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

[GrailKing]

Not sure where this originates from, but here's an alternative trailer. It includes the scene where Claire asks what year it is. 

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k3gmH95sccTb1DfC5HX

 

ETA: I see it's in the spoilery discussion thread too. I'll just leave it here for now for easy access to both book-and-show spoilery discussion. 

A photographer  is also there in hospital @ ~1:22 mark taking picture

[Petunia846]

The ending of the most recent book and the ending of Dragonfly are the only ones I can remember without digging out the books. They both give me teary-eyed chills.

[emilyplum]

I have to agree - the endings of at leas the first three books are perfect.  In fact, the ending of the original book was so perfect that I'm still miffed the grotto scene didn't take place on the show.  Or any mention of hot baths and how they almost won out over the 18th century! 

 

Surely we're getting a season 3 (I can't let myself think we won't), so at least the ending of Voyager is perfect too.  Although I agree with previous speculations that that book would either have to be greatly condensed to make a single season (which I think would be to its detriment as there's a lot of richness in Jamie's intervening 20 years), or would have to be split into two seasons (or two large half-seasons, at least).  I'm hoping for the latter. 

 

Books 4-8 are wonderful, but SO FULL...I just don't know how they'd do them justice. 

[toolazy]

There is quite a bit in the last 4 books that can be cut from the show without harming it.  

 

I believe that Ron Moore has already said that Voyager would have to be more than one season.  I can't imagine how it would work, otherwise.  There's too much good stuff in there. 

[peacefrog]

I don't agree that Voyager needs to be split. The second half is bloated and easily condensed. I do hope that we get a lot of Jamie characterization in that season. It should be his time to share the screen equally finally. I can't really see more than 1-2 episodes, if that, at sea. If they continue to stay close to books after the print shop you just need, Laoghaire reveal, Ian kidnapped, Claire meeting John, confrontation with Geillis, shipwreck on America.

All the serial killer,Willoughby, and guy trying to betray Jamie have no story impact.

[morgan]

I kind of agree, peacefrog.. Now that DIA is upon us, I'm starting to think about Voyager and wondering how they will divide it if it does become 2 seasons, or how they will condense it if it is only one. Assuming we get it at all!

[DittyDotDot]

I go back and forth on this issue. There's just so much going on in the first half that I think it soooo very important for Jamie and Claire as characters that I'd hate to see any of that cut at all. On the other hand, it would be hard to watch an entire season with Jamie and Claire apart. I can see how they could split them in two easily--hell, I could see it as three seasons, TBH.

 

I'd actually like to see them fill out the Geillius mystery a bit more in lieu of some of the plague ship stuff. And, if they're going to do the serial killer plot, at all, I think they need to give it more space than the book did.

[morgan]

I think that's it. I can't imagine them apart the whole season, and can't really figure out where they could split it so that both seasons seem whole. I would be all for them getting rid of serial killer plot and condensing the ship part.

Edited March 11, 2016 by morgan

[peacefrog]

Remember also it doesn't take as long to cover multiple chapters on a show as it does in a book. This all depends on what Moore deems important of course. He easily did witch trial, Claire's confession, decision at stones in 1 episode. At the same time a whole episode of searching for Jamie occurred, lol.

I think I'm just saying it can be done. I think the only thing fans require is to not mess with the print shop. That scene above all others is sacred!

[toolazy]

Maybe for the fourth season they'll use some things from Voyager and some things from the next book.  There's no real reason to keep it to a book a season.  

[toolazy]

What they could do is re-unite C&J early on and tell the rest of the story in flashbacks.

[emilyplum]

Aaaabsolutely agree we could do without Willoughby, random serial killer, and the man Claire killed in the brothel for Voyager.  And maybe at least one or two the ship story lines.  Keep the plague ship/Lord Grey, but skip all the other back and forth. 

[toolazy]

I hope they at least keep most of the brothel scenes because they are hilarious, right up until the shooting.

[Atlanta]

I hope they at least keep most of the brothel scenes because they are hilarious, right up until the shooting.

Hee! A grown Fergus bowing down at her feet crying, "Milady! Milday!" and her responding with something like, "I'm not a prostitute!" And then realizes who he is.

[emilyplum]

I hope they at least keep most of the brothel scenes because they are hilarious, right up until the shooting.

Yes, definitely.  They have to keep in her being mistaken for a 'new girl', and Ian, young Ian, and Fergus' arrival/meetings.  All of that is just too great to skip!

