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

[Dust Bunny]

3 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Regarding the timeline, Maril had a Q&A this afternoon and this is what she said:

Quote

Maril Davis Verified account ‏@TallShipProds
.@tweetlee_dee @Outlander_STARZ the big time fast forward happened in 208. I think 8 months had passed since they returned from France

 

Edited: I misinterpreted the tweet. 8 months had passed from when Jamie and Claire left Scotland to when they had returned to Lallybroch. My bad. Still, I wish we had seen more of the daily life at Lallybroch, post-France, before Jamie gets the letter and leaves for war. If the show gets to season 4, and I truly hope it gets far beyond that, I hope the writers realize that simple and happy does not equate boring.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[DittyDotDot]

14 hours ago, Zella said:

I think you make an excellent point, but I also think you probably gave this more thought than Gabaldon did.

She seems to continually use other people forcing her characters into doing things as a catalyst for her plots, and it's a tendency that I often find boring. (Honestly, it's a big reason why, though I like the series, I don't love it.)

To me, the entire series of Outlander is one instance after another of Jamie and Claire being confronted with something they don't want to do but instead of being able to successfully outwit whoever is pressuring them, they just succumb and then deal with the emotional fallout. (I completely understand why a lot of people enjoy how the books and show explore that, but I prefer protagonists who are more active authors of their own fates.)

 I feel like Jamie's name being publicized as a Bonnie Prince Charles supporter against his will, which is his reason for having to fight at Culloden, is just another example of this. 

I feel like Outlander is a series where there are no clear-cut protagonists or antagonists. It's a story of a family of weirdos living their life. Granted, there is the odd Black Jack here and there, but even those I don't really consider antagonists, but just assholes they met along the way. But that's what kinda drew me to the series, it was kinda refreshing in that it didn't try to defeat a greater evil in each book, but they just kept living the best they could. Sometimes they were more proactive in their living and at other times they were responding to other people's actions. But that's kinda life, IMO, so it works for me.

[Zella]

Quote

8 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

 It's a story of a family of weirdos living their life. 

 

That made me laugh so hard! :)

I can appreciate them not having a big bad antagonist and also the fact that they sometimes do prevail, but I still find it frustrating how often the reasoning for their actions is "So-and-so made me."  That's what irritates me the most, I guess. I like a lot of characters in other shows who are significantly worse people than Jamie and Claire, and I think a common theme with those characters is that they own their actions more. Even if they're cornered, more often than not, they find a way to go on the offense, so to speak. Jamie and Claire, at least for me, spend way too much playing defense, though they certainly do have their moments (like Claire breaking Jamie out of Wentworth). 

Like I said, I completely understand that my own personal tastes inform this opinion and that it probably isn't an issue for most people, but it's been a problem for me since I read the first book, and I felt like the trend continued through at least Voyager. (I'm not really familiar with the story past that point. I would actually be pleased to know if that stopped being a recurring plot issue in the later books.)

[DittyDotDot]

41 minutes ago, Zella said:

I can appreciate them not having a big bad antagonist and also the fact that they sometimes do prevail, but I still find it frustrating how often the reasoning for their actions is "So-and-so made me."  That's what irritates me the most, I guess. I like a lot of characters in other shows who are significantly worse people than Jamie and Claire, and I think a common theme with those characters is that they own their actions more. Even if they're cornered, more often than not, they find a way to go on the offense, so to speak. Jamie and Claire, at least for me, spend way too much playing defense, though they certainly do have their moments (like Claire breaking Jamie out of Wentworth). 

Like I said, I completely understand that my own personal tastes inform this opinion and that it probably isn't an issue for most people, but it's been a problem for me since I read the first book, and I felt like the trend continued through at least Voyager. (I'm not really familiar with the story past that point. I would actually be pleased to know if that stopped being a recurring plot issue in the later books.)

