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

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh we all talked about how Moore left that out! We were complaining and ranting because for the ones who didn't read the book--it was not clear if she made the choice or if she was unable to go back; never mind the fact that in the pilot, Claire specifically said if she had to do it all over again, that she "would make the same choice."

 

And how Moore said he wanted the witch trial to be longer...because...why again?  He should have shown Claire's struggle to leave Jamie in the first place...and then shown how she decided to stay and not done a lame-o fade to black nonsense.

Edited August 28, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[Summer]

 

And how Moore said he wanted the witch trial to be longer...because...why again?

Ah, that witch trial!   Just. too. damned. long.  As much as I love that episode, every time I rewatch  (I know, I know, I have a problem, I am well aware) I fast forward the entire trial until Jamie bursts in and rescues Claire.   I think I've seen the actual trial maybe once or twice. 

[DittyDotDot]

Speaking of the witch trial--I haven't seen the episode yet, but was very confused as to what happened to Ned in the book. He was there defending her and then suddenly he was no where in sight. Did I miss something? 

[bearcatfan]

Ah, that witch trial!   Just. too. damned. long.  As much as I love that episode, every time I rewatch  (I know, I know, I have a problem, I am well aware) I fast forward the entire trial until Jamie bursts in and rescues Claire.   I think I've seen the actual trial maybe once or twice. 

I fast forward the trial as well.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Speaking of the witch trial--I haven't seen the episode yet, but was very confused as to what happened to Ned in the book. He was there defending her and then suddenly he was no where in sight. Did I miss something? 

 

 

As far as I know, no. It was crazy when Jamie stormed in to save Claire. While he took her away, Geillis was being carried away, and I don't recall what happened to Ned. Then Jamie took Claire to Lallybroch.  Same thing in the buik. But we know that Ned is okay, because he's the one that draws up the contract between Jamie and hosebeast in future buiks.

[DittyDotDot]

It was just so weird to me that he was there defending her one day and the next he was no where in sight. I kept wondering where he was when they were tying Claire up and ripping off her clothes. Not that he probably could've don't much against mob mentality, it just was something that stuck out in my mind.

 

Now that I think about it, he was also missing in DiA. Shouldn't he have been part of Column's entourage when he came to meet with Bonny Prince Charles? Too bad Gabldon didn't use the character better, I guess.

[WatchrTina]

 

It was crazy when Jamie stormed in to save Claire. While he took her away, Geillis was being carried away, and I don't recall what happened to Ned.

Well, remember that Ned pulled a gun when the verdict went against the women and then he was aggressively subdued and dragged out of frame.  I assumed he was either knocked unconscious or that they continued dragging him right out of the courtroom and then threw him in the thieves hole where, eventually, Colum would rescue him.

[DittyDotDot]

Okay, I just read the part where Ned comes and settles things between Laoghaire and Jamie in Voyager. Claire says, at least two times, that Ned saved her from being burned as a witch. What? He did stand up for her and defend her, but he didn't save her, did he? Like I said, I didn't even think he was present the last day, certainly not when Claire was mobbed. I thought it was Jamie who did the saving that day. Did I miss the part where Ned's presence changed anything?

[Bort]

My memory is fuzzy on the book events but wasn't it Ned who convinced them to have a trial? The trial is what gave Jamie time to rescue Claire, otherwise they would've burned them at the stake outright.

[Laurie]

And Ned managed to talk so long that it forced the trial into a second day giving a Jamie the time to get back.

[DittyDotDot]

Ahh. That makes sense now. You're right, I had forgotten they were going to just burn them at the stake before Ned showed up. Thanks guys!

 

BTW, can I just say how I'm having kilt-withdrawal in Voyager! I miss Jamie dropping his plaid for them to have a picnic or to cover them at night and such. That's one thing Gabaldon has done well, showing how the entire Highland culture was and then was decimated.

[WatchrTina]

DittyDotDot rest assured that the KILT WILL BE BACK!.  It's only been outlawed in Great Britain.  Once they are off British soil Jamie is free to begin wearing it again and, eventually, he does.

[DittyDotDot]

Aww! I can't wait. 

