically strong.  Someone who is comfortable and confident in his ability to handle himself, whether that's behind a plow or in a fist fight.  

 

Of course, now I can't imagine anyone else playing Jamie and I see Sam's face as the character even when reading the later novels.  I am so excited to see him

portray the older Jamie who struggles with the pain associated with getting older and the wear and tear on his body after so many battles and wounds.  I just re-read the passage in Fiery Cross where he tells Claire that the only time he isn't in pain is when he's in her bed - and she thinks of how many times she's seen him push himself to the point of exhaustion or "Seen him move slowly, stubborn against the protests of flesh and bone when he rose on cold mornings."

  I really want to see Sam play that.

 

Gosh I wish I could see those audition tapes because after seeing those two scenes in the show, I imagine the transformation was amazing.

Edited June 16, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[WatchrTina]

 I re-watched the season finale and while I continue to love this show and hope that the cast and crew will continue to receive recognition for the amazing work they do I’m going to state my position that episode 115, Wentworth, is actually better than the book while episode 116, To Ransom a Man’s Soul, is much weaker than the book.

 

Here’s where I think Wentworth improved on the book.

 

The episode is really the story of how Jamie went from the state he in at the beginning of the episode (full of regret at his eminent demise but still defiant and ready to fight) to where he is at the end of the episode (horrified and nearly overwhelmed by pain, dread at what is about to happen, and the knowledge that he cannot fight back.)

 

The book is all from Claire’s point of view so in the book we don’t actually “see” what happens before she arrives in the cell.  The addition of Jack “riding to the rescue” and saving Jamie from the noose was an improvement, generating reactions both for the viewer and the for Jamie that are wonderfully complex (“Thank goodness! / Oh shit!”)  Jamie’s refusal to submit in return for a clean death is not in the book, nor is Jack’s comment that he would have been disappointed if Jamie had complied.  That’s a great moment.  The scene between pain-dazed Jamie where his vision is blurring and he nearly passes out and Jack pulls him back from the brink, only to force him to rub Jack’s cock with his good hand, unable to effectively fight back because he’s half-swooning from the pain – that scene was a tour de force of acting and Sam’s face is just so eloquent at that point.  Claire didn’t see that in the book and Jamie couldn’t describe to her.  Only the show could allow us to see what Jamie went through and to see Sam’s performance.

 

Similarly, Claire as narrator in the book, can tell us what she is feeling when she is forced to leave Jamie behind in that cell but Cait’s performance of Claire’s feelings was, to me, even more affecting.  The interplay between Jamie and Claire as he offers his hand to be nailed was just gutting (and I mean that in a give-them-an-Emmy kind of way.)

 

Here’s why I think To Ransom a Man’s Soul was worse that the book.

 

Not enough time.  It’s as simple as that.  Jamie’s descent to the brink of death in the book is the result of his despair coupled with the effect of much worse physical injuries than depicted in the show, an inability to eat (not a refusal to eat) due to the after-effects of his extreme sea-sickness, an infected hand, and the prolonged fear that on top of everything else, they were going to amputate it.  None of that is in the episode and I understand why but it removes the real sense of the jeopardy that Jamie was in.  In the book he is at death’s door.  In the show he is very upset, but more angry than depressed, and though he is refusing to eat he’s hardly at death’s door.  It’s a bit unrealistic that Murtagh would already be talking about killing Jamie rather than seeing him waste away.  And it is completely out of character for a good Catholic like Jamie to be asking for a knife so that he can kill himself.

 

In the same way that Jamie’s state is much less dire in the show than in the book, Claire’s battle to bring him back is likewise abbreviated.  I find Jamie’s opium-enhanced fever-dream rape of “Black Jack” in the book to be a very disturbing scene and I did wonder how they were going to portray it.  The answer is, they didn’t.  Show Jamie finally admits to the shame he feels at having been “roused” by Jack, Claire “forgives” him for the betrayal (WTF?) and then declares she’ll die without him and that brings him back from the brink.  It is a much less dramatic “rescue” than in the book.  It works for the show (somewhat) and I understand why they had to play it that way but it’s a work-around at best.  The original, longer version in the book is much, much better and more plausible.

