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

[DittyDotDot]

I always think Mary/Marty Stu are overly idealized characters--not necessarily right about everything and/or can do everything, just so gosh darn swell anyway--and often are author inserts and/or wish-fulfillment. Didn't the term come out of fan fiction? I'm not sure I can see either Claire or Jamie as such, but if I had to pick one or the other I'd probably say Jamie is more idealized than Claire, but not sure if I'd say either are author inserts. I don't know, the term Mary Sue has really become overused, IMO, and there really is not one definition anymore.

 

I'm progressing very slowly through the book. The writing style is not really grabbing me and I find myself wandering away and reading other things from time to time, but the story potential does keep bringing me back. I'm coming close to the rescue of Jamie from Wentworth. Last night I read the part where they meet Dougal and walk away with his men and his purse. Which got me to thinking of Geillus: she was raising funds for the Rising, but she knows what happens in the end; did she think she could change history? Is that possible in this universe; can the time travelers actually change history or are they always a part of history?  It seems like the time travel aspects aren't really all that important to either the book or the show, but it got me to wondering anyway.

[chocolatetruffle]

DittyDotDot, that time travel question is a recurring theme throughout the first two books, anyway.  Can a time traveler change the future, or were they always supposed to be there and this is the way things were supposed to happen.  Geillis definitely goes back to change things. Claire kills a few men during Outlander and she also saves the lives of several others who should have died - Jamie being one of them (starting with his dislocated shoulder).  So she definitely makes an impact.  

[AD55]

I always think Mary/Marty Stu are overly idealized characters--not necessarily right about everything and/or can do everything, just so gosh darn swell anyway--and often are author inserts and/or wish-fulfillment. Didn't the term come out of fan fiction? I'm not sure I can see either Claire or Jamie as such, but if I had to pick one or the other I'd probably say Jamie is more idealized than Claire, but not sure if I'd say either are author inserts. I don't know, the term Mary Sue has really become overused, IMO, and there really is not one definition anymore.

 

 

I think Jamie and Claire both qualify, though I agree that Jamie fits the profile a little better than Claire. They're practically perfect in every way, and each one possesses a ridiculous number of skills and extensive knowledge about an unlikely variety of subjects. When they do make mistakes, they are usually endearing and always made with the best of intentions. They're just not complex characters.  As DittyDotDot says, it's not necessarily that they don't make mistakes but when they do, they are so gosh darn swell you can't help loving them.

 

To wit: Enduring without complaint and improbably surviving  two 100-lash sessions over a week's time? Check. Taking a beating for someone you don't know? Check. Good with horses? Check. Best fighter ever? Check. Gorgeous? Check. Refusing to leave a wounded man even though you will almost certainly die or be captured? Check. Sensitive lover? Check. Protector of women? Check. Own up when you are wrong? Check. Willingness to suffer punishments and humiliation on behalf of the woman you love? Check. Even when Jamie "breaks," it is because he is heartbroken by what he thinks of as a betrayal of Claire and not as a result of the pain and humiliation -- a mistake but one that is nobly motivated.

 

I could go on, and that's just in the first book. We find out in later books that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Jamie's talents and virtues.

 

I have no problem with this. There are lots of other places to find complex characters. It's just not Outlander. There are sometimes unexpected plot developments, but I can't think of one instance in which I was surprised by how Jamie or Claire responded to a situation. You can always count on them to do whatever is right or noble and usually both.

[DittyDotDot]

DittyDotDot, that time travel question is a recurring theme throughout the first two books, anyway.  Can a time traveler change the future, or were they always supposed to be there and this is the way things were supposed to happen.  Geillis definitely goes back to change things. Claire kills a few men during Outlander and she also saves the lives of several others who should have died - Jamie being one of them (starting with his dislocated shoulder).  So she definitely makes an impact.

 

 

I guess I was more wondering how time travel really works in this universe--is history fixed and can't be changed and what happens will always happen or is time fluid and every choice has infinite outcomes for the future? Do we know if the time travelers can actually alter the future or not? I realize Geillus thought she could, but was that just a foolish notion on her part?

 

It more comes down to free will and choice. If what happens always happens, then Clair and Jamie have no choice in their fates. So, does Claire have a choice in whether she stays in the past? Did she really save Jamie or and kill others or were their fates already predetermined and it played out the way it always would play out?

Edited June 29, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[chocolatetruffle]

To wit: Enduring without complaint and improbably surviving  two 100-lash sessions over a week's time? Check. Taking a beating for someone you don't know? Check. Good with horses? Check. Best fighter ever? Check. Gorgeous? Check. Refusing to leave a wounded man even though you will almost certainly die or be captured? Check. Sensitive lover? Check. Protector of women? Check. Own up when you are wrong? Check. Willingness to suffer punishments and humiliation on behalf of the woman you love? Check. Even when Jamie "breaks," it is because he is heartbroken by what he thinks of as a betrayal of Claire and not as a result of the pain and humiliation -- a mistake but one that is nobly motivated.

