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

[GHScorpiosRule]

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.

 

 

I'm fairly certain that in the buik, Claire told Jamie about where/when she was from after her "Witch Trial" as well. Except of course, in the buik, she was about to be drowned and Jamie threw the cross necklace on her, to prove she wasn't a witch, and still that didn't calm the masses, and so they took off. Aye? So I would expect the adrenaline was still pumping through her then, enough that we got what we did in the..buik. But I've already ranted over that bit o' business back in the Season 1 episode thread, so I'll not rehash it o'er again here.

[WatchrTina]

Okay, time for some wild-ass speculation. I've been thinking about that ring -- the one Claire anxiously looks for as soon as she awakens in ep 201. The one that apparently fell out of her bodice during the trip back. The stone to that ring was "lost" somewhere along the way. I presume it burned up during the trip through the stones. Note that they made a point of showing her packing it carefully away in her suitcase.

Here's my theory. Remember how many of us (myself included) bitched and moaned about the pearls that Claire receives as a wedding present being not at all distinctive? They didn't look like the ones that were describe in the book -- they looked like a million other strings of pearls. That decision made it totally not credible that MacRannoch would be able to recognize them in episode 115, "Wentworth" as the very same pearls he gave to Ellen MacKenzie. Whatever. I got over it. But I did wonder how a certain scene in book 4 was going to be handled. Specifically I wondered if Brianna was going to slam those pearls on the table in front of Laoghaire as proof that she was Claire and Jamie's child and not some bastard by-blow, the result of a philandering Jamie. I like that moment in the book so I want to see it in the show and I assumed we'd all just have to willfully suspend disbelief that the whole family would be able to recognize those very generic pearls. But what if the pearls were left behind at Lallybroch for safe-keeping? I've already speculated that the ring in the opening scene is Jamie's father's ruby ring (the one he uses during the wedding ceremony in the book) and that it was worked into the script to introduce the notion of gemstones being key to successful travel through the stones -- especially deliberate trips where one tries to "aim" for a year and/or when one travels on non-feast days. Now I speculate that when Brianna shows up at Lallybroch, it is Brian's ring she will slam on the table, not Ellen's pearls. She'll have to come up with an explanation for what happened to the stone but actually a story about Claire having to sell the ruby in order to pay for her passage to America would be a pretty good addition to the plot. It would be a plausible explanation for why Claire never sought out Jamie's relatives in France during those 20 years (America being really far away in those days.)

Waddaya think?

Edited April 14, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

Very plausible!

[Thalia]

I need to flip through Dragonfly again, but it seems to me that Murtagh has a larger role in the series than he does in the book.  Does this jive with everyone else's memory?  My hope is that because of this change that Ron Moore might decide to let Jamie's godfather survive Culloden and emigrate to North Carolina with the rest of the gang.  I think he would like the American colonies.  Very few French.  

[WatchrTina]

Yes, I agree that Murtagh has a much larger role in the show than in the book (a change that delights me because I love Duncan LaCroix's portrayal of Murtagh.)  And yes, other people (including me) have speculated that the show-runners might allow Murtagh to survive the battle of Culloden and even replace another character in the later books (who, interestingly is named "Duncan") so that Murtagh could have an on-going role in the show.  Fingers crossed!

[Dust Bunny]

I need to flip through Dragonfly again, but it seems to me that Murtagh has a larger role in the series than he does in the book.  Does this jive with everyone else's memory?  My hope is that because of this change that Ron Moore might decide to let Jamie's godfather survive Culloden and emigrate to North Carolina with the rest of the gang.  I think he would like the American colonies.  Very few French.  

 

It's an unpopular opinion, but I actually hope Murtagh does still die. Culloden was tragic. It sucked. Good people were killed, clans were well-nigh wiped out, and it was the beginning of the end of highland culture (outside of the resurgence that's been happening more recently). Losing so many beloved characters would really bring that home for the viewer. That's especially the case with Murtagh, since we're spending so much time with him this season. The other reason is that life goes on. The people from Ardsmuir and the colonies are part of the new chapters in Jamie and Claire's lives. Meeting a young Lord John Grey later this season is planting the seeds for that future.