[toolazy]

Spoiler regarding the ghost:  

Diana G has explicitly said that the ghost is Jamie and we will see this scene again at the end of the last book.  I'm dreading it because I'm know I'm going to be crying like mad.

[lianau]

I think that's it. I can't imagine them apart the whole season, and can't really figure out where they could split it so that both seasons seem whole. I would be all for them getting rid of serial killer plot and condensing the ship part.

I think the obvious splitting point would be their reunion  with the brothel stuff and the smuggling  and finishing the season with the decision to bring Ian home to Lallybroch . Or they could put all the Lallybroch stuff in it too and use Ian's abduction as the cliff hanger . I feel like I need Ian in it because he is going to be a major character  . 

[WatchrTina]

I spent most of yesterday re-reading parts of this monster thread and woke up the morning thinking about Outlander (not a surprise) and here's something that came to mind.  TV!Murtagh is shown in the season 2 trailer to know that Claire is from the future.  That's a divergence from the books.  Or is it?  If you consider "The Exile" (the graphic novelization of the first half of Outlander) to be canon, then Murtagh knowing about Claire is straight out of the books.  In The Exile, Murtagh actually sees Claire come through the stones.  He doesna know what she is -- I think he suspects she is a faerie -- but he knows she is something not-of-this-world.  I'm glad they left that out of the show because it would call in to question Murtagh's seeming approval of the Jamie-Claire marriage (he has SERIOUS reservations in the graphic novel).  But I look forward to seeing how Murtagh's knowledge of what Claire is will manifest in the TV show.  Maybe it's just to give him one more reason to support Jamie in his efforts to undermine the Jacobite efforts in Paris (which might otherwise be deeply troubling to Murtagh).  Maybe it's just to give Murtagh more to do in season 2 (and if so, I heartily approve.)

 

Is it April 9th yet?

[peacefrog]

Murtagh knows. It's implied at end of the book in Outlander. Jamie tells Claire to leave with Murtagh, he will take her back to the stones and Jamie told him everything. Book Murtagh just never speaks like TV Murtagh!

[DittyDotDot]

I was also under the impression Murtagh knew...well, something anyway. I never knew exactly how much he knew, though. It will be interesting if the show does indeed have Murtagh talk about what he knows, though.

[GrailKing]

I spent most of yesterday re-reading parts of this monster thread and woke up the morning thinking about Outlander (not a surprise) and here's something that came to mind.  TV!Murtagh is shown in the season 2 trailer to know that Claire is from the future.  That's a divergence from the books.  Or is it?  If you consider "The Exile" (the graphic novelization of the first half of Outlander) to be canon, then Murtagh knowing about Claire is straight out of the books.  In The Exile, Murtagh actually sees Claire come through the stones.  He doesna know what she is -- I think he suspects she is a faerie -- but he knows she is something not-of-this-world.  I'm glad they left that out of the show because it would call in to question Murtagh's seeming approval of the Jamie-Claire marriage (he has SERIOUS reservations in the graphic novel).  But I look forward to seeing how Murtagh's knowledge of what Claire is will manifest in the TV show.  Maybe it's just to give him one more reason to support Jamie in his efforts to undermine the Jacobite efforts in Paris (which might otherwise be deeply troubling to Murtagh).  Maybe it's just to give Murtagh more to do in season 2 (and if so, I heartily approve.)

 

Is it April 9th yet?

I believe the Exile is canon, just from other's view points, we know Murtagh saw Claire exit the stones, the Gilly angle wasn't as straight forward as Murtagh.

[WatchrTina]

I'm re-watching all of Season 1 this week on StarzPlay.com.  I just saw the episode about the witch trial.  I had genuinely forgotten that Laoghaire's last words to Claire were "I will dance upon your ashes."   That bitch.

 

Some have speculated that we might see Laoghaire in season 2, even though she's not in book 2.  I hope so.  I would really like to see some kind of comeuppance for her.  But then that opens the whole conundrum of "how can Jamie marry her years later, knowing that she nearly got Claire killed?"  So here's my speculation. I think the show may address the fact that Claire never tells Jamie what Laoghaire did by having Jamie & Claire (or maybe just Claire) run into Laoghaire during season 2 and discovering that, after outing herself at the trial (she admitted to buying potions from a witch and lusting after another woman's husband), her father immediately married her off to the first man who said he'd take her.  I think we might see a down-trodden and miserable Laoghaire trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who treats her badly.  Claire can then decide that she's been punished enough and elect to not tell Jamie.  Maybe we'll even hear a Claire voice-over explaining why she hasn't mentioned it to him up to that point. That would be a way of addressing that particular weakness in the books.