Well, that list reads like complex character description to me. Add to that his strong sense of justice and moral code both rooted in his Catholic faith, and his brutality and for me, at least, that's a well-rounded, complex character. But YMMV.

 

I guess I was more wondering how time travel really works in this universe--is history fixed and can't be changed and what happens will always happen or is time fluid and every choice has infinite outcomes for the future? Do we know if the time travelers can actually alter the future or not? I realize Geillus thought she could, but was that just a foolish notion on her part?

 

It more comes down to free will and choice. If what happens always happens, then Clair and Jamie have no choice in their fates. So, does Claire have a choice in whether she stays in the past? Did she really save Jamie or and kill others or were their fates already predetermined and it played out the way it always would play out?

In this universe (the book and the show), the answer to all your questions is yes - which is to say, DG doesn't give you definitive answers (at least not as far as I've read), rather she let's you ask the questions and draw your own conclusions. There is much debate out there regarding time travel in Outlander. And the show hasn't really tackled the subject much at all - although I guess they will next season.

Edited June 29, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[Nidratime]

I guess I was more wondering how time travel really works in this universe--is history fixed and can't be changed and what happens will always happen or is time fluid and every choice has infinite outcomes for the future? Do we know if the time travelers can actually alter the future or not? I realize Geillus thought she could, but was that just a foolish notion on her part?

 

 

I've only read the first four books and read most of them a long time ago, but I get the impression people like Claire can change things in the margins just by their presence, i.e., her doctoring of certain people ensures that they will live; her killing of some; her advice to Jenny about how to survive a coming famine or the coming destruction of the Clan way of life; her marriage to Jamie, etc. These are "small" changes, but they *could* be big changes too if you consider that whole argument about the "Butterfly Effect."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

 

When they do make mistakes, they are usually endearing and always made with the best of intentions.

 

 

Leaving aside intentions, I don't think many folks would call the mistakes Jamie or Claire make necessarily endearing. Jamie strapping Claire? That didn't go over well with many fans, let alone Claire herself. Claire not listening to Jamie and running off, only to be captured by Randall's men and alerting him to who Claire married? Not endearing. Jamie going off with the Watch and risking capture? Stupid more than endearing. No doubt we could add to this list.

[bearcatfan]

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?

Sorry it's taken so long for me to reply. I spent yesterday with the munchkin at the Frozen portion of the mousetrap.

 

I haven't decided yet. In past experience, I usually enjoy adaptions if I don't read the book first. Reading the book first does tend to distract me somewhat. I do fear though that once I finsh the first, I'll want to continue. Especially since the beginning of DIA is included. However, as the differences I've noted so far are fairly minor, I think I'll be able to overlook it if I decide to continue.

 

I don't really believe that Jamie or Claire is a Mary Sue. I meant it more as a joke but Jamie does at least have the quaity that every single person desires him. Claire doesn't really fit this aspect as we know that Father Bain (at least) despises her. Jamie is definately closer to Mary Sue territory than Claire in most aspects. That is why the Claire is a Mary Sue discussion irks me.

[Petunia846]

I would warn you not to start the beginning of DiA unless you are completely sure you want to read the whole thing. Like, don't even peek.

[DittyDotDot]

How cute are you guys, skirting my questions about time travel knowing that Claire and Father Anselm would speak of it shortly. You guys are so great!

 

So, I finally finished the first book. Gotta say, even though I was somewhat spoiled, there were still some surprises along the way for me. You know, I think I mostly finished the first book because I really want to read the second, for some reason. It sounds like it's more up my alley in terms of storytelling. Gabaldon's writing style isn't really one I'm drawn to, but I do think she did stumble onto a great premise here.

[Nidratime]

I haven't read this closely yet, but it might be interesting:

 

The OUTLANDER Smackdown: Book vs Show, Part One

https://www.thealexandriapapers.com/the-outlander-smackdown-book-vs-show-part-one/

[Dust Bunny]

I wish every non-book reader would read that blog entry. There's vindication for us book readers, IMHO: (1) the traumatic journey through the stones that the show didn't portray as well (which is sort of huge down the line), (2) that the show upped Frank & Claire's relationship more than the book, and (3, and I think the most egregious) that the book better demonstrated Claire's growing intimacy with Jamie. I just want to highlight, underscore, and italicize all those points to non-book readers who didn't see or understand those elements. 

 

ETA: I can't wait to read her post about "Devil's Mark", and the show's changes of the stones scene. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[DittyDotDot]

I wish every non-book reader would read that blog entry. There's vindication for us book readers, IMHO: (1) the traumatic journey through the stones that the show didn't portray as well (which is sort of huge down the line), [...]