Well, yes and no. I do agree they spend a lot more time on defense than offense, especially in the first three books. But they do have their moments. For instance, the build up to the American Revolution they are much more proactive since they know what's coming and Jamie plots a course to kinda live between the two factions for as long as they can before taking sides. But there's still things that just happen to them they aren't really prepared for. It'd probably shake out the same for you in later books as it did in the first ones.

Edited May 30, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

For instance, the build up to the American Revolution they are much more proactive since they know what's coming and Jamie plots a course to kinda live between the two factions for as long as they can before taking sides.

That actually does sound less frustrating to me!

[chocolatetruffle]

Does anyone remember if the strapping scene (Jamie giving himself 12 lashes for his mistakes) was in the book?  It was so effective at establishing the strength it takes to lead in the eyes of his men.  I can't remember if I read it or not and I just wondered if it was Diana's brilliance or that of Matthew B. Roberts. 

[peacefrog]

It was. I think in the book Jamie has himself lashed because of Grey sneaking up on him though as well as the lookout guards. Dougal also wasn't with them at this point.

10 minutes ago, chocolatetruffle said:

Does anyone remember if the strapping scene (Jamie giving himself 12 lashes for his mistakes) was in the book?  It was so effective at establishing the strength it takes to lead in the eyes of his men.  I can't remember if I read it or not and I just wondered if it was Diana's brilliance or that of Matthew B. Roberts. 

 

[WatchrTina]

Yep.  Jamie lashes the guards first because they let Grey get past them, and then he has someone lash him because it was the unblocked campfires that led Grey to their camp.  I think it was Murtagh who administered the lashing in the book.  Dougal is not there.

Interestingly, in Ron's podcast he notes that when they filmed that scene, it was Dougal who had to administer the lashes.  The idea was to rob Dougal of the "glory" of taking a beating.  Jamie could see that he was prepared to take it and then use it to portray himself as strong and brave.  He would have milked that moment to work up support among the men for his own version of how the battle should be fought.  Jamie robs him of that moment by taking the beating himself as a sort of surrogate for the collective failings of the whole ensemble.  This group let outsiders get through their defenses two nights in a row.  They kind of suck at guard duty.  So Jamie takes a beating as a surrogate for their collective failure and shames them all (robbing Dougal of his moment in the process by forcing HIM to deliver the blows.)  Exposing his scarred back to those who had never seen it before was a neat trick too (one he learned from Dougal, ye ken.) All that was filmed but in the editing room it was decided that Jamie ordering Dougal to stay in the camp on guard duty and not participate in the cannon-sabotage commando raid was punishment enough.  So they re-edited the scene so you never see who is administering the blows to Jamie and you just assume it is Murtagh due to one stolen shot from earlier when he is holding the belt.

Edited June 5, 2016 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

On 26.5.2016 at 3:01 AM, toolazy said:

 

Women are property, to be bought and sold by the men in their lives without much say at all in what happened to them.  Mary Hawkins' entire situation drives that home.  

The Geneva situation is also driven by this . Her loving (no sarcasm here) parents are pretty much selling her to the highest bidder , fueling her desire to lose her virginity to somebody attractive  and on her terms .

 

 

On 29.5.2016 at 4:28 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I just want to cosign all of this.  I've always found it an incredible copout to be writing a character who's in his twenties when he's "widowed" and going through some incredibly hard stuff where he might want or need that human connection but can't ever just have a comfort roll in the hay without being tricked or blackmailed into it, or it was someone else's idea.  

I don't think Jamie sees himself as widowed. We're talking about a guy who's praying every day for his wife and his child , hoping they're alive and well but never knowing if that's really the case . No wonder he can't move on .

[ulkis]

On 9/21/2014 at 2:00 PM, WatchrTina said:

I think I spotted another bit of fan service.  When Jamie is lying there after the "consummation" his finger is doing that tapping thing it does whenever he is concentrating.  Cute that.

Okay, sorry to respond to an old post, but can anyone refresh my memory and name a moment when that happens in the books? Is it in the early books? I am totally blanking out on that. Thanks.