 

So that's one change I hope they don't make. It's all the more reason I'm trying to appreciate Duncan this season.

[AheadofStraight]

I'm with you, Dust Bunny!

[Andorra]

I'm firmly on the #saveMurtagh side. I really hope that is the one change they will make. He would be the only character to stay except for Jamie and Claire. I think watching Dougal, Column, Rupert, Angus and Willi die at Culloden will be enough. They don't need to kill Murtagh, too. Also I think that show Murtagh is much more like Duncan Innes than he is book Murtagh, so I really hope they'll let Murtagh survive and mutate him into Duncan Innes. Why cast a complete new actor for a character who is so much like what we have in Murtagh already?

[ElsieH]

Wouldn't that be great... Have Murtagh lose his arm like Duncan did and then go on to marry the sister of his one true love, Ellen Mckenzie?

[morgan]

I'm torn. I love TvMurtaugh so much I can sort of get on board them saving him and turning him into that other character. On the other hand so much of Jamie's world/people is just wiped out after Culloden and that is so powerful. He is so alone, has to rebuild his world and himself. I will be very curious to see what they do going forward. The one thing I have no complaint about so far is the casting and character choices so if anything I'm just on board with whichever way they go. If we get a 3rd season!

[Lion]

I think Murtagh would would be excellent in the Duncan Innes role.  The only reluctance I have towards it is that if Murtagh survives, then Jamie's story immediately after the war is different. Not a huge difference, but Jamie was very alone after the war.  He was one of the rare survivors, he had 'lost' Claire, he was living in a cave.  I think that isolation for those years was meaningful not just for the post-war story, but for the 20+ years that followed.  It would be quite easy to make minor adjustments so as Jamie and the audience still has our Murtagh.  But I'm not sure it's the best choice long term. 

 

Of course, Murtagh and Jamie could be separated some way.  Maybe Murtagh is arrested and sent to the colonies immediately after Culloden, with neither knowing the other survived. That would work.  

[Clawdette]

I have danced the sword dance many times although no swords were involved: only sticks, rods, or yardsticks. And it's been a LONG time ago. But I would dearly love to see Jamie dance and the sooner the better.

[Glaze Crazy]

I think Murtagh's death will be the big heartbreaker this season, especially with all the great character development they are giving us right now.  I think they need to go there to continue the tragedy of the loss of the entire culture after Culloden.  Murtagh's absence continues to affect Jamie, long after his death.  Plus, hell, what show these days doesn't kill off major characters?  Especially cable.

 

BUT!  If they do decide to keep him I agree with Lion here:

 

 

Of course, Murtagh and Jamie could be separated some way.  Maybe Murtagh is arrested and sent to the colonies immediately after Culloden, with neither knowing the other survived. That would work.

 

This will allow the "Jamie isolated and alone for 20 years" plotline and still allow for a reunion and a reappearance of the Murtagh character once the story moves to the colonies.  I hope the showrunners choose wisely.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Glaze Crazy

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wonder, will they end with Culloden this season, or will the war and end of Culloden be the start of season three? Because Murtagh was alive when Claire returned back to her time, on the eve of Culloden.

 

I'm one who thinks that Murtagh shouldn't survive Culloden, because of the reasons stated above by others. It had a HUGE impact on Jamie and how he survived those years until Claire came back. Plus, he "sees" Murtagh's ghost, so they could keep him that way, if Ron isn't against doing that.

 

But I don't want to think too far ahead, and just enjoy this season. And pretend that I won't get the moments that I want to see, and therefore be happy/ecstatic IF I do get them.

[morgan]

I'm guessing they will end the past portion with Jamie sending Claire through the stones, and Jamie heading off to battle just like the book, so we may not know Murtagh's fate until sometime next season. In fact, if they show some of the battle next season (fingers crossed there is one!), we may get some of him in it. Or at least in flashbacks in Jamie's fevered dreams or the like.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm guessing they will end the past portion with Jamie sending Claire through the stones, and Jamie heading off to battle just like the book, so we may not know Murtagh's fate until sometime next season. In fact, if they show some of the battle next season (fingers crossed there is one!), we may get some of him in it. Or at least in flashbacks in Jamie's fevered dreams or the like.