 

I'm curious about this, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I read the first book and Clair describes it in the book exactly like it was on the show--she equated it to feeling like she woke up in the middle of a car crash. In fact the voice-over was directly quoted from the book, if I remember correctly. Does she describe it differently in another book?

[morgan]

I think that is part of the problem book readers have. I think Ron did a great job with the going through the stones, because it really did follow what was in the book. It was later books where it was described as a much more traumatic event. When I think of travel through the stones I tend to combine all the descriptions, not just from the first book.

Edited July 15, 2015 by morgan

[DittyDotDot]

That's what I was wondering was going on with Frank too. For me, I don't think the show painted Frank or Frank and Claire's relationship differently than what I read in the book. Yes, there was more of it on the show, but I didn't get the impression Claire and Frank's relationship was all that solid on the show or in the first book. I just wonder if what comes after the first book with taints some of the book readers?

 

I've only watched the first eight episodes, but I read the whole first book, I thought they did a fairly good job of adapting the story so far. If there's something that comes later that's supposed to change our view of something, for example Frank, then I think they were smart not to tip their hand to it too early. It should be experienced as it was experienced in the various books, right? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

That's what I was wondering was going on with Frank too. For me, I don't think the show painted Frank or Frank and Claire's relationship differently than what I read in the book. Yes, there was more of it on the show, but I didn't get the impression Claire and Frank's relationship was all that solid on the show or in the first book. I just wonder if what comes after the first book with taints some of the book readers?

 

 

Actually, for me, who hadn't read the books in over 12 years and didn't start re-reading the series again until Early this year, I think the show portrayed Frank in a more positive light; I'm not saying he was a bad person from what I read of him in the buik, but show!Frank didn't have any flaws. And since there is buik talk of all buiks in this thread, I will say, we see an ugly part of Frank in the third? buik, which I hadn't even gotten to until after the season was almost over, and we didn't see much of Frank in the second half of the season.

[DittyDotDot]

Actually, for me, who hadn't read the books in over 12 years and didn't start re-reading the series again until Early this year, I think the show portrayed Frank in a more positive light; I'm not saying he was a bad person from what I read of him in the buik, but show!Frank didn't have any flaws.

 

I guess that's a matter of perspective. Personally, I thought the show showed a hot-tempered man who had most likely strayed during his war years and was more interested in digging up his family history than spending time and reconnecting with his wife. The book didn't actually have much of Frank at all. I thought the show actually made Frank out worse than the book.

[lianau]

I think the show did a lot of good by showing more of Frank  . He gets a lot of hate in the fandom just for being NotJamie but he's not a bad person . 

 

I also think the show f'ed up the scenes of Claire's choice at the stones , not in a big way but  2 little decisions that ended up making the scene difficult to understand for non readers.

1. In the book Jamie sees Claire sort of vanishing and it's then that he truly believes her but it also shows that the stones work .

2. Claire spends a lot of time there making her decision and thinking about Jamie and Frank and her two lives , the show cut her voice over and therefor we're left with no understanding of her mindset .

 

The scenes would have worked with only one of those decisions (Jamie sees her vanishing but no voice over  or  voice over but no stone action),  together they  hide all the information people need to understand the scene (stones work and Claire chooses to stay).

Edited July 15, 2015 by lianau

[DittyDotDot]

See, I haven't seen the scenes of the decision at the stones, yet. I'll be sure to come back when I do.

 

But, yeah, if they cut out Claire's time at the stones and such, that would make it hard to understand. That was one of the better written parts of the book, IMO, it's a shame they didn't do it proper justice.

[bearcatfan]

I didn't read the book until a couple weeks ago. I did understand that Jamie believed her. In the books it gave the impression that he didn't until he saw her starting to disappear but in the show, I believed that he did believe her. If he didn't, why would he stop her from touching the stones? I also thought she decided to stay behind because as viewers, we knew that the stones worked. The show didn't go into the different times that the stones were open so I had no reason to think that they wouldn't work.

 

I've come to realize, however, what I think is obvious, does not appear so to others.

[Nidratime]

Another interview with Diana. This part is interesting:

 

http://www.showbizjunkies.com/tv/diana-gabaldon-outlander-season2-interview/

 

Book two begins in a surprising place, compared to the end of book one…

 

Diana Gabaldon: [Laughing] “People always think they’re reading the wrong book.”

 

Will season two start out in the same way as Dragonfly in Amber? Brianna and Roger haven’t been cast yet and filming has begun.

 

Diana Gabaldon: “Well, it actually could. They shoot things out of sequence so it doesn’t tell you anything except that they haven’t cast them yet – or at least they haven’t told you if they have.