[Summer]

Weel, now, I'm reading the damn thing again! What IS it with these books, is there some subliminal message in the dialogue that creates this obsession??  But I read it so fast the first time that it is all just a blur so I'm re-reading a bit slower this time and am catching more.  I have more thoughts....bear with me :)  In all honesty NO ONE I know has heard or or read the books or watch the show, so this forum is a life saver for me so my wee head doesn't explode with wanting to talk about it!

 

There are two really cute scenes with Jamie and Hamish and wee Jamie in the book that I would have loved to see in the show, but neither of the scenes really progress the storyline so I can totally see why they wouldn't make it in the show with all the other stuff they had to cram in.  The first is when Jamie and Hamish are in the barn and Hamish is asking Jamie if he "minds being married and sleeping in the same bed with a lady" and asking all sorts of really cute questions about sex and girls, etc.   And the other is at Lallybroch where Jamie is teaching wee Jamie how to pee without getting it on his toes.  Both of those scenes were adorable to me and I would have loved to see Sam portray them, but oh well, I get it, but still....

 

Also, another line that I absolutely love that didn't make it in the show (although I bet they could have if they tried) was right after the wedding where Jamie and Claire are exploring the country, getting to know each other, and Jamie says (have to paraphrase) that it truly thrills him that he can please Claire and cause her body to rouse to his and he didn't realize he could do that...LOVED that.  It's on page 305.  I know because I reread that a lot :)  

 

I didn't like the "I'm from the future" reveal in the book as much as I liked it in the show.  In the book I didn't like how Claire was all "Yes, I'm a witch or you probably think I am because I won't ever get smallpox...etc" In the book she does tell Jamie when she was born but, I dunno, just like how it was more straightforward in the show "I'm not a witch.  I'm from the future".  

 

Lallybroch is one of my favorite episodes from the show but I find it tedious in the book.  Glad they cut the huge fight between Jenny and Jamie when he first arrived for the show, it went on and on in the book.  

 

And lastly, this is more just about the book.  I know the book has a lot of sex scenes and I can't say I mind, but there were times when I was like "They're doing it again?? There??"  But I was especially bothered by the sex right after the two red coat deserters practically raped Claire.  Jamie feels the need to bang her 5 seconds later?  I mean, jeez, she was just almost raped and then killed a guy and is in shock, but you're horny, Jamie , have at it.  Not sure what DG was trying to say with that scene. Glad that didn't make it into the show.  

 

I often wonder if I only like this book because I love the show so much.  Not sure, but since Hubby canceled our HBO/Starz subscription until next year (waahhhhhh, no more rewatching) reading the book is helping me get thru Droughtlander Deux.  And I just ordered DIA and Voyager.   I am dying to read the 

Reunion scene in the print shop

in Voyager.  

Edited September 11, 2015 by Summer

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, Laurie, I feel your obsession. I took me a while to get into it--I found Gabaldon's writing style very hard to get through at first--but I'm now obsessively reading all the books and contemplating the Lord John ones too. Sigh. I think Gabaldon improves as a writer and the books get easier to read, but, in my mind the first book is where the story is strongest and the characters seem the most vivid. But once you're invested in Jamie and Claire's story it's hard to stop, I guess?

 

 

And lastly, this is more just about the book.  I know the book has a lot of sex scenes and I can't say I mind, but there were times when I was like "They're doing it again?? There??"  But I was especially bothered by the sex right after the two red coat deserters practically raped Claire.  Jamie feels the need to bang her 5 seconds later?  I mean, jeez, she was just almost raped and then killed a guy and is in shock, but you're horny, Jamie, have at it.  Not sure what DG was trying to say with that scene. Glad that didn't make it into the show.  

 

I don't know if it's what Gabaldon was going for, but I read it as them both being in shock and using the sex afterward as a release of all the fear and tension from the encounter. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm just the opposite. It took years and this show, to get me to pick up the buiks again. And even though DG has created such wonderful characters, her writing still leaves a lot, I mean A LOT to be desired. And I can't see myself picking up any one of them to re-read on a regular basis, like I do with my other favorite authors. Imagining Sam and Cait as Jamie and Claire while I was reading them, helped a LOT.

[Summer]

 

 

I don't know if it's what Gabaldon was going for, but I read it as them both being in shock and using the sex afterward as a release of all the fear and tension from the encounter.

Yes, TripleD :), I did think that was what she might be going for, some kind of a way for Jamie to get out his anger for what almost happened to Claire, but all I could think of was the state that Claire must have been in and it would the last thing I would want to do.