[morgan]

It's throughout the books.  Definitely a nice add from Sam.

[DittyDotDot]

56 minutes ago, ulkis said:

Okay, sorry to respond to an old post, but can anyone refresh my memory and name a moment when that happens in the books? Is it in the early books? I am totally blanking out on that. Thanks.

The only specific time I can think of right now, would be just after the wedding night and Claire and Jamie are talking in bed. I seem to recal Claire taking note of it early on at Leoch, but I can't think of something specific right now. It does happen throughout the books when Jamie's really trying to work something out in his head. Apparently it's something Brian Fraser did as well. 

Spoiler

Roger takes note of it when he gets sent further back in time in a later book.

Edited June 6, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[ulkis]

Thanks!

[WatchrTina]

Quote

he was punishing himself for humiliating his wife

Hmmmm.  That's an interesting interpretation but I never saw it that way.  I always interpreted it as him punishing himself solely for the unshielded fires that put his men (and Claire) at risk.  As for humiliating Claire -- I always felt that any "punishment" for that would be handled between the two of them and in private.  But given that the gambit worked -- it produced the intel that they needed -- I always assumed Claire forgave him for that bit of subterfuge pretty quickly and without punishment.

[WatchrTina]

Because I'm nosey I just went and read Finn Den Hertog's twitter feed from when ep 209 aired.  He responded to several tweets from fans saying he was sad he could not return for season 2 due to other work committments.  I always assumed the role of Willie was created so that someone who knew Jamie -- who admired Jamie and looked up to him as a role-model -- would be the witness to his and Dougal's final conflict in the season finale. Who else would let Jamie go to take Claire to the stones, trusting his word that he would return to face "justice" if he survived the battle?  Now they'll have to re-write it for someone else.  It's a shame (not a tragedy,) but it does make me wonder if Finn was told that Willie had an important role to play in the finale.  If not, I wonder if they regret that decision now.  I suppose we'll never know.  Even if they had told him, if they REALLY needed Finn available for the second half of this season they should have locked him down and paid him to stay available.  They obviously didn't do that, which is a shame.

And now on a completely different book vs. show topic -- I allowed myself to continue re-reading DIA yesterday.  I had stopped at the point when Jamie & Claire were about to leave France.  Yesterday I read the scene when they approached Lallybroch and the horses refused to go past the McNab's burned out house -- the house that "caught fire" and "accidentally" killed the guy who ratted out Jamie to the red-coats.  It's a fantastic little scene, vivd with the struggle to control a string of brood mares walking down a steep, muddy hill, complete with wee Fegus bouncing up and down in the saddle in his eagerness to see Lallybroch.  The reunion of all the Lallybroch cast was SO satisfying.  Not a lot happens.  Some sheep are lost and Jamie, Ian and Fergus go looking for them. Claire & Jenny bustle around the house. Jamie is ordered by Jenny to pee on the fencepost to keep McNab's ghost from the house (because he went to the burnt-out ruins carefully walking "widdershins" around the house to confuse the ghost.)  There is so much to love in that scene, not the least of which is the unspoken but clearly understood undercurrent of Highland-style vengeance and superstition.  It's such a shame those kinds of quiet character moments had to be skipped in episode 208 to hurry on toward the conflict of the Rising.

Edited June 14, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Wouldofshouldof]

On 6/6/2016 at 7:53 PM, WatchrTina said:

Hmmmm.  That's an interesting interpretation but I never saw it that way.  I always interpreted it as him punishing himself solely for the unshielded fires that put his men (and Claire) at risk.  As for humiliating Claire -- I always felt that any "punishment" for that would be handled between the two of them and in private.  But given that the gambit worked -- it produced the intel that they needed -- I always assumed Claire forgave him for that bit of subterfuge pretty quickly and without punishment.