 

I was not involved in a discussion of how to break the story, so to speak. They do show me the script outlines and the script. They show me the footage as they shoot and the rough episodes as they come together, which is great. But I very seldom am in the writers room discussing things. That is their job. I’m happy to contribute opinions. Sometimes I’ll read the script and be, ‘Hmmm, I understand why you did it this way but you could do it that way and get more of the original book in. Move this little piece over here.’ Sometimes they’ll do that. Nine times out of ten if I have a concern or a suggestion they’ll take it. The tenth time they’ll explain why they can’t.”

 

[cypfan]

lianau posted :  "The scenes would have worked with only one of those decisions (Jamie sees her vanishing but no voice over  or  voice over but no stone action),  together they  hide all the information people need to understand the scene (stones work and Claire chooses to stay)."

 

I am a nonbook reader. 

 

On my first viewing, I was momentarily confused.  It flashed through my mind, what's happening, did she go back and then return.  It did not occur to me that it didn't work.  Guess I bought the whole premise of time travel. Then when I saw the camp fire (beautiful and moving camera shot), through tears in my eyes I felt disappointment with / dislike for Claire.  Suddenly, she returns. Of course, was to me a surprise and joyful.

 

However, I have always wondered if she and Jamie discussed what happened or if he was simply accepting. It is hard for me to imagine a young - madly in love  - man would be so considerate and understanding of her husband Frank.  In the book, does Jamie ever ask about Frank?

 

BTW While writing this, I realized that as a viewer only, I really don't know why she returned to Jamie. I assume from the line about take me home to Lallybroch that she "chose" to stay in the 17 hundreds with Jamie.

 

 

[DittyDotDot]

On my first viewing, I was momentarily confused.  It flashed through my mind, what's happening, did she go back and then return.  It did not occur to me that it didn't work.  Guess I bought the whole premise of time travel. Then when I saw the camp fire (beautiful and moving camera shot), through tears in my eyes I felt disappointment with / dislike for Claire.  Suddenly, she returns. Of course, was to me a surprise and joyful.

 

That's interesting. I haven't seen the episode yet, but in the book Claire doesn't leave and come back. At one point, she touches the stones and begins to fade, but Jamie grabs her and pulls her back. He then apologizes, says his goodbyes and leaves her on the hill. She sits for hours thinking and then runs down the hill to Jamie. It's actually one of the better written passages in the book, IMO.

 

However, I have always wondered if she and Jamie discussed what happened or if he was simply accepting. It is hard for me to imagine a young - madly in love  - man would be so considerate and understanding of her husband Frank.  In the book, does Jamie ever ask about Frank?

 

He does and doesn't. He tells Claire she shouldn't be afraid to talk about him, but  Claire made her choice, so he doesn't seem to be all that worried about him. But since the book is told from Clair's POV, we don't really get great insight into how Jamie feels about Frank. It does get a bit more complicated when Claire tells him Frank is a direct descendant of Black Jack's, though.

[WatchrTina]

BookJamie actually asks about Frank on his and Claire's wedding night. It's one of those moments that makes me fall in love with Jamie a little more. He invites Claire to talk about Frank during that hours-long talk in their "honeymoon suite," long before any consummating happens. He realizes that Frank is on her mind and tells her that she should always feel free to speak of him.

He hears more about Frank after the witch trial when Claire finally confesses to being a time-traveler. I'm sure Jamie's feelings about Frank change significantly at that point because suddenly Frank is more than just a beloved memory of Claire's -- he's a real rival for Claire's affection. Jamie learns in that conversation that when the redcoats fished Claire out of that river she was on her way to the stones and back to Frank. That had to hurt. And although that conversation is not depicted in the book I always assumed that Claire had to explain about Frank being Black Jack's descendent. I think she confessed everything in that off-screen conversation and it is the relationship between Jack and Frank that explains why Claire knows so much about Jack's activities and his relationship with the Duke of Sandringham. Ultimately Claire chooses Jamie but she tells him it was a near thing and that hot baths nearly won out. He knows it wasn't hot baths that nearly lured her back. It was Frank. She chooses Jamie but it was a HARD choice -- she sits at the stones for hours -- and that's got to weigh on his mind and his feelings about Frank.

The next time we hear a lot about Frank is at the Abbey, when Claire confesses (to Brother Anselm?) about being a time-traveler and possibly a bigamist (he assures her she is not.) At that time she is puzzling over the fact that her wedding ring from Frank is still on her finger even though his ancestor (Jack) apparently was trampled to death at Wentworth. She and Jamie definitely talk about that because it is one of the pieces of evidence they rely on in their belief that they CAN change the future. So the fact that Frank is Black Jack's descendent is clearly out in the open by then.

Once Black Jack shows up in France, the mystery of Claire's wedding ring is solved in Claire's mind. She comes to believe that he must be allowed to live and father Frank's ancestor or Frank will never exist. I think Jamie is really over hearing about Frank by then, but he loves Claire and agrees to do as she asks. Until he doesn't.