 

 

I'm just the opposite. It took years and this show, to get me to pick up the buiks again. And even though DG has created such wonderful characters, her writing still leaves a lot, I mean A LOT to be desired. And I can't see myself picking up any one of them to re-read on a regular basis, like I do with my other favorite authors. Imagining Sam and Cait as Jamie and Claire while I was reading them, helped a LOT.

YES, GH! I know you and a few others have mentioned that you didn't care for DG's writing style and I have to admit that was one of the reasons that I finally decided to read the book and see for myself.  And I have to agree with you, on  the second read thru, her writing style annoys me a lot.  Thats why I'm wondering if I'm kind of talking myself into liking the books because I love the show so much.    One of the lines that kills me every time I read it is the morning after the rough makeup sex from the Reckoning (whatever that chapter is called in the book) Jamie, of course,  wants to do it again and Diana writes "Gentle he would be, denied he would not"  I cannot even write that with a straight face!  Don't want to bash DG as she brought us Jamie and Claire, but it's that kind of writing that slays me.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

What she does, really well, are the big emotional beats and dialogue in later buiks. Like when I got to Buik 5, The Fiery Cross, oh my, the emotional satisfaction at the end! My arms were flailing and I ended up using a word I really don't like tae use: "feels."  The feels! The FEELS! 

 

So even though I bitch about DG's writing, she did give me Jamie and a few others, so that's what made me finish the entire series over the summer.

 

But damn if she doesn't need a very, very aggressive copy editor. But I suspect, by this point, it's too late.

[DittyDotDot]

It's funny, I only started reading the books because, after the first eight episodes, the show wasn't really doing much for me. I mean, it's pretty and all, but it's also got this overly romanticized tone to it that's just not my thing. So, not sure if I would continue to watch the show, I was curious where some of the story was heading and picked up the first book. The writing is rough and it took me two or three months to finish Outlander. By the end of it, though, I was invested in Claire and Jamie and haven't stopped reading since. I'm currently on The Fiery Cross and it really struck me how much easier this book has been to read, so far. Either Gabaldon improved or I just finally got used to it? It's sometimes hard to tell where that line is, for me.

 

Even though the first book is chalked full of cheesy writing, what I think she did well in the first book was research. It showed in her attention to some of the details and the characters are the most vivid to me in Outlander. In the later books, I don't find the characters (other than Claire and Jamie) as well-rounded or as compelling. I agree, GHScorpiosRule, the emotional beats are something she does very well. The back half of Drums in Autumn is chalked full of one emotional beat after another, IMO. 

 

Anyway, I do think if one can stand the gritting their way through the first book, it's a worthy endeavor. But, I'm a competionist, so maybe I'm just telling myself that to make myself feel better? ;)

[Summer]

Yup-Her writing is not so awful that I have to stop reading, I just find myself rolling my eyes at certain endless descriptions.  

Edited September 13, 2015 by Summer

[Summer]

Almost done with my second read through, just about at the hot springs scene.  I am realizing what I DO like about DG's writing is the dialogue.  I like the way her characters speak.  It's the never-ending descriptive narrative that I don't care for .   Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of lines that stand out, but there are many more that I enjoyed reading:  "Witch I am.  And I curse you....." I dunno, just something about they way she wrote witch I am, vs Yes, Black Jack I am a witch.  Kind of a tiny minor thing but I really, really like that line and LOVED how Caitriona delivered it in the show.  

 

And my all time favorite from the book and the show is  "I'll thank ye to take your hands off my wife!'"  Swoon. Thud.  Where was I?  Again, DG could have written that line a million different, more traditional, ways "Get your hands off my wife" "Unhand my wife" but the "I'll thank ye...." just kills me.  Love it.  

 

I also love the opening paragraph "People disappear all the time......" and ending with "most of them are found.....usually"   So glad they opened the very first episode of the show with that.  

 

And as I've made my way almost through Ransom in the book, I say again, I really really wish they could have added a more intimate scene in the show.  I get that the hot springs scene was too difficult to film, but there is another scene just before that (in the book) where Jamie comes into Claire's room and they make love for the first time, wish they had done something like that in the show.  