 

The only place where the season finale improved on the book is the opening scene.  The shot of Jamie lying naked on the cot with that 1000-yard-stare, the slow reveal of Jack beside him, Jack’s naked strut across the floor to his clothes, Jamie’s reminder that Jack owes him a debt followed by his despair when Jack walks away, leaving him alive, and last but not least the “Heilan Coos!”  All that was awesome and demonstrates how a picture can be worth a thousand words.

Edited June 27, 2015 by WatchrTina

[chocolatetruffle]

Word WatchrTina - great post.  "Not enough time" is an over-arching theme to the entire season for me.  Not enough time devoted to the main story arc; not enough time devoted to the main character arcs.  Too much time devoted to peripheral characters like Frank (sorry Frank fans), BJR, Duke of Sandringham.  Too much time devoted to story arcs like The Search for Jamie and the Watch leading to Jamie's capture.  Tightening those story lines up could have given us: BJR's rescue of Jamie at the end of episode 14; Ep 15 ending with Jamie's rescue; and allowed more for the ransoming at the Abbey.  

 

I read somewhere that in Ransom/Wentworth we were given 40 minutes of Jamie/Black Jack torture/rape scenes.  If that's true (I haven't personally checked, but that sounds about right to me) then that just proves the point you are making in your post.  The rape/torture scenes should have been tightened up to 30 minutes, at the very least (20 minutes would have been even better) leaving us with a lot more time to see the aftermath followed by the re-integration of Jamie's broken psyche.  The show gave us the story of Jamie's rape - the book gives us the story of Jamie's survival and overcoming of the rape.

 

The good news is that the next season doesn't have such a complex character arc to tell - it's basically a linear story arc, which the production team is a lot better at telling.

Edited June 27, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[CatMack]

That's why I had such a problem with how much graphic rape and torture they decided to show in the finale.  It wasted time better spent elsewhere, it was a disservice to the story.  17 minutes, nearly a full third of the episode - that's how long we had to sit through Black Jack brutalizing Jamie.  It made the story about the rape instead of being about Jamie's recovery from it.  Show flashes of it, fine.  While I think you can tell a story about rape, and tell it powerfully, without showing the rape, I'm not against showing it in certain circumstances. But the focus should have been on Jamie's journey back from that.  I didn't need to see every second of his torture spelled out in pornographic detail (and I say that deliberately - I have literally seen porn shot the way those rape scenes were shot) and wasting time on that took away from the complexity of Jamie's recovery.  Jamie's rape and recovery is one of the few times I think Gabaldon actually uses rape effectively, and it's because of the time spent digging into his journey back.  The show completely glossed over that and reduced it to one lackluster scene and rushed the ending because they had to first waste time driving home a point that could have been better served by trusting their actors to portray the horror of what happened instead of thinking their audience wouldn't understand what happened to Jamie was bad unless we saw every thrust and grunt.  

[WatchrTina]

I just re-watched Wentworth and found more ways in which that episode improved on the book.

 

The burning of the letter of complaint is not in the book.  It's beautifully shot and it's a wonderful first beat in the systematic destruction of all of Jamie's hope.  Tobias is perfect in that scene.

 

Jamie's unsuccessful attempt to match wits with Jack is not in the book.  When he says "I prefer the gallows to your company" that is youthful bravado and nothing more but it opens the door to Jack's lines about how Jack must haunt Jamie's dreams.  Again, Tobias is perfect and they way it is shot, with Jack's hand superimposed over Jamie's back and we (the audience) seeing the reactions on Jamie's hidden face showing that Jack is hitting very close to the mark -- that was fantastic.  

 

Redcoat 1 and Redcoat 2 are flawless.  I just love watching the "Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit" expressions crossing their faces as they come to a realization of what they have stumbled into.  I also find it more plausible that Jack is able to shut down the hunt for Claire through his sheer force of personality than what happens in the book (no one goes looking for Claire because a massive jail-break is in process and during that flurry of activity no one bothers to check the cell where Jamie was being kept.)