Edited July 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[cypfan]

Wow DittyDotDot and WatchrTina......I can't thank you enough for the history of Frank.  I would be very disappointed if I were a book reader and all of these discussions were omitted in the Starz show.

 

I want to reread your posts and think about it.  Thanks again.

[Archery]

Diana Gabaldon: “Well, it actually could. They shoot things out of sequence so it doesn’t tell you anything except that they haven’t cast them yet – or at least they haven’t told you if they have.

I was not involved in a discussion of how to break the story, so to speak. They do show me the script outlines and the script. They show me the footage as they shoot and the rough episodes as they come together, which is great. But I very seldom am in the writers room discussing things. That is their job. I’m happy to contribute opinions. Sometimes I’ll read the script and be, ‘Hmmm, I understand why you did it this way but you could do it that way and get more of the original book in. Move this little piece over here.’ Sometimes they’ll do that. Nine times out of ten if I have a concern or a suggestion they’ll take it. The tenth time they’ll explain why they can’t.”

 

 

I do wonder how much input DG has in mapping out the actual story arc, because -- love her or hate her -- DG tends to put in details and scenes that seem not to have any point, but that figure hugely later on down the line.  I would think that DG would spend a lot of time saying, "Oh, you can't cut that out because X has to happen later on."

 

Here's an example.  I had the abridged audiobooks for Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber  (wonderfully narrated by Geraldine James) back in the 1990s.  The DIA audiobook left out the whole battle of Prestonpans, including the encounter with the 16 year old English soldier in the wood.  Without that scene, Voyager cannot happen. 

 

Considering how much has to be cut out of the novels for television, I'd be terrified that they are leaving out some detail that has major repercussions later on.

 

As to Jamie or Claire being a "Mary Sue," one of the defining characteristics of a Mary (or Marty) Sue in fan fiction is that this perfect, idealized character replaces one of the main characters as the focus of the story.  E.g., the practically perfect present-day girl who somehow finds herself on the bridge of the Enterprise, and who solves problems better and faster than Mr. Spock does, and everyone spends a lot of time talking about how smart/perky/beautiful, etc., she is. 

 

Jamie and Claire are both smart, capable, and strong-willed, and neither one is a Mary/Marty Sue.

[DittyDotDot]

Does anyone remember the name of the officer so eager to protect his port back in The Garrison Commander? I know that scene wasn't in the book and I get the idea was to show the difference between Black Jack and the other English officers, butI got to wondering if he would be relevant sometime later. I'm currently reading Voyager and I was wondering if he could be John Grey's older brother Lord Melton? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Does anyone remember the name of the officer so eager to protect his port back in The Garrison Commander? I know that scene wasn't in the book and I get the idea was to show the difference between Black Jack and the other English officers, butI got to wondering if he would be relevant sometime later. I'm currently reading Voyager and I was wondering if he could be John Grey's older brother Lord Melton? 

 

 

I don't remember his name, and no, I very much doubt that he would be Lord John's brother. Or I should say, he better not be, just based on what the character is like and Lord John's brother is SO the opposite of that fop.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, so far I've seen little of him so I wasn't sure if it would fit. Hmm? Is there someone else that might?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh, so far I've seen little of him so I wasn't sure if it would fit. Hmm? Is there someone else that might?

 

Nope.  At least, not for me. 

[Laurie]

According to IMDb...the character was Brigadier General Lord Thomas.

[DittyDotDot]

Silly me...IMDb is usually my friend, why didn't I think of that? Thanks, Laurie.

[Summer]

As I stated many times before on this forum that I chose not to read the book/s due to Sam and Caitriona's portrayal of Jamie and Claire and I just couldn't get Sam and Cait in my head as them.  Weeellll, Droughtlander got me.  I broke down and read Outlander.  Wait, what??  Yes, I did.  I was also curious to find out how I felt about Diana's writing as some have stated they didn't care for her style.  I loved the book.  I can't say that every time I read dialogue from Jamie or Claire that I automatically heard Sam or Cait's voice, but it was ok.  

 

Here are my thoughts of the book vs the show:

 

I had the same reaction to the beginning of the book with Frank as I did with the show.  I enjoy Tobias as an actor but jeez the first half hour of the first episode and the first 50 pages of the book were a snore to me.  And you guys weren't kidding when you said Frank was a very small part of the book, Tobias REALLY must have made an impression on Ron Moore to get as much air time as he did as Frank.  

 

I didn't get the "slow burn" attraction between Jamie and Claire in the book as much as I did in the show.   I feel like the show really played up the longing glances etc.  I can see why that would work better on TV.  