 

 

I think we will get a battle season. Or it may be one of the early battles they won? Because in the previews for what's coming this season, there's a scene of Jamie, all dressed in Outlander/Highland regalia, looks like a war cry as he's heading toward something, but we see him running toward us, the camera.

[morgan]

I assumed that scene was Prestonpans, especially since I think Dougal is in the background if I remember it correctly. I'm sure we will get earlier battles, just not so sure Culloden.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I assumed that scene was Prestonpans, especially since I think Dougal is in the background if I remember it correctly. I'm sure we will get earlier battles, just not so sure Culloden.

 

Maybe someone who's been reading all the interviews, articles might know, but didn't Ron say that we would see Culloden? I suspect you're right, morgan, about it being Prestonpans.  

Edited April 18, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

 

Maybe someone who's been reading all the interviews, articles might know

You rang?  :)

 

Okay I haven't read everything but I'm pretty sure no one has talked about filming the battle of Culloden.  They've only talked about filming the run-up to Culloden.  And that makes sense.  I don't think we will see the battle even in season 3 because we didn't see it in the book.  Jamie can't remember it.  Without him who would be our POV narrator?  Everyone else we know died.  We may get snippets of it -- the few fragments of his memory that float to the surface -- but not the whole battle, not for a VERY long time.  Because when they show the battle they'll have to finally reveal how the hell Black Jack Randall came to be dead lying sprawled across Jamie's body.  That's still a mystery in the book series so I feel confident it will remain one in the show.

 

I predict that the last scene we will see of Jamie this season will be him sending Claire back through the stones -- Claire running because redcoats have appeared -- Jamie turning to face them and defend her retreat (and possibly die in the process.)  Then we'll cut to 1960s Scotland and we'll see 20-years-older Claire knocking on the door of grown-up Roger, with grown-up Brianna in tow.  They'll spend some time doing research together and then the big reveal that Jamie didn't die.  Boom!  End of season.  So, no Culloden needed.

 

I also predict the first scene of season 3 (come on, you know there will be one) will be Jamie's voice-over saying "I was dead." (Echoing  this season's opening voice-over from Claire, "I wished I was dead".)  But then he'll say "But my nose throbbed painfully, which I thought odd in the circumstances," and off we'll go.  So again, no Culloden.  Just the aftermath.

Edited April 18, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Thanks WatchrTina!

 

Reight. Now I remember--Ron said the runup tae Culloden.

Edited April 18, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Dust Bunny]

From the Spoilers thread:

A lot of spoilers about what to expect from season 2:

http://www.hollywood...velation-882902

 

 

So it looks like this season will bounce back between Frank to France/Scotland - at least for episode 3. That supports the idea that this season covers Claire's 20 years and might also finish off Frank's story (and Tobias' roles) completely. If that's true, I can see some people appreciating that move, and other people hating it (less Jamie, bad pacing, etc). The payoff would be that we would see more Jamie next season, i.e. his 20 years. If people can wait that long.

 

Seriously, when is Starz going to officially renew? Presumably, they gave Ron and Co. the wink months ago (for scouting, etc). It's just silly how they like to play with the fans like that, when Outlander (along with Black Sails) is their bread and butter.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[toolazy]

@Dust Bunny - it's making me nervous that they haven't announced the renewal yet. 

Edited April 18, 2016 by toolazy

[DittyDotDot]

I'm not worried yet. Seems like it would be a no-brainier to me, but I'm not a network suit, so what do I know?

 

When did they announce the renewal for S2? Was it before the show finished airing S1 or after?

[GrailKing]

If it increases viewer ship each year it'll get renewed, even if they have a bad episode or two.

[asp]

From the Spoilers thread:

 

So it looks like this season will bounce back between Frank to France/Scotland - at least for episode 3. That supports the idea that this season covers Claire's 20 years and might also finish off Frank's story (and Tobias' roles) completely. If that's true, I can see some people appreciating that move, and other people hating it (less Jamie, bad pacing, etc). The payoff would be that we would see more Jamie next season, i.e. his 20 years. If people can wait that long.