Edited September 13, 2015 by Summer

[Nidratime]

I guess I should put this here since it's about the books, so to speak. ;-)

 

Davina Porter Audio Narrator of Outlander Series- Speaks to Fans at Fall for the Books

http://www.outlandertvnews.com/2015/09/davina-porter-audio-narrator-of-outlander-series-speaks-to-fans-at-fall-for-the-books/

 

(There are some videos at the bottom of the linked page of Davina doing some of the readings from Outlander.)

[cypfan]

Grashka, I am really hoping that Season two will have a poignant wrap up scene to Ransom.

 

I hesitate to post in this thread because you are all so deeply knowledgeable about the show and especially the books....and better typers I think but.........

It did bother me  that Jamie looked so horrific as he crawled on the putrid cell floor and yet when Claire sees him, he has been washed. Jamie does look grubby but nothing like he did earlier in the day.  

 

I know nit picking.

[WatchrTina]

 

It did bother me  that Jamie looked so horrific as he crawled on the putrid cell floor and yet when Claire sees him, he has been washed. Jamie does look grubby but nothing like he did earlier in the day.

We see Jamie watching Black Jack wash himself at one point (after the crawling, bleeding, branding and hallucinating).  Jamie has been cleaned up at that point and I assumed that before washing himself, Jack washed Jamie (which is a scene I'm glad we didn't see.)  That behavior would be consistent with the book's description of Jack alternating between inflicting pain and treating Jamie with "tenderness" (for lack of a better word.)  So it's didn't seem like a continuity gaff to me that Jamie was less filthy when he was rescued than he had been in earlier scenes.

Edited October 4, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

I couldn't respond re: Randall's obsession in Unpopular thread wihout the reference to the book. There it is introduced in a less abrupt manner IMO with the inclusion of character called Alex McGregor, who was another Highlander teenager Randall "took a fancy to" at the same time he had Jamie flogged twice and assaulted in Fort William. The boy "submitted" to him and then commited suicide because he could't bear the humiliation and shame. Jamie ended up with his bible and desire to avenge his death. Also Jamie's flogging went down a bit differently in the book - he managed to get down from the whipping post all the way giving Randall those sort of looks that made the creep go pale. That was the turning moment. Of course one can argue that it would be ridiculous for him to do the same on the show - what with the bloody pieces of flesh dangling from his back - but those two things combined with book!Jamie being more vigorous character than on the show made the whole thing with Randall more believable in the books IMO.

 

For me, why Black Jack's apparent obsession worked in the books was due to Randall not really seeming to be obsessed with Jamie in the book. He wasn't sitting around making his many plans of what he was going to do to Jamie when he found him. It's more like he randomly finds Jamie at Wentworth and decides it means something in that he keeps running into this guy who refused to be broken and thinks he's supposed to finish the job. It's not until he exhausts himself in the effort that he realizes there's something inside Jamie that Black Jack wishes to have for himself. To me, that's when he becomes obsessed with possessing Jamie's soul. And, I think it galls him that Jamie has freely given his soul to Claire without the effort Black Jack has put into the task. 

 

It was different on the show because they took great pains to show us how Black Jack thought they were creating "art" together when he flogged Jamie. It felt more like Black Jack had been pining away for Jamie; hoping they could make some more "art" together. I understand why they added that to the show--I think they were trying to establish what a sadist asshole Black Jack really was so the audience would hopefully understand why he's so determined to break Jamie later--it just isn't what I got from reading the book. 

[DittyDotDot]

But the relationship between Jamie and Claire? I have not seen that connection, that banter, humor and spark on the screen, at least not yet. And for that I stick to the books.

 

Yeah, I'm re-watching the first part of the season right now and I think that's it, the humor between Claire and Jamie on the show doesn't come through as well. Hell, even Murtagh is funnier in the books, IMO, even though he's mostly silent. I keep saying the show has a more romantic and nostalgic tone to it, but maybe it's more of a serious tone is why it doesn't do for me like the books do?