 

And I've thought of another way in which the book is better than the finale episode.  One of the ways in which they use the cattle in the book is to allow MacRannoch to deflect suspicion that he's involved in the jail break by having him storm in the front door of the prison and accuse the Sir Fletcher of being involved in cattle-rustling.  The shock of actually finding the cattle in the basement is the distraction that allows Murtagh to slip in and carry Jamie away.  In the show, Sir Fletcher has to wonder where those cows came from.  Is MacRannoch not going to claim them?  If so he's just lost half his herd (and the other half is already missing.)  If he does claim them, doesn't that make him look like he was involved?  Yes, he can say it was cattle-rustlers who took them but that's a less-effective ruse than barging in on Sir Fletcher and accusing HIM of cattle rustling (the best defense is a good offense.)

 

One thing the show DID do better than the book was to imply that the cows got in while the morning flag-raising fife and drum ceremony was going on.  The book makes absolutely no effort to explain how an entire herd of cattle was snuck into a prison with no one noticing.

Edited June 27, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Petunia846]

Totally agree with all the posts today!

[peacefrog]

I just liked the previous 4 or 5 posts because they are perfect. Wentworth is just a really good Jamie episode and it is overshadowed by the spectacle of the finale. Which should not be a spectacle.

[chocolatetruffle]

In the same way that Jamie’s state is much less dire in the show than in the book, Claire’s battle to bring him back is likewise abbreviated.  I find Jamie’s opium-enhanced fever-dream rape of “Black Jack” in the book to be a very disturbing scene and I did wonder how they were going to portray it.  The answer is, they didn’t.  Show Jamie finally admits to the shame he feels at having been “roused” by Jack, Claire “forgives” him for the betrayal (WTF?) and then declares she’ll die without him and that brings him back from the brink.  It is a much less dramatic “rescue” than in the book.  It works for the show (somewhat) and I understand why they had to play it that way but it’s a work-around at best.  The original, longer version in the book is much, much better and more plausible.

 

 

Wait - when did this happen??  I'm not saying it didn't, I just don't remember this.  I remember her saying there was nothing to forgive and that he did what was necessary to survive.  Did I miss something?

[Nidratime]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's a misreading. *Jamie* thinks he's betrayed Claire. He's humiliated and embarrassed and *he's* seeking Claire's forgiveness. She doesn't feel like he needs her forgiveness, but if that's what *he needs* for her to do -- if that's what he needs to hear in order to heal -- she was willing to do it, even while she insists there is nothing to forgive and this wasn't his fault in the least.

[WatchrTina]

Okay I stand corrected that Claire didn't say "forgiven" like she did when Jamie asked for her forgiveness after the huge fight by the river in 109.  You are correct that she said "There is nothing to forgive."  I would argue that in Jamie's mind, that statement is probably a greater absolution than if she had said "forgiven."

 

But I still stand by my assertion that the show, out of necessity and lack of time, had to pull a lot of the teeth out of Jamie's descent to the brink of death and his battle back.  I still love the show, I like much of what is in the finale episode (though I think Wentworth is better and it's a shame it's being overshadowed by the focus on the finale) but Jamie's recovery storyline is, to my mind, much weaker in the show than the book and some of the changes bother me.  Jamie branding himself and that act being imbued with such significance, bothers me.  I get why they did it -- the scene of him cutting out the brand was nicely symbolic -- but I didn't like it.  TVJamie couldn't forgive himself for "breaking" and his anguish at both wanting Claire and being repulsed by the though of letting her touch him is nicely portrayed but what really brings him back from the brink is the realization that by giving up on his own life he's condemning Claire as well.  BookJamie is much farther gone, physically and mentally, and only by battling the specter of Jack that is he able to pull himself back from the brink.  I prefer the book version.  But given the limitations of time and the format of a TV show, I think the show-runners did a good job.  There is much I like about that episode (even as I acknowledge that the rape scenes are very difficult to watch.)  But Wentworth is better.  I hope the Emmy voters see both episodes and not just the Finale if they choose to watch screeners.  Sam, Tobias and Cait are freaking amazing in Wentworth.

 

ETA:  I still feel like I'm not making my point very well.  In both the show and the book, Jamie "breaks."  When do we think that happens?  In the show the branding is held up as an important symbolic moment in the breaking process but it is important to note that TVJamie still has enough fight in him to put the brand on his side and not over his heart where Jack told him to put it.  If he's still fighting, then I'd argue that's not the moment he broke.  I think the show wants us to believe that it was that last sexual act -- during which Jamie responded, visualized Claire, got aroused, experienced pleasure, and then collapses in dismay and grief -- that "breaks" Jamie.