 

I like how Wentworth Prison and Ransom played out on TV better.  The thing that didn't work for me in the book regarding that was immediately after Jamie was rescued and they were are Macrannich's (sp?) house he was very open to having Claire near him, caring for him, touching him I think he even said at one point he wanted to hold her and make love to her but  all he could do was lay his head in her lap as he was too hurt and tired.  Then the next chapter he is saying he can't look at her, wants her to leave him, he can't be her husband because he's so ashamed.  It's almost as if Diana took a long time between writing those chapters and forgot Jamie's mindset.  I thought it made more sense in the show when immediately shuts Claire out.  

 

And last but not least, I am AMAZED what Ron Moore and Co. did with the Murtagh character based upon how he was portrayed in the book.  Amazed.  In my opinion Murtagh was nothing but a minor character, if not for the show I wouldn't even have given him a second thought but I love how he is portrayed in the show and all the extra scenes Duncan was given (The Wedding "Claire has the same smile", The Search with his love story about Ellen Mackenzie, etc)  Hats off to RDM for hiring Duncan (Murtagh is continually described in the book as a short, rat like little man), that man has vision, I will say that.  

 

I'm not quite finished with the book, I am savoring that last few pages, haven't gotten to the hot spring scene yet, am verra much looking forward to that.

 

So, I'm a book reader.   I get it now, guys.  I really do. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by Summer

[Laurie]

So, I'm a book reader. I get it now, guys. I really do.

 

 

So will you continue on reading the rest of the series or will you wait until after each season airs? 

[Summer]

Laurie-I will probably wait until each season airs.  I am nervous about expectations if I read the book first and there is a scene I loved that isn't in the show, etc. 

[bearcatfan]

Laurie-I will probably wait until each season airs.  I am nervous about expectations if I read the book first and there is a scene I loved that isn't in the show, etc. 

I was the same way but broke down and read all of the books in a month. Maybe it was 6 weeks. I'm hoping that as I've only read them once, I won't be disappointed so much if there is a scene I like in the book that isn't in the show. I don't usually have an issue with actors in a role. There have been exceptions. I had a really hard time with Denzel Washington in the Gray Grantham role in The Pelican Brief as I remember Gray as a middle-aged balding man with a pauch. The race change didn't bother me and I would have been fine if the remaining descriptors were met. Of course I realize that Denzel was a much bigger draw than a balding, chubby man would be.

 

Back to Outlander, I agree about Wentworth and Ransom. I've heard that Diana write scenes as they come to her and then pieces it together later. It's very possible that there was a large chunk of time between writing those 2 scenes you mentioned in your first post above.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Even if that is the way DG writes, that's why she has copy editors. They should have caught that.  And I say this after reading her acknowledgments thanking said copy editors who read her buiks in "chunks" and it's due to their hard work that the readers got such a wonderful product.

[CatMack]

Rape victims often take awhile to fully process what's happened to them.  That's why sometimes women who have been raped will be "friendly" with their rapists for awhile afterward which is often used as "proof" they couldn't really have been raped.  I don't have any problem with Jamie's initial reaction.  He's been freed from a nightmare and is with people he cares about. It's not until later after he's had time to really reflect on what happened, and when he's weak and getting sick from infection, does his mental state really start to deteriorate. While there's no "right" way to experience trauma, mood swings is 100% normal and it's pretty dangerous to assume it's not.  

 

I have a problem with 99% of the rape Gabaldon includes in the books, but the way she handled Jamie's is relatively well done.

[DittyDotDot]

I like how Wentworth Prison and Ransom played out on TV better.  The thing that didn't work for me in the book regarding that was immediately after Jamie was rescued and they were are Macrannich's (sp?) house he was very open to having Claire near him, caring for him, touching him I think he even said at one point he wanted to hold her and make love to her but  all he could do was lay his head in her lap as he was too hurt and tired.  Then the next chapter he is saying he can't look at her, wants her to leave him, he can't be her husband because he's so ashamed.  It's almost as if Diana took a long time between writing those chapters and forgot Jamie's mindset.  I thought it made more sense in the show when immediately shuts Claire out.  

 

I got caught up on this at first too, but then I remembered what MacRannoch said to Jamie after the rescue. Something about taking his wife to bed as soon as possible so she could help heal him. Jamie wasn't physically able to do that and instead of having an experience with Claire to replace his experience with Black Jack, he instead had way too much time to think about and obsess over what had happened to him and Black Jack. I came to see it as a wound that was left to fester and get worse instead of being treated immediately.

 

That's not to say that these books couldn't have had a stronger hand on the editing, though. 

[WatchrTina]

 

I didn't get the "slow burn" attraction between Jamie and Claire in the book as much as I did in the show.   I feel like the show really played up the longing glances etc.

I have a theory that Claire is a slightly unreliable narrator when it comes to Jamie in those pre-wedding chapters.  She's distraught, she's missing Frank, she's trying desperately to come to grips with all that has happened to her . . . and oh yeah there's a nice young man around who is in need of a fair amount of doctoring and is kind to her in response.  All those lingering looks that Jamie gives her in the show are missing from the book because distraught, distracted Claire is oblivious to them.