 

A couple things that jumped out at me this time around though:

• Claire's telling Angus he could mind his own bloody business, and so can Saint Paul took on new meaning after Claire's back and forth with Tom Christie with regards to Saint Paul in later books. I laughed heartily at that line. 
• The renowned Beaton healers, is the traveler/healer we meet in MOBY a Beaton? I might have to go look that one up, but that could be interesting.
• I'd forgotten how much Jamie was Claire's guide through this world on the show. She really relies on him to help her navigate in this alien world. I know it's in the book, but I don't remember it to the same degree and not so much until after they were married. It's a nice touch for the show to help guide the viewers. It's easier to do this in text than it is to show it.
• Boy did I notice Jamie taking note of Claire more this time around. I mean, I saw the budding relationship the first time, but I noticed so much more this time. All the wee looks Jamie gave Claire, his obvious disappointment to hear she was leaving and then later when she says she's never going to get away from Leoch. Sam gave this look that I originally took more as Jamie trying to puzzle out whether she was a spy or something like that, but this time, I saw it far more as Jamie wishing she'd stop trying to leave. 
• Blasphemy alert!!! I actually felt a bit sorry for Laoghaire this time around knowing where it goes. I see why she does what she does and all, even if she does it all wrong. Like Murtagh said (or Auld Alec in the book) she'll be a girl til she's 50. Still, that concert where Jamie only has eyes for Claire made me feel sorry for her and even more so after Claire sees Jamie snogging her in the kitchen.
• Did not notice Geillis's red shoes the first time around. I kept thinking, "Water, Claire, she'll melt if you throw water on her...do it quick! Or, drop a house on her, that works too!" ;) The show did a really good job with Geillis, she's just enough off to make you question what's up with her, but not so much so that you roll your eyes at Claire not catching on. 

 

Anyway, it's been an interesting exercise to re-watch them now after I've read the book. I may mostly prefer the books, but I still think the show did a pretty good job adapting them, overall. I'm only up to episode 4, though, I wonder if my opinion will shift some as we head out on the road and get closer to the wedding episode and the show starts to diverge more? 

[DittyDotDot]

Murtaugh may not be particulary outspoken but every time he opens his mouth something gold comes straight out of it. Besides all his "hmmmmm" and "uhmmmm"  usually speaks volumes LOL but so do show!Murtaugh's eyebrows BTW. I guess I love them both for various reasons. Rereading his death scene in "Voyager" made me tear a bit because I was seeing show!Murtaugh while doing so.

 

Oh my God, I was getting so pissy while reading Voyager thinking Gabaldon was never going to tell us what happened to him. And then, she made me cry. How dare she!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

• Did not notice Geillis's red shoes the first time around. I kept thinking, "Water, Claire, she'll melt if you throw water on her...do it quick! Or, drop a house on her, that works too!" ;) The show did a really good job with Geillis, she's just enough off to make you question what's up with her, but not so much so that you roll your eyes at Claire not catching on. 

 

I can't put this on the Unpopular Opinions thread, since that's No Book talk - but I haven't seen anyone else address this at all:

 

I really don't like how they made Gellis a redhead in the show.  Wasn't she blonde in the book?  I remember thinking when I read that part, how refreshingly different it was that an innocent pixie faced blonde was the witch instead of the stereotypical redheaded woman.  Especially since, historically, redheads were more often accused of being witches.

[WatchrTina]

 

I really don't like how they made Gellis a redhead in the show.

Lotte Verbeek's been a red-head in everything I've seen her in so I assume that's her natural color.  Dying hair for a show is a big deal (it took them MANY tried before they got Sam/Jamie's right) so it doesn't surprise me at all that they would not bother trying to match hair color with the character as written until it was important to the plot.  Dougal isn't bald in the book but I'm sure not complaining about Graham McTavish's look. (He's hot, ye ken?)

[DittyDotDot]

Wait, wait, wait...do you guys suppose this to be Brian Fraser? If so, that's a great detail for the book readers they didn't have to put in yet. Kinda blew my mind when I noticed it this go around.

 

 

BTW, I forgot how much I loved the wool waulking scene the first go around. What a great little detail that wasn't in the books and a great way to show Claire falling in love with the Highlands. I also adore Ned in both the books and the show---doesn't hurt that I also adore Bill Paterson. ;)

 

 

Lotte Verbeek's been a red-head in everything I've seen her in so I assume that's her natural color.  Dying hair for a show is a big deal (it took them MANY tried before they got Sam/Jamie's right) so it doesn't surprise me at all that they would not bother trying to match hair color with the character as written until it was important to the plot.  