 

Seriously, when is Starz going to officially renew? Presumably, they gave Ron and Co. the wink months ago (for scouting, etc). It's just silly how they like to play with the fans like that, when Outlander (along with Black Sails) is their bread and butter.

 

 

Regarding the season 3, these should put your mind (and everyone else's) at ease:

 

The first link is a question about the podcast of S02E01;

 

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Books_and_Writers_Community/_/_/ws-books/86052.450?nav=messages

 

The second is Diana's reply:

 

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Books_and_Writers_Community/_/_/ws-books/86052.539?nav=messages

 

it's not oficial, but good enough for me....

 

ETA: to alter the number of the episode.

Edited April 18, 2016 by asp

[toolazy]

I think the season 2 renewal was announced after the first or second episode of season 1.

[WatchrTina]

That's my memory as well so I'm expecting an announcement about Season 3 any day now and will be concerned if we don't hear it in the next week or so.

[peacefrog]

Remember they wouldn't have done all that PR the week before the premiere, something they don't do for Power(most watched) or Black Sails(which got lit for another season before 3 aired).

I am wondering what they are waiting for to announce the worst kept secret that there will be a season 3 though. Maybe they are trying to get a 4th season also? Scheduling problems?

[molshoop]

I think season 3 is a sure thing. A season 4 would depend on how the viewership numbers hold up for
this season.

 

I'm speculating that a lot of people who decided to drop the show after the end of last season
changed their minds because they want to know what happens to Claire and Jamie and believed
BJR was dead, so they wont have to worry about seeing more of him.

 

That's why I think having more Frank is a bad idea. Tobias is a great actor, but how can you see his
face without flashing back to the sexual sadism that turned so many people off at the end of
season 1.

 

I've read all but the last 2 books, so I'm wondering about people who haven't read them at all.

 

And I don't know how they are going to handle C & J not seeing each other for 20 years. I'm talking
about the viewers and the show itself.

[Dust Bunny]

And I don't know how they are going to handle C & J not seeing each other for 20 years. I'm talking

about the viewers and the show itself.

 

My theory is that most of Claire's 20 years will be covered this season (which really isn't a lot), and Jamie's 20 years will happen the first few episodes of season 3. This gives Cait a break in filming, since she's had to do much more than Sam, up to this point. Everybody loves Jamie, so they won't be too annoyed. This also equalizes characters in episode time so that viewers will have seen Jamie as being as central to the story as Claire. That makes them reconnect as an equal couple, each having had their own 20 year journey.

[AheadofStraight]

Let's all be thankful that Ron does let Diana have input even though not legally required. O_o http://outlander-forget-me-nots.tumblr.com/post/143191704565/diana-gabaldon-and-those-season-2-first-drafts-of

Edited April 22, 2016 by AheadofStraight

[toolazy]

Holy crap!  That would have been horrific!

 

I'm also glad that she is free to criticize the things she doesn't like.  I've been afraid that she signed something that forbid her to give real opinions.  This makes me trust her comments a lot more.  

 

Thanks for posting that. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by toolazy

[AheadofStraight]

I have to believe that was written by one of the writers who never read the books. Yikes!

[toolazy]

Frankly, doesn't surprise me since the first version of "Wentworth Prison" had BJR confess his love to Jamie, urge Jamie to elope with him and live together as lovers on continent (also posted by DG on the same forum).

 

God, really?  What is wrong with these people?  

[WatchrTina]

I choose to believe that Le Comte St. Germain actually did intend to kill Claire with poison in episode 204.  I think this is hinted at very clearly in the episode by the way he is watching her and his satisfied reaction when she falls ill.  I have to believe that because if not, what happens to him later in the Star Chamber (what M. Raymond and Claire do to him) is unjustified.  I know we are led (in this episode) to believe that he is behind the assault on Mary & Claire, but as a reader I know that was not his doing – it was the Duke.  It will be interesting if that is made clear in the TV show or if the viewer will be allowed to continue to think that Le Comte is complicit in the attack on Mary & Claire even after the real puppet-master behind the attack is revealed.