[Keeta]

I have a theory that Claire is a slightly unreliable narrator when it comes to Jamie in those pre-wedding chapters.  She's distraught, she's missing Frank, she's trying desperately to come to grips with all that has happened to her . . . and oh yeah there's a nice young man around who is in need of a fair amount of doctoring and is kind to her in response.  All those lingering looks that Jamie gives her in the show are missing from the book because distraught, distracted Claire is oblivious to them.

 

Plus, on or after the wedding night, doesn't she finally admit somewhat to acting on an "infatuation"? (That she didn't really bring up prior, yes.) This may be giving DG too much credit, but you could look at it as Claire being in denial of the building attraction to Jamie until their arranged marriage brings everything to a head. 

[Summer]

 

I have a theory that Claire is a slightly unreliable narrator when it comes to Jamie in those pre-wedding chapters.  She's distraught, she's missing Frank, she's trying desperately to come to grips with all that has happened to her . . . and oh yeah there's a nice young man around who is in need of a fair amount of doctoring and is kind to her in response.  All those lingering looks that Jamie gives her in the show are missing from the book because distraught, distracted Claire is oblivious to them.

I agree, WatchrTina.   When I first read the book I remember thinking Wow, Claire is pretty grumpy and rude, but then again she SHOULD be considering what she has been through.  I think they may have toned that attitude down a bit for the show so that viewers will like Claire, because honestly its hard to warm up to her in the book right away.   And also the chemistry between Cait and Sam is off the charts so verra easy to show the 'slow burn'  on TV  than to convey that on pages.  

 

I did enjoy DG's writing, but agree with all of you that a good editor is definitely needed   I bet they're all afraid of her, Diana strikes me as someone that you do not want to piss off.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Summer

[GHScorpiosRule]

I really don't mean to bash DG, but we are talking about her first buik here, and there was no need for anyone to be afraid of her.  They all--editors, copy editors, should have caught the continuity whaaa? Edited down all the wordiness. She hadn't made her mark yet or had any clout, where everyone would go along with what she wanted.

 

Now, it seems it's too late.

[chocolatetruffle]

I like how Wentworth Prison and Ransom played out on TV better.  The thing that didn't work for me in the book regarding that was immediately after Jamie was rescued and they were are Macrannich's (sp?) house he was very open to having Claire near him, caring for him, touching him I think he even said at one point he wanted to hold her and make love to her but  all he could do was lay his head in her lap as he was too hurt and tired.  Then the next chapter he is saying he can't look at her, wants her to leave him, he can't be her husband because he's so ashamed.  It's almost as if Diana took a long time between writing those chapters and forgot Jamie's mindset.  I thought it made more sense in the show when immediately shuts Claire out.  

 

And last but not least, I am AMAZED what Ron Moore and Co. did with the Murtagh character based upon how he was portrayed in the book.  Amazed.  In my opinion Murtagh was nothing but a minor character, if not for the show I wouldn't even have given him a second thought but I love how he is portrayed in the show and all the extra scenes Duncan was given (The Wedding "Claire has the same smile", The Search with his love story about Ellen Mackenzie, etc)  Hats off to RDM for hiring Duncan (Murtagh is continually described in the book as a short, rat like little man), that man has vision, I will say that.  

 

I've been through two traumatic experiences in my life and BOTH times I reacted exactly the same way Jamie did in the book.  Putting everyone else at ease, "I'm fine," "I lived through it, right, so it's all good," "See, I can even joke about it."  My human brain could not process the awfulness of the events right away, so it defaulted to denial.  Then the act crumbled with time - it's exhausting to pretend everything is fine when everything is really very wrong.  They don't call it P(for Post)TSD for nothing.  So I felt Jamie's reaction and mental deterioration was truthfully depicted in the books.  There may be continuity issues in other places of the book, but not here.

 

In the show, I felt it was rushed - I know they only had so much time, but that was due to poor time management earlier in the season, so that was their choice to limit Jamie's rescue & recovery to one episode.  I always thought the rescue & McRannoch scene should have happened at the end of Wentworth, leaving all of Ransom for Claire to ransom his soul.  

 

And Yeah, Murtaugh was extraordinary in the show.  I'm not only glad they hired Duncan, but also that they recognized what a jewel they had in him and expanded his role.

Edited August 28, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've been through two traumatic experiences in my life and BOTH times I reacted exactly the same way Jamie did in the book.  Putting everyone else at ease, "I'm fine," "I lived through it, right, so it's all good," "See, I can even joke about it."  My human brain could not process the awfulness of the events right away, so it defaulted to denial.  Then the act crumbled with time - it's exhausting to pretend everything is fine when everything is really very wrong.  They don't call it P(for Post)TSD for nothing.  So I felt Jamie's reaction and mental deterioration was truthfully depicted in the books.  There may be continuity issues in other places of the book, but not here.