You know what occurred to me last night (Damn, I wish I wasn't always thinking about Outlander, LOL)?  When BJR tore Jenny's dress in S1 he had to force Jamie to look, making it seem like it was against Jamie's honor or whatever to view his sister's naked breasts, but then he didn't have any problem exposing Claire's to his men in that scene.  

Though to be completely fair, forcing him to look happened in the show but I don't recall it in the book, while his baring Claire's breasts only happened in the book, which means two different people wrote those scenes.

And since I don't know which thread would be the most appropriate for this comment, I'll post it here.  We've read a lot about Claire, Brianna and Roger surmising that in order to travel to the point in time you want to get to, you have to have someone there to think about when you go through the stones.  However, the first time Claire went through was an accident, and she wasn't thinking about anyone in particular, but managed to "find" Jamie anyway.  That must mean they were fated to be together, sigh!

[morgan]

It's funny you say that about the travel and Claire being fated to find Jamie.  I think I always had it in my head that while at the stones Claire was thinking about Scotland long ago and about BJR (since Frank had been talking about him) which is why she found him first.  But I kind of like the idea of her anchor also being Jamie, whether she knew it or not.

[Nidratime]

Quote

And since I don't know which thread would be the most appropriate for this comment, I'll post it here.  We've read a lot about Claire, Brianna and Roger surmising that in order to travel to the point in time you want to get to, you have to have someone there to think about when you go through the stones.  However, the first time Claire went through was an accident, and she wasn't thinking about anyone in particular, but managed to "find" Jamie anyway.  That must mean they were fated to be together, sigh!

Well, funny you should mention that because Frank was constantly drilling "Black Jack Randall" into Claire's head, even subconsciously via all those conversations she was privy to between Frank and the Reverend about his ancestry. And, where does Claire end up? Right in the midst of a confrontation between Black Jack Randall and some Highlanders, one of which just happens to be Jamie. So, maybe Frank is responsible for Claire ultimately meeting Jamie, and wouldn't that be a hoot!

[abbey]

As far as Claire thinking of someone when she went through the stones the first time...I always thought she must have been thinking of Frank so therefore she ended up in the vicinity of Black Jack.  The stones would have sent her back 200 or so years ago, and at that time, in that location, Black Jack was the            closest thing to Frank. 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Because I'm nosey I just went and read Finn Den Hertog's twitter feed from when ep 209 aired.  He responded to several tweets from fans saying he was sad he could not return for season 2 due to other work committments.  I always assumed the role of Willie was created so that someone who knew Jamie -- who admired Jamie and looked up to him as a role-model -- would be the witness to his and Dougal's final conflict in the season finale. Who else would let Jamie go to take Claire to the stone, trusting his word that he would return to face "justice" if he survived the battle?  Now they'll have to re-write it for someone else.  It's a shame (not a tragedy,) but it does make me wonder if Finn was told that Willie had an important role to play in the finale.  If not, I wonder if they regret that decision now.  I suppose we'll never know.  Even if they had told him, if they REALLY needed Finn available for the second half of this season they should have locked him down and paid him to stay available.  They obviously didn't do that, which is a shame.

 

There's no reason that Angus or Rupert couldn't fill in there for Willie.  

[morgan]

I disagree.  I think Angus and Rupert are too much Dougal's men.  I think having someone younger, still Dougal's but also able to be swayed.  I also think we will get the death in the church that will render Rupert unable to be that witness.  

[AheadofStraight]

I don't think Rupert can be an option if the show follows the book...

[WatchrTina]

Quote

I disagree.  I think Angus and Rupert are too much Dougal's men.

I agree.  Angus in particular would not be able to let Jamie walk away if he witnessed Jamie kill Dougal.  Rupert, maybe.  So . . . here's some speculation.  Maybe Angus get's the death scene in the church and Rupert is the one to witness Jamie & Dougal's show-down.  It could work.

Glad I'm not a TV adaptation writer.  That's a tough job.

[morgan]

I could see Rupert acting as witness more than Angus.  I am still wondering if some new young Mackenzie will start to get some screen time.  Or maybe they just won't use a witness at all.  It's not crucial too.  I know if added to Jamie's peril in the book, but I'm not sure it will be necessary in the show.  