 

And can I just say that Caitriona Balfe is positively luminous in this episode.  Really, I can't get over how much the camera loves her.  

Edited March 30, 2016 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

I believe there were some pictures of Laoghaire posted from filming in S2, so I do think we'll see her. I wondered if we wouldn't see that first marriage in some form as well.

[WatchrTina]

So I'm not really feeling the love for Entertainment Tonight right now due to lots of technical difficulties around their live stream of tonight's Outlander Season 2 Premiere (see my whinging in the media thread if you are interested) but I came over here to mock the ET reporter because she just spoiled the fact that Black Jack is not dead.  She asked Tobias which character he prefers to play and how are they alike (decent questions) and then she came right out confirmed that Black Jack is in season 2 and asked Tobias when we would see him reappear (or words to that effect).  Tobias had no choice but to confirm that yep, he comes back into the story and he said which episode (which I won't spoil).  Way to go ET.

[morgan]

I was surprised by that, too!

[toolazy]

Was that not already common knowledge?  I would swear that I've seen photos of Tobias in costume as Black Jack.  But who knows, on IMDB he's only credited as Frank Randall so I guess they do want a dramatic reveal.  

[Nidratime]

Sounds like the interviewer was an amateur ... no matter their frickin' credentials. What an asshat for letting that out! Gah!

[WatchrTina]

Grashka that's a TV spoiler so you should spoiler tag that (see Atheana's note above.). We've speculated here about when and how that will be handled in the show versus the book but the reviewer is telling, not speculating, so that's a spoiler -- especially the fact that it comes in the first episode and, if what the reviewer says is true, that they've deviated from the book in how the character you mentioned reacts.

Athena if I'm wrong please set me straight. (Maybe I should just stop obsessively reading these boards. I was already avoiding reading reviews and will continue to do so thanks to Grashka's heads up.)

Edited April 5, 2016 by WatchrTina

[AD55]

Sounds like the interviewer was an amateur ... no matter their frickin' credentials. What an asshat for letting that out! Gah!

I believe Starz must have okayed this, since the reviewers at the New Yorker and Deadline Hollywood also revealed that Black Jack is alive. The Deadline Hollywood review, at least, purported to be spoiler-free.

Edited April 5, 2016 by AD55

[Athena]

I've seen scans of another season 2 review posted somewhere else, it was from a magazine I'm not familiar with (which doesn't mean much as I'm not American), the author gave three stars out of four and generally praised the main actors a lot. Anyway, his only complain was the way Frank's storyline has been handled in episode 1.

He said that Frank basically believes Claire's explanation (she was in XVIII century and married a Jacobite rebel) right off the bat. I'm not sure how to feel about it. IMO there is no way any reasonable person would buy such a story and take it at face value. It took him years of research to finally start thinking that there may be something to her story. And it completly changes dynamics between Claire and Frank as we know it from "Voyager".

 

 

Grashka that's a TV spoiler so you should spoiler tag that (see Atheana's note above.). We've speculated here about when and how that will be handled in the show versus the book but the reviewer is telling, not speculating, so that's a spoiler -- especially the fact that it comes in the first episode and, if what the reviewer says is true, that they've deviated from the book in how the character you mentioned reacts.

Athena if I'm wrong please set me straight. (Maybe I should just stop obsessively reading these boards. I was already avoiding reading reviews and will continue to do so thanks to Grashka's heads up.)

 

Generally, if the information is released to the media, it's not really spoilers IMHO. However, this is not official promo information and we don't have a direct link to the review, I spoiler tagged Grashka's post in case. Thanks to you both.

[WatchrTina]

So here's some books-vs-show speculation.  

 

In the book, by the time they reach Paris Jamie is much further along in recovering from his ordeal at the hands of Black Jack.  He's using his damaged hand again and he and Claire have not only had weird, opium-fueled, back-from-the-brink-of death dangerous sexual-healing sex, they've also had sweet are-you-sure-you-are-ready-for-this sex (which I think is the night Faith was conceived) and later steamy hot-tub sex.   Jamie later creates the story about Claire being la Dame Blanche (a white lady or white witch) in order to avoid the pressures to have sex with prostitutes while carousing with French Jacobites.  