 

Yeah, I think it would be harder for them to go from red to blonde and get the coloring authentic looking for the time period. I'd rather they hire the right actress than the right hair color anyway. As to Dougal, I did wonder why they didn't brush his beard read, though simply because it would help us to understand why Claire jumps to the conclusion that Hamish is his son. But it's a minor quibble on my part. I also love what Graham McTavish has done with the role, so I won't complain.

[WatchrTina]

 

Wait, wait, wait...do you guys suppose this to be Brian Fraser?

Yep, that him.  It's confirmed in "Lallybroch" when Jamie has the flashback to seeing his father at Ft. William in between the first and second lashing, and in that same episode you see Jamie wearing the same coat on Quarter Day.

[Petunia846]

I think the actor is also credited in that episode as Brian Fraser, so we knew at the time who he was.

[DittyDotDot]

Thanks guys. It's funny the things that are jumping out at me now that I've read the books. 

 

BTW, I still found the wedding episode rather weak. Besides the ring and pearls not matching the image they were painted in the book--which aren't really all that important in the grand scheme of things--in the book we really get inside Claire's conflict. I really didn't get the drunken confusion on the show I did from the books. I also missed the seeding in of how Jamie lives in constant danger of being murdered by him own family. And, I think they focused too hard on the sex scenes, but the humor was sorely lacking. Part of what helps bond Claire and Jamie is their shared goofy sense of humor. Too bad they cut the hedgehog joke--one of my favorite bits from the wedding sequences in the book.

 

I did love Murtagh and Jamie's talks and Ned's trip to the whorehouse though. And, I appreciated the change up with Claire and Frank's wedding. I always thought it was a bit too coincidental that Frank and Claire were married in the same damn church--in the Highlands, no less--as Jamie and Claire. I also found Dougal propositioning her rather interesting after reading the books. It's a win-win for Dougal. If Claire turns him down, he can be more assured of her character and know she's probably not a spy. If she doesn't, he'd get to do some very lewd things to her you can tell he has been wanting to do for quite some time. It reminded me of Jocasta's trying to bait Roger in The Fiery Cross.

 

I still rather liked Both Sides Now and the further depth given to Frank--if for nothing else than glimpsing a wee Roger--but do agree with many of you that the timeline seems rather rushed after the wedding. It's like they get married one day, meet Hugh Monroe and get attacked by the Grants the next and then Claire gets almost raped and captured by the red coats one day after that. Maybe that's not the timeline they meant to convey, but that's how it felt like when watching it. Part of what makes Claire racing to the stones work for me in the books is days have passed since the near rape and she's anxious and scared and angry and it just keeps building and boiling to the surface for days and then she suddenly finds herself close to the stones and sees safety. It's like she's been living in some fairytale world that comes crashing down when she's forced to kill a man to protect herself. I get that from the show, but not the same way it got built up in the book, IMO.

 

Anyway, that gets me through episode eight. the second half of the season should be a bit of a different experience since I didn't see it before I read the book. 

[Laurie]

I'll be eagerly anticipating your comments on episodes 15 & 16.

[DittyDotDot]

There was actually a wool waulking scene in the books, only it happens in "Dragonfly in Amber" at Lallybroch and also reflects on Claire growing comradeship with the Highlands women. I thought it was a good move to add this bit much earlier, in this episode because otherwise Claire and the viewers might feel a little suffocated by all that machismo around. It was also a nice breathe of realism - those women really gave a vibe of hard working, no-nonsence, solid human beings with Claire looking like an English rose blossoming among them.

 

Yeah, I know. But it wasn't really described in detail or anything. Just a passing comment when she passed the shed saying what went on there and such. I just really loved how they brought it to life here. 

 

There was a great glimpse regarding her conflict in "Wedding" - the very last scene where she is staring at her two rings. I thought it was some genius acting from Caitriona Balfe. I've no idea how she managed to convey so much with so little - no words and a brief look on her face.

 

It's funny, that's one of the few scenes that played out almost as I had seen it in the book. It's just the build-up that's missing on the show. I understood it and all, just didn't feel it like I did in the book. But, that's kinda the difficulty in translating books to screen anyway.

 

 

I'll be eagerly anticipating your comments on episodes 15 & 16.

 

Probably shouldn't encourage me. I'm having a hard time imagining how they are going to translate things going forward, especially the strapping scene and Wentworth. Those are really quite complex scenes, it should be interesting. 

[Petunia846]

I also missed the seeding in of how Jamie lives in constant danger of being murdered by him own family.