[WatchrTina]

The witness has an impact in a much later book -- someone who is in prison with him (the witness) hears the story and tracks Jamie down during the American Revolution to try to blackmail him.  It does not end well for him (the blackmailer) and it has some consequences for another character (not Jamie) who witnesses the threat and comes to Jamie's assistance (in a lethal fashion).  But I don't think that's a particularly important beat in the story so yeah, they can skip the witness and just have Jamie come back out of loyalty to his fellow soldiers.  He's not the kind to desert his post or run away from a fight.

[toolazy]

7 hours ago, morgan said:

I disagree.  I think Angus and Rupert are too much Dougal's men.  I think having someone younger, still Dougal's but also able to be swayed.  I also think we will get the death in the church that will render Rupert unable to be that witness.  

Maybe. I think their love for Claire could be enough to give Jamie the hour he asks for.  It always cracked me up that he asks for an hour but doesn't go back until the next morning. 

[Nidratime]

It could be just some Mackenzie man and not someone who *we* know well or at all.

ETA: Someone found a key spoiler scene ... unfortunately. Don't look if you don't want to see this key scene.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Nidratime

[Dust Bunny]

How will these last 3 episodes be split up? Will 211 end with Jamie giving Claire over to the English in order to be freed from the church? Or will it end with Sandringham's death? Will 212 wrap up the BJR/Alex Randall/Mary Hawkins plot? 

Oh crap, I forgot about Hugh Munro. Dammit.

I hope the writers will find moments for humor, because these last 3 episodes are going to be brutal.

[Nidratime]

I'm beginning to think they're going to have Rupert be the witness to Dougal's killing, unless they kill him off in the next episode as well.

[WatchrTina]

Ooooooh.  I just listened to Ron's podcast for ep 210, Prestonpans, and I was wrong!.  Willie was never intended to be the witness at the final Jamie-Dougal showdown.  Willie was supposed to die at Prestonpans.  Which means that a year ago I was right.  When the character was first introduced in "Rent" I said he had the stink of a red-shirt about him (those disposable characters on Star Trek who end up in the landing party just so they can die tragically.)  Later I became convinced that I was wrong and that he WAS the Willie who witnesses Jamie's fight with Dougal.  But no -- Willie was marked to die at Prestonpans and I can see how that would have been a brilliant story beat.  We like Willie.  He is young and earnest and he looks up to Jamie.  Yeah, his death would have been painful.  Ron reiterated again in the podcast how upset he was when the actor was not available (clearly upset WITH the actor so I assume there was some understanding between them about his availability, even if there was not a legally binding contract.)  So that is why Angus died.  They knew someone the audience had a real connection with had to go and they chose Angus -- mostly because Rupert without Agnus is sadder than Angus without Rupert.  Rupert will mourn Angus in an deeply affecting manner.  We saw a bit of it already with Rupert cradling Angus' sword.  But that would have been out of character for Angus.  Where could he go psychologically?  Could he be MORE angry than we've already seen him?  No.  So that's why Angus died and Rupert was left to mourn. I find that SO very interesting.  That means that the final episode did not have to be re-written to account for Willie being gone.  They had a plan already.  I can't wait to see what it is.

Edited June 12, 2016 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

Very interesting!  S&S were speculating that perhaps the witness would be Murtagh, who dies fighting Dougal's men off so Jamie can see Claire to stones.  Which I hadn't thought of before, but find very interesting.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I guess I'm alone in this, but I'm not going to fault the actor who played Willie for not being available if Moore didn' lock him down, knowing he was going to use him this season. Unless the actor did sign a contract and broke it. It's disappointing that we didn't see him, because I would have liked to, but since I don't know or haven't read the details, I'm not going to jump on the blame bandwagon because Moore had to do some rewriting to explain where Willie was.

[WatchrTina]