 

BTW: In the book the Duke has Claire attacked because he’s figured out that Jamie is actually working against the rising by trying to discourage potential financial supporters.  He assumes that if Claire is attacked Jamie will be so distraught he’ll lose interest in continuing to plot against the rebellion.  In the show, what possible reason could the Duke have for sending men to assault Claire?  It certainly has not been shown that he’s aware of Jamie’s counter-rising activities.  Are we supposed to believe that he did it because Claire threatened him when they met at Versailles?

[morgan]

WatchrTina, maybe it will come to light that one of the servants isn't quite so loyal after all and told the duke?  Or perhaps he  simply has spies and he will say that when caught?  

[Lion]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

I choose to believe that Le Comte St. Germain actually did intend to kill Claire with poison in episode 204.  I think this is hinted at very clearly in the episode by the way he is watching her and his satisfied reaction when she falls ill.  I have to believe that because if not, what happens to him later in the Star Chamber (what M. Raymond and Claire do to him) is unjustified.  I know we are led (in this episode) to believe that he is behind the assault on Mary & Claire, but as a reader I know that was not his doing – it was the Duke.  It will be interesting if that is made clear in the TV show or if the viewer will be allowed to continue to think that Le Comte is complicit in the attack on Mary & Claire even after the real puppet-master behind the attack is revealed.

The Comte is shown watching Claire with a special look when she enters the dinner party after her attack so I'm not so sure that his special look when she was wheezing from bitter cascara can be confirmation he was involved.  As to the bolded, we know that what really happened in the chamber isn't what Claire thinks happened in the chamber.  We know Raymond very deliberately didn't kill him and really only stepped in to offer the dragon's blood when the Comte started to turn the tide against Claire.  It seemed a small mercy to quickly clear up the 'trial' with the trick as it got all of them out of the room alive, even if it meant the Comte had to go to another time for a while.

This is why I'm so curious about whether or not they'll bring in the Comte's full story as part of this because it changes things a bit, at least how certain acts are perceived.  I assume Raymond is telling the truth that he didn't sell the Comte the cascara and that he'd only sold it to one person in the last months.  We know the Comte does his own visits at Raymond's, though that doesn't preclude him having sent someone sometime in the last few months to procure the cascara.  The Comte seems to take great pleasure in Claire's discomfort (his stare down of her at Raymond's shop followed by a smirk is a great illustration of this), though that doesn't necessarily mean he tried to poison her.  He definitely could have.  I don't know.

Dammit, I just really need/want to know if the Comte time traveling/metaphysical body magic thing will be introduced.

[WatchrTina]

Quote

 we know that what really happened in the chamber isn't what Claire thinks happened in the chamber.

Well, those of us who have read the novella that reveals that St. Germain survives the Star Chamber know that.  But I have a theory that that is NOT what Diana originally intended.  I don't recall there being any hints in DIA that St. Germain is a time-traveler.  I've wondered if, after DIA was published, people pointed out that Claire and M. Raymond murdered an innocent man (well, innocent of orchestrating the attack on Claire & Mary -- guilty of lots of other bad stuff) and Diana decided to write the novella in which she retcons that he was only mostly dead in the star chamber.  

Edited May 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Lion]

16 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, those of us who have read the novella that reveals that St. Germain survives the Star Chamber know that.  But I have a theory that that is NOT what Diana originally intended.  I don't recall there being any hints in DIA that St. Germain is a time-traveler.  I've wondered if, after DIA was published, people pointed out that Claire and M. Raymond murdered an innocent man (well, innocent of orchestrating the attack on Claire & Mary -- guilty of lots of over bad stuff) and Diana decided to write the novella in which she retcons that he was only mostly dead in the star chamber.  

Well this is a book thread so one would assume that everyone posting here has, um, read the books.  Or at least is willing to be spoiled.