This in no way makes up for what you're referring to (which I agree about), but did you catch the moment in The Gathering when Jamie rubs the back of his head? It's when Claire's with him in the stables and she's explaining what she did to Dougal. She tells him how she hit him over the head with a stool and he laughs at it, but he also rubs the back of his head, like it subconsciously reminded him of when he was hit with the ax. None of that story is in this season (and I don't remember whether that story about how he got the head injury was from Outlander or a later book), but I thought that was a great, tiny touch. I also bet it was just Sam doing it without it being scripted or direction. I think I remember him talking about how he'd add in the finger tapping to episodes too. He's so great.

[DittyDotDot]

This in no way makes up for what you're referring to (which I agree about), but did you catch the moment in The Gathering when Jamie rubs the back of his head? It's when Claire's with him in the stables and she's explaining what she did to Dougal. She tells him how she hit him over the head with a stool and he laughs at it, but he also rubs the back of his head, like it subconsciously reminded him of when he was hit with the ax. None of that story is in this season (and I don't remember whether that story about how he got the head injury was from Outlander or a later book), but I thought that was a great, tiny touch. I also bet it was just Sam doing it without it being scripted or direction. I think I remember him talking about how he'd add in the finger tapping to episodes too. He's so great.

 

I did notice that and I noticed the finger tapping a couple times and found it verra cute. There's a lot of little details jumping out at me that I didn't see the first time around.

 

It is in Outlander that Jamie tells Claire about getting ax to the head. I'd have to read it again to be sure, but I believe he first tells her about it during the wedding sequences in the book. Jamie uses it to explain one of his reasons for marrying her. He figured having an English wife would take him out of the running at Leoch and would maybe keep Dougal from trying to kill him again. Although, he's not sure it's Dougal at that time, just suspicious it was. But it's when he jumps out of bed on their wedding with dirk in hand after she wakes from the nightmare that she realizes how much danger he must feel he's in all the time. 

 

I just now realized they cut the part where Jamie tells her they have nothing but respect between them and there's room for secrets but no lies. Interesting choice there. It's kinda a rather important part of their relationship going forward. Maybe it gets seeded in later, though?

Edited October 31, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[Petunia846]

Yeah, a lot of people weren't pleased with that omission. Around that time they kept saying things from one part might be added in at other parts later, but it never was. Although, wasn't it in one of the cut scenes from the second half that got released recently? You should be able to find all the cut words on YouTube.

[DittyDotDot]

I don't know that I'm pissed about it--nor do I need to see the scene--just something that suddenly dawned on me had been missing. It's kind of a big part of Voyager and even later in MOBY. I was just thinking it was an odd omission is all. It's not really a biggie to me, though, because I believe it happened even if the show didn't have time to show it. 

 

Another thing that was missing was the touching to steady their nerves and help ease the awkwardness. Again, not really the most important thing, but something that helped to sell me Claire's mindset and Jamie's as well. I can infer what Claire's thinking, it's just that I didn't have to work so hard when reading the book.

 

But, they would've had to cut something else to get these things in and I have no idea what that should've been. I don't know.

[AD55]

Yeah, a lot of people weren't pleased with that omission. Around that time they kept saying things from one part might be added in at other parts later, but it never was. Although, wasn't it in one of the cut scenes from the second half that got released recently? You should be able to find all the cut words on YouTube.

I thought it was the prelude to Jamie's asking Claire if she was a witch, but perhaps I am misremembering or that was a deleted scene. Edited November 1, 2015 by AD55

[Andorra]

I thought it was the prelude to Jamie's asking Claire if she was a witch, but perhaps I am misremembering or that was a deleted scene.

 

They cut it from the wedding episode, but then later put it into the scene where Jamie asked Claire if she was a witch and when she told him about being from the future. 

[AD55]

They cut it from the wedding episode, but then later put it into the scene where Jamie asked Claire if she was a witch and when she told him about being from the future.

I think it actually makes more sense to have it there.

[DittyDotDot]

So, I re-read the parts where they head out on the road through the wedding sequences last night and have a question one of you guys might be able to answer. In the book, Fraser colors are crimson and black, but the Fraser kilt Jamie wears at the wedding on the show not and wondering why that detail got changed?

[Bort]

Ron Moore wanted the color red to be only for the British.