 

 

Thanks for sharing this, chocolatetruffle. It's allowed me to also say, that I've been there as well--though not as traumatic as Jamie's experience in those days, but (molestation, molestation, rape) three different times in my life before I hit 30. And it's so true--the whole, "I'm fine, I can deal" and you find you can, until something happens to trigger a reaction. And I'll leave it at that.

 

But yeah, I felt the finale was too rushed--If they could have had a two-hour finale, I think we could have gotten more of Jamie's wasting himself away. It would still have been within the confines of 16 episodes--just the last one would be longer! I understand why they had Claire in breeks while waiting for Rupert, Murtaugh and Angus to bring Jamie, but I have wished that they would have used the buik--where, while they're escaping, Jamie is wrapped in his cloak, and starts bleeding onto the snow (they could have shown it on the ground), which led to Claire killing the soldier, and then the rest. But 'tis all moot now.

 

But like I've said in other threads, Moore knows who his audience is, they have fewer episodes, and he knows (or should know), that he better not stint on the emotional moments. I know there will be changes, but the big emotional beats--they better not be sacrificed.  I am more than willing to sacrifice Black Jack's woe is me Tour, so I can get more Jamie and Claire. And Fergus and Culloden, Prestopans.

[Summer]

GHScorpiosrule and Chocolatetruffle-I'm sorry for what you've been through and thank you for sharing your insight, it most definitely explains why Jamie reacted the way he did.

[chocolatetruffle]

GHScorpiosrule and Chocolatetruffle-I'm sorry for what you've been through and thank you for sharing your insight, it most definitely explains why Jamie reacted the way he did.

 

Aww, Thanks Summer.  And for me, too, it was nothing like Jamie's experience.  But if you live long enough "life happens" and as they say, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger!"

[GHScorpiosRule]

GHScorpiosrule and Chocolatetruffle-I'm sorry for what you've been through and thank you for sharing your insight, it most definitely explains why Jamie reacted the way he did.

 

What chocolatetruffle said.  And like I said, we all react differently and have different triggers; and yet, when I read these scenes in the buik, as painful as they were, I don't think it caused me any flashbacks. Then again, I read them veryfast to get through them.

 

Aww, Thanks Summer.  And for me, too, it was nothing like Jamie's experience.  But if you live long enough "life happens" and as they say, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger!"

 

Truer words. I haven't been kilt yet, though I ken I can't take anything more. Yet when it happens, well, here I am.

[Summer]

 

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger!"

Very true, Choc!

 

Oh and I forgot to mention one more thing that was in the book that didn't make it to the show and I think a lot of the book readers were bummed.  After Claire decided not to go through the stones and stay with Jamie he tells her how he prayed all the way up that hill for the strength not to fall on his knees and beg her to stay and "its the was the hardest thing I ever did, Sassenach"   What a great passage and didn't make it into the show....wahhhhh....

[chocolatetruffle]

Very true, Choc!

 

Oh and I forgot to mention one more thing that was in the book that didn't make it to the show and I think a lot of the book readers were bummed.  After Claire decided not to go through the stones and stay with Jamie he tells her how he prayed all the way up that hill for the strength not to fall on his knees and beg her to stay and "its the was the hardest thing I ever did, Sassenach"   What a great passage and didn't make it into the show....wahhhhh....

 

YESSSS!  A thousand times Yes!  I could not believe that they would leave this out!  It says so much about how difficult the whole thing was for him.  And although, Sam's performance conveyed the difficulty, I often felt like too much was left up to us to "read into" expressions and silences.  This should have been verbalized, because people tend to remember what they hear.  

 

Also, Jamie's remark about walking past the scaffolding where he was flogged to rescue Claire from Ft. William was not in the show and should have been.  It's the only way we know that Jamie had to overcome a substantial amount of fear & trauma in the moment in order to rescue her.  It humanizes his character and it was needed to show that real heroism comes from pushing aside your fear in order to get the job done.

[Summer]

 

Also, Jamie's remark about walking past the scaffolding where he was flogged to rescue Claire from Ft. William was not in the show and should have been.  It's the only way we know that Jamie had to overcome a substantial amount of fear & trauma in the moment in order to rescue her.  It humanizes his character and it was needed to show that real heroism comes from pushing aside your fear in order to get the job done

Agreed, Choc!  That is a very good point because when I first starting watching the show, as a non book reader, and before I, ahem, some could say obsessively rewatched each episode a million times, I could not keep the castles and the settings straight.  Between Fort William, Leoch and Lallybroch,  in the early days I had no idea where they were half the time so it would have really been impactful for him to remind the non book readers that Fort William is where the awful flogging took place and how much strength it must have taken for him to go back there to rescue Claire.