 

In the book it's a lot more complicated.  Jamie describes feeling that his "self" his very soul is now naked and exposed and unprotected.  Yes BookJamie is absolutely disgusted by the fact that his body was "roused" by Jack and his feelings about Claire are tarnished by the memories of Jack calling her to mind while physically abusing Jamie but there is so much more to what BookJamie is feeling.  I guess that's my beef.  I prefer the psychological complexity of the books.  I understand why things had to be simplified for a visual medium like TV and all things considered I think they did a pretty good job portraying a very complicated psychological situation.  But the book is better.

Edited June 28, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay I stand corrected that Claire didn't say "forgiven" like she did when Jamie asked for her forgiveness after the huge fight by the river in 109.  You are correct that she said "There is nothing to forgive."  I would argue that in Jamie's mind, that statement is probably a greater absolution than if she had said "forgiven."

 

But I still stand by my assertion that the show, out of necessity and lack of time, had to pull a lot of the teeth out of Jamie's descent to the brink of death and his battle back.

Errrr, no need to stand by, as I think most of us agree with you on the lack of time for the finale resulting in it not being as good as the book.

 

I accidentally clicked on the nonbook thread for the finale (I was on my phone) and sadly, see others also think/believe that Claire forgave Jamie for being raped, and that's just not what happened. She clearly said "there is nothing to forgive you for" which is NOT the same thing as forgiveness.

 

And I'm taking the rest of my thoughts to the season one discussion thread.

 

[WatchrTina]

Aaannd I just watched it again (because I am clearly obsessed) and what actually happens is:

 

Jack tells Jamie "How will she every forgive you?" in the flashback.  Then they cut to Claire and Jamie at the monastery where Claire asks "Did you think I wouldn't forgive you?  There's nothing to forgive."  

 

What I had forgotten is that Jamie does NOT respond well to that statement from Claire.  He pulls away from her touch.  He's still clearly embroiled in self-loathing at that point.

 

I can totally see how the non-readers or first-time viewers may misinterpret that scene.  Heck even I got the conversation muddled in my mind and I'm a reader who's watched the episode multiple times.

[bearcatfan]

This is my first post in a book thread because I just began the book on Friday. I'm already past the wedding (Claire has just met Hugh Munro) but I wanted to say that even though I didn't read the book, I clearly heard Claire tell Jamie that there was nothing to forgive. I read some of the comments in the no book thread on this episode and wanted to respond but couldn't because I'm not a book reader. It's frustrating. There's also a "Claire is a Mary Sue" discussion which I think is funny. If anyone is a Mary Sue, it's Jamie.

[Petunia846]

Jamie's recovery storyline is, to my mind, much weaker in the show than the book and some of the changes bother me.

I think we all completely agree with that. At least I know I do. I think that's the point I tried to make in the episode thread when it first aired. (I don't remember exactly though, I've slept since then...)

 

If anyone is a Mary Sue, it's Jamie.

Ha! True.

 

Also, welcome to the dark book side. Hope you enjoy the rest of the book. Are you going to read the second (and the rest) before next season?

[GHScorpiosRule]

There's also a "Claire is a Mary Sue" discussion which I think is funny. If anyone is a Mary Sue, it's Jamie.

 

Welcome bearcatfan!

 

I'm not a reader who is attached to the book series, but the show has gotten me to give the books another try. The lasses here will attest that I'm still not a fan of the writing of the books, but do love the story.

 

That said, I don't want to start an argument, but from your comment, I think I need to find what the definition of a Mary/Marty Stue, is, because it's certainly not Claire, nor is it Jamie.

 

I mean, does a Marty Stu act on his temper/impulses and get caught in a brawl after seconding for the Duke?

 

I don't think a Marty Stu would have gotten himself caught and get flogged.

 

I mean, my understanding is that Mary or Marty are right about everything can do everything, and nothing ever happens to them and they are the most specialistist snowflakes ever.  That does NOT describe either Claire OR Jamie.