Whether or not you think Diana did not originally intend him to survive and be a time traveler doesn't mean much when that's clearly what happened to him.  As far as any hints about the Comte being...different...well, obviously there are plenty!  Not only do people gossip about him being involved in sorcery and such, but he's lumped in together all the time with the two known time travelers, Raymond and Claire.  

Edited May 1, 2016 by Lion

[Nidratime]

I never read the book "The Space Between." From where did the Comte travel or to where? Do they go into any details?

[Dust Bunny]

Yeah, can someone provide the CliffsNotes version of TSB, regarding the Comte? 

[Lion]

I don't remember all the specifics, has been years since I read it.  Michael Murray is heading back to France after Ian's funeral and he's escorting Joan MacKimmie, Jamie's daughter, as she'll be joining the convent.  The Comte, real name Paul Rakoczy, is in Paris at this time as he's hear Raymond has returned.  The Comte's gifts are explored, he can see or feel biology, or something of that nature.  Joan has a special gift, she can see things and she hears voices, usually to warn of impending doom.  Due to a mix up, the Comte hears of Joan and think she's Claire's daughter so he kidnaps her and takes her to his personal stone-traveling basement.  He's basically trying to figure out how to go waaaay forward in time to see if that slows down aging.  Raymond shows up looking younger, reveals to him they are all related, then he and the Comte simply disappear.

I don't recall specifics about when he originally came but he's traveled to several different times and can direct himself much better than Claire.  He also verifies that he is the one Geillis spoke of when she said she'd met another in France.  She was Melisande, I think they had a child together and while he's trying to impregnate another woman (a special obsession of his, you'll recall Fergus' potential parentage), he briefly wonders if he might be having sex with his own daughter. 

[WatchrTina]

Quote

he's escorting Joan MacKimmie, Jamie's daughter,

Joan is Jamie's step-daughter (Laoghaire's daughter).  But yeah, the Comte mistakes her for Claire's daughter and guesses that she might be a traveler.  When they get to the stones (underground, in a graveyard), Joan can't hear them scream so he knows she's not what he thought she was after all.  

It's my least-favorite of the novellas.  Does every women related to JAMMF have to get kidnapped at some point?  Even a nun?  My theory is that the whole novella was written specifically to retcon the Comte's death in DIA and to create a rationale for M. Raymond to show up again in the big books.  Mark me, I think we're going to see him and/or Le Comte St. Germain in Book 9.

Edited May 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Lion]

5 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Joan is Jamie's step-daughter (Laoghaire's daughter).  

I pretty sure we all know the technical relationship between Joan and Jamie.  But thanks for clearing that up for everyone who may have somehow been super confused about Joan having a different last name than her Da (in case you forgot, Joan considers Jamie her dad, Jamie considers Joan and her sisters his daughters).

25 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

My theory is that the whole novella was written specifically to retcon the Comte's death in DIA and to create a rationale for M. Raymond to show up again in the big books.  Mark me, I think we're going to see him and/or Le Comte St. Germain in Book 9.

Except the Comte and Raymond have been sort of 'ghosts' in multiple books.  They have served to move and shake several fairly major plots despite being completely off screen. Even if one missed all the massive neon blinking signs in DiA that point to the Comte having something extra special about him, and the curious bit about him having some random interest in financing BPC, it's impossible to believe that one could go on to miss every single other hint or explicit mention of Raymond and the Comte the other books, the ones that came out before TSB.  So, I mean, you're welcome to your theory but it doesn't actually make any sense.  

[morgan]

So here is some long distance speculation.  I've recently joined Twitter and have been following a lot of the outlander gang.  A week or so ago Lou Diamond Phillips started talking Outlander, just binge watched the first season and is very complimentary about it all.  I know it's a long shot considering season 3 hasn't been announced, but if they do keep going I am thinking he might make a great addition when they get to NC and are dealing with the native Americans.  Hmmmm....