[DittyDotDot]

Hmm...that makes a certain amount of sense. Thanks kariyaki!

[WatchrTina]

 

In the book, Fraser colors are crimson and black, but the Fraser kilt Jamie wears at the wedding on the show not and wondering why that detail got changed?

The tartan "colors" that are now associated with various clans were actually created during the Victorian era when Prince Albert (consort of Queen Victoria) re-polularized the wearing of kilts and tartans. They are more of a marketing scheme than anything else. The tartans shown in the show are much more realistic to what was probably worn back then (not a lot of paintings of common folk from that era, ye ken?).  The dyes would have all ben natural dyes so the colors would have been much more muted than the tartans marketed today and they likely varied from weaver to weaver, not clan to clan.  They also needed to act as camouflage for hunting and raiding so it's verra unlikely that Clan Fraser was running around the Highlands in 1743 in bright red kilts.  So Diana's description of Jamie on his wedding day -- while wonderful -- was historically inaccurate.

 

It is also true that Ron wanted red to be used exclusively for the red coats in season 1.  Geillis' red shoes were a notable exception (a found item that Terry and Lotte both loved).  And of course in the lack of red in season 1 will make it even more dramatic when Claire puts on the red dress in season 2.

 

ETA:  Here's an article where Ron & Terry talk about tartans http://themuse.jezebel.com/outlanders-ron-moore-terry-dresbach-on-tartans-redco-1698084923

Edited November 2, 2015 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

The tartan "colors" that are now associated with various clans were actually created during the Victorian era when Prince Albert (consort of Queen Victoria) re-polularized the wearing of kilts and tartans. They are more of a marketing scheme than anything else. The tartans shown in the show are much more realistic to what was probably worn back then (not a lot of paintings of common folk from that era, ye ken?).  The dyes would have all ben natural dyes so the colors would have been much more muted than the tartans marketed today and they likely varied from weaver to weaver, not clan to clan.  They also needed to act as camouflage for hunting and raiding so it's verra unlikely that Clan Fraser was running around the Highlands in 1743 in bright red kilts.  So Diana's description of Jamie on his wedding day -- while wonderful -- was historically inaccurate.

 

Oh, yes I knew it wasn't historically accurate, and most of the time, in the books, the clansmen are described as wearing hunting plaids and such and only wear their clan colors for special occasions. The point of it in the book was that Jamie wasn't going to get married under a false name and was announcing who he was with the wearing of that kilt. 

 

Anyway, doesn't really matter, but was curious why they did change it anyway. I wondered if it wasn't because it wasn't historically accurate or if there was a production reason--like the red maybe didn't suit Sam on-camera or something. I just like to know how things work, is all.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

And of course in the lack of red in season 1 will make it even more dramatic when Claire puts on the red dress in season 2.

 

I really hope we get to see that red dress in Season 2.

[asp]

Hi

 

I'm new here, but I fel in love with the show and the books in 3 seconds flat. (The books took a bit longer...:D)

 

I love that Claire's ring was fashioned from Lallybroch's key in the show, instead of the silver ring Jamie gives her in the book.

 

Please forgive me any mistakes, English is my third language...

 

 

[DittyDotDot]

So, I've been skipping around reading different portions of the books the last few days--which is so unlike me. It all started with me preparing to read the Lord John books by re-reading his introduction in Dragonfly in Amber, which lead me to re-read some stuff in Voyager. Anyway, I got led back to the witch trial; I was curious what happened to Ned during the witch trial and thought I might have missed something the first time around. Apparently, I didn't--he was there arguing for her and stalling, had gotten her a nicer place to sleep and some food and said the next day she needed to be quiet and let him do all the talking. The next day he wasn't anywhere in sight when they decided to see if Claire would float. Wait, sorry, getting off target here...

 

Anyhoo, what stuck out at me is, I'd forgotten about the "water horse" at Lock Ness. Either they skipped that part on the show entirely or they are doing at a different point because that happens before Claire is taken to Fort William and I've already gotten to that part of the show. I kinda hope they didn't skip it because it's one of those fantastical oddities in the book that makes you question what the hell you're reading. Plus, it leads to the interesting discussion between Roger and Claire about there maybe being a stone circle like place under the water later. 

 

It's too bad that it may be quite a few days until I get to these episodes...GRRR!