 

In the show, Jamie is much more damaged when he arrives in Paris.  We haven't seen Jamie and Claire have sex yet and I'm speculating that we won't for a good long while.  We saw Claire have a flash of Black Jack when Frank tried to touch her.  I wonder if Jamie might also have that experience when Claire tries to touch him?  If we have that going on in the first several episodes -- if Jamie is wholly uninterested in sex right now -- I wonder if his creating the story of la Dame Blanche to avoid sex with prostitutes might be motivated -- at least in part -- by fear that, due to all his mental trauma around sex, he could not perform with a prostitute even if he wanted to.

 

I predict this is all going to come to a head after a fight.  Book!Jamie says "Fighting gives ye a fearful cock-stand."  Maybe Jamie and Claire will finally end up back in bed together after he has to fight off an admirer panting after Claire in the Red Dress.  If so, that would imbue that dress with even more significance.  We shall see.

[peacefrog]

I forgot about him hanging with the prostitutes and the bite marks. Yeah this is going to be condensed a lot. I feel that at the most at their arrival in Paris they were a month out of Wentworth. Maybe the argument about the bite marks will force them to confront the lack of intimacy? I think we see Jamie flashing to the monster as well.

I'm torn on if that was the last we've seen of Frank or at least until the end. I almost feel they have an opportunity to show the parallel of what is happening in 18th century vs 20th. Obvious ones, return to intimacy J/C & F/C, birth Faith/Brianna, destiny J-leader/soldier, Claire-doctor, raising another's child BJR/Frank etc.

Anyone think they will show Frank's accident?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Considering that they told us last year, that this season will have "more Frank," I doubt that this is the last we'll see of him.

 

I know, other than the "oxters!" scene, I'm looking forward to when Jamie sees and holds his healed hand up and wiggles his fingers. I want tears! I want that moment between Jamie and Claire, where she's apologizing, and he's saying no, he never thought he'd have the use of his hand again, so I'm hoping we'll get that.  And from the previews I've seen, I've nae doubt that I'll be seeing sparks. Unlike that click-bait headline on yahoo! about how their marriage is going to be "poisonous" this season.

 

BAH! I say!

[AD55]

Considering that they told us last year, that this season will have "more Frank," I doubt that this is the last we'll see of him.

 

I know, other than the "oxters!" scene, I'm looking forward to when Jamie sees and holds his healed hand up and wiggles his fingers. I want tears! I want that moment between Jamie and Claire, where she's apologizing, and he's saying no, he never thought he'd have the use of his hand again, so I'm hoping we'll get that.  And from the previews I've seen, I've nae doubt that I'll be seeing sparks. Unlike that click-bait headline on yahoo! about how their marriage is going to be "poisonous" this season.

 

BAH! I say!

 

I'd completely forgotten about it, but I loved that scene when I read it. I bet the reason Jamie's hand is still bandaged is because they plan to include that exchange.

 

As for the sex, I think WatchrTina may be spot on that their first moment of intimacy will be after a fight. That would be in the spirit of how it happened in Outlander. I think they were too pressed for time in season 1 to include all the posttrauma sex scenes. Someone said in an interview that there would be an iconic exchange between Claire and Jamie that was moved from Outlander to DiA. I speculate that it will be dialogue from the episode in the hot springs.

Edited April 8, 2016 by AD55

[Cubisa]

Oh, please!

[morgan]

I love that scene with his hand! And would love to see it in the show but honestly never thought they would put it in. Not sure why I feel that way. I think this season I am trying to temper my expectations and just enjoy the show and pretend my favorite exchanges still happened even if they don't show them. But maybe we will! And I will be very curious as to the sex scenes will be handled.

I do believe we will finally get that exchange where Jamie talks about losing himself. And I will bawl my eyes out regardless of the side eye mr.morgan will no doubt be giving me when I do.

[morgan]

So I can't stop thinking...are we going to see more of Frank this season? Do you think they are going to flash to Frank and Claire as they make their life together interspersed with the Jamie and Claire stuff of the book? My initial thought was no, but now I'm not so sure and trying to figure out how/when. I really hope not, personally. But what if?

[maraleia]

I was thinking about how long the show will go on and wondering if they want to finish Diana's epic story which books could be combined into a single season to make that happen?

There's no way this show will go for 10 seasons unless a miracle happens with the way cable channels run.

Edited April 10, 2016 by maraleia

[Dust Bunny]

Regarding the Frank/Jamie ratio: I'm definitely all about Jamie, but as I read through the later books, I really came to appreciate Frank. He genuinely loved Bree. And the letter and genealogical chart Bree finds in MOBY reveals that Frank knew she went into the past. He taught her shooting and horseback riding to prepare her for that. And he also was concerned for her being in the Lovat Line with the Fraser Prophecy. The last few lines of his "Deadeye" letter to Bree won me over: "And, like [Jamie], perhaps I send you [bree] back, knowing - as he knew of me - that he will protect you with his life."

 

One of things I'm looking forward to in Book 9 is Bree showing Jamie that letter.

 

So I don't mind the extra Frank in the show.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[CalamityBoPeep]

I was thinking about how long the show will go on and wondering if they want to finish Diana's epic story which books could be combined into a single season to make that happen?

There's no way this show will go for 10 seasons unless a miracle happens with the way cable channels run.

 

I don't really think any of them can be combined.... if anything, some of them might need to be split into two seasons! :-D

[Glaze Crazy]

I'm torn on if that was the last we've seen of Frank or at least until the end. I almost feel they have an opportunity to show the parallel of what is happening in 18th century vs 20th. Obvious ones, return to intimacy J/C & F/C, birth Faith/Brianna, destiny J-leader/soldier, Claire-doctor, raising another's child BJR/Frank etc.

Anyone think they will show Frank's accident?

 

 

So I can't stop thinking...are we going to see more of Frank this season? Do you think they are going to flash to Frank and Claire as they make their life together interspersed with the Jamie and Claire stuff of the book? My initial thought was no, but now I'm not so sure and trying to figure out how/when. I really hope not, personally. But what if?

 

I can see them doing a kind of parallel timeline for both relationships this season and connecting similar points along the way.  It would save some time for next season (Voyager) and they can focus on Jamie's journey and leave Claire, Roger and Bree for just showing their discovering his history in the modern story.  It would be less confusing that having the two timelines the way it was presented in Voyager.  This way it's continuity of two couples making their way forward in their respective timelines in this season, having the same wife not withstanding.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Glaze Crazy

[Andorra]

Tobias said in an interview last week, that he is much less in season 2 than he was in season 1, so my hope is, that they won't overdo it with the Frank stuff, they'll have to work in some BJR after all. This episode was enough for me to be honest. I'm just not interested in Frank's man pain. I'm sure he will be back in parts, but hopefully not in such length. Thankfully Frank lover Ron Moore only wrote the first episode, so I'm hopeful.

 

TM was doing lots of other projects while they were filming Outlander, too, so yet another clue that the story won't be twisted into the Frank-tale. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Andorra

[DittyDotDot]

I was thinking about how long the show will go on and wondering if they want to finish Diana's epic story which books could be combined into a single season to make that happen?

There's no way this show will go for 10 seasons unless a miracle happens with the way cable channels run.

 

I agree with Graska that 5 ad 6 could easily be combined and the others probably not so much. But, if they decided to end the story before Diana's ending, the end of S3 would be sort of decent ending. I mean, it ties up stuff from S1 and puts them in America to start building their next life together. It'd be hard to end the series at the end of the other books, I think because they all leave too many things up in the air. 

[CalamityBoPeep]

I agree with Graska that 5 ad 6 could easily be combined and the others probably not so much. But, if they decided to end the story before Diana's ending, the end of S3 would be sort of decent ending. I mean, it ties up stuff from S1 and puts them in America to start building their next life together. It'd be hard to end the series at the end of the other books, I think because they all leave too many things up in the air. 

 

Grashka's convinced me too... 5&6 could be combined. The only one I absolutely can not see as an acceptable ending to the series is book 7. You all know why. LOL

[GHScorpiosRule]

I suppose this is the best place to put this. So...here goes.

 

I've read here, that Moore's wife has read all the buiks and is a huge fan. So I'm wondering if she has any input into any of the storytelling. That is, does she get to see the script? Does he listen to her opinions? If so, I'm wondering if she also feels like some of us, when certain emotional, big moments are left out because...reasons? i.e. That Moore preferred to drag out that stupid witch trial and gloss over when Claire tells Jamie she's from the future.  I'm not really tied to the series, BUT, I am tied to the huge, emotional moments that are in the series. Does that make sense? So, I really, really hope, that Moore listened to the fans last season and won't cheat me us of those moments.

 

Personally, bloodthirsty wench that I am, I can't wait for Jamie to slice and dice Black Jack's..."member" but I don't want Mary and his marriage to be loooong and draaaaawn out. But the two scenes I'm really impatient to see is Jamie's hand healed and the tears! as he thanks Claire, who thinks she fucked up, and Jamie's outrage? shock? when he realizes Claire waxes her underarms oxters!

[Athena]

I suppose this is the best place to put this. So...here goes.

 

I've read here, that Moore's wife has read all the buiks and is a huge fan. So I'm wondering if she has any input into any of the storytelling. That is, does she get to see the script? Does he listen to her opinions? If so, I'm wondering if she also feels like some of us, when certain emotional, big moments are left out because...reasons? i.e. That Moore preferred to drag out that stupid witch trial and gloss over when Claire tells Jamie she's from the future.  I'm not really tied to the series, BUT, I am tied to the huge, emotional moments that are in the series. Does that make sense? So, I really, really hope, that Moore listened to the fans last season and won't cheat me us of those moments.

 

Both Moore's wife Terry and his producing partner were book readers and they do have input about the storyline to a certain extent. She allegedly threw a chair at him when they disagreed on a point. The writers' room is also half female and there are a lot debates. For more information on this, a Vulture article linked in the Media thread discusses more about the writing and gender dynamic on the show.

 

[WatchrTina]

 

gloss over when Claire tells Jamie she's from the future

To be fair -- that whole conversation takes place "off camera" in the books too.  We don't actually see Claire tell Jamie her whole story.  We just see the aftermath -- much like in the show.  Where I felt short-changed in that episode is the decision at the stones.  There was someone in the unspoiled thread just this week who confessed that she was never sure if Claire stayed by choice or because the stones didn't work.  Which makes me CRAZY.

[GHScorpiosRule]

To be fair -- that whole conversation takes place "off camera" in the books too.  We don't actually see Claire tell Jamie her whole story.  We just see the aftermath -- much like in the show.  Where I felt short-changed in that episode is the decision at the stones.  There was someone in the unspoiled thread just this week who confessed that she was never sure if Claire stayed by choice or because the stones didn't work.  Which makes me CRAZY.

 

D'OH! That's what I meant. Her decision by the stones was glossed over, when in the buik, we saw her struggle over it. But didn't she also, stutter and stammer, not complete her sentences when trying to explain where she was from? Or am I mixing that up with how hard it was for to decide whether to go back or not? Either way, I wanted that pacing and walking back and forth, because in show, Claire looked like she was telling Jamie a story-one that was believable from Claire's side; even if Jamie's eyes were moving left and right, like oookay, this isn't what I thought it was going to be about.  It's not like Claire was coming clean about her family or a secret she had; she was from a different time--the future!

Edited April 12, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[CalamityBoPeep]

 

D'OH! That's what I meant. Her decision by the stones was glossed over, when in the buik, we saw her struggle over it. But didn't she also, stutter and stammer, not complete here sentences when trying to explain where she was from? Or am I mixing that up with how hard it was for to decide whether to go back or not? Either way, I wanted that pacing and walking back and forth, because in show, Claire looked like she was telling Jamie a story-one that was believable from Claire's side; even if Jamie's eyes were moving left and right, like oookay, this isn't what I thought it was going to be about.  It's not like Claire was coming clean about her family or a secret she had; she was from a different time--the future!

 

I wanted the near hysteria too, when Jamie asked if she was a witch. I loved that she lost her shit then realized it might sound like cackling, so her monologue about being able to be surrounded by small pox, etc, was told in frantic bursts as she tried to catch up with herself. Yeah, the whole story was told off the page, but the diving into it, we got to read and it was glorious! I really missed that sense of sheer panic and breathlessness that she felt, and her despair when he "believed" her but his arm hairs were standing on end.

 

I felt like the reveal to Jamie lost a lot of its passion, the way they showed it. I am really glad though, in showing Frank's "belief" that they left room for doubt about whether he was just saying that. I felt like her reaction to his statement of belief was less "Oh, thank God!" and relief, and more "Oh, come on... I know you don't." Subtle difference between the two, showing some difference in the two relationships, but it would have been more pronounced if the first reveal had packed more punch.

[Dust Bunny]

I wanted the near hysteria too, when Jamie asked if she was a witch. I loved that she lost her shit then realized it might sound like cackling, so her monologue about being able to be surrounded by small pox, etc, was told in frantic bursts as she tried to catch up with herself. Yeah, the whole story was told off the page, but the diving into it, we got to read and it was glorious! I really missed that sense of sheer panic and breathlessness that she felt, and her despair when he "believed" her but his arm hairs were standing on end.

 

I missed the hysteria a bit too, but then I thought of an alternate explanation for that. The adrenaline must have been pumping through Claire during the trial and whipping. After something like that, and away from immediate danger, the human body often crashes from exhaustion. Her confessing everything out of fatigue -  and then collapsing into Jamie's arms - makes sense to me too.