[nodorothyparker]

Lou Diamond Phillips also recently appeared on one of Fear The Walking Dead aftershows, where he was showing off all kinds of knowledge about that particular universe and saying all kinds of deservedly and undeservedly complimentary things about both shows within that universe.  I'm getting the sense that either he's decided or that his agent or someone is pushing him to get his name out there to hopefully attach it to a much higher profile project than anything he's done for awhile.  I could very see someone telling him hey, you know, if Outlander gets to season 4 or 5 there are going to be several Native American roles someone's going to get.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well color me stoopid then, because other than Raymond (blue light and all when saving Claire), It never occured to me that Compte Germain was also a time traveler. And I only read the Lord John buiks that featured Jamie. So I'm not interested in reading any of the others. Only read the ones I did to 'fill in the blanks' if you will post Culloden.

And since Ron has stated he wants the show to stay pretty much grounded in reality, the exception being Claire's time traveling, I doubt we'll get that aspect of Germain in the show. But who knows?  And I also read all the buiks last Spring and never thought that Germain was anyone but who I thought him to be: an evil person, who was involved in the black arts/occult, if you will.

[Lion]

I'm not sure how one can claim that St. Germain's story (which has been included across several books, btw) is somehow not 'grounded in reality' while Claire's is.  Not to mention we meet MANY characters who are time travelers and who have varying levels of skills.  We're talking everything from Raymond's strange healing of Claire after the stillbirth and his seeing auras to odd occurrences when travelers hold gemstones to heightened senses to Jem's and Mandy's telepathic connection and much more.  We see Claire's mystical-seeming abilities growing as the series goes on (she's starting to see the blue lights and feeling the internal workings of a body, for example).  

Even if someone somehow missed every hint that should have caused them to wonder what more there was to the Comte, it's completely baffling to suggest that including him as yet another time traveler is somehow so removed from the rest of the sci-fi/fantasy/magic/whatever so as to be 'not grounded in reality' despite the fact that the Comte is a single character in a series overflowing with those just like him.  

[Dust Bunny]

19 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well color me stoopid then, because other than Raymond (blue light and all when saving Claire), It never occured to me that Compte Germain was also a time traveler. And I only read the Lord John buiks that featured Jamie. So I'm not interested in reading any of the others. Only read the ones I did to 'fill in the blanks' if you will post Culloden.

And since Ron has stated he wants the show to stay pretty much grounded in reality, the exception being Claire's time traveling, I doubt we'll get that aspect of Germain in the show. But who knows?  And I also read all the buiks last Spring and never thought that Germain was anyone but who I thought him to be: an evil person, who was involved in the black arts/occult, if you will.

I didn't pick up on the Comte's time-travel identity from reading the books either, until I started interacting with other fans. Certainly not from my initial reading of DiA. I just thought he was a bit of a villain who dabbled in the black arts. So I missed the massive neon blinking signs, until other people turned my head and pointed them out to me.

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, Lion said:

I'm not sure how one can claim that St. Germain's story (which has been included across several books, btw) is somehow not 'grounded in reality' while Claire's is.  Not to mention we meet MANY characters who are time travelers and who have varying levels of skills.  We're talking everything from Raymond's strange healing of Claire after the stillbirth and his seeing auras to odd occurrences when travelers hold gemstones to heightened senses to Jem's and Mandy's telepathic connection and much more.  We see Claire's mystical-seeming abilities growing as the series goes on (she's starting to see the blue lights and feeling the internal workings of a body, for example).  

Even if someone somehow missed every hint that should have caused them to wonder what more there was to the Comte, it's completely baffling to suggest that including him as yet another time traveler is somehow so removed from the rest of the sci-fi/fantasy/magic/whatever so as to be 'not grounded in reality' despite the fact that the Comte is a single character in a series overflowing with those just like him.  

 

To be clear, I'm not saying this. I'd like to see everything that was fantastical in the buiks in the show-but I read an interview where Ron said he wanted to stay away from those aspects of that. Like in Outlander, how Claire saw the Water horses, but in show, Rupert was telling the story. Remember, someone saw Claire and called her a witch or something. And we're not sure yet how the show will, well, show how Raymond heals Claire. I mean, we know that Ron didn't change how Geillis was also a time traveler. As for Germain, once I finished Dragonfly in Amber, I never gave him another thought.

Plus, this is Ron Moore's show. He can do/use whatever he wants.

Edited May 1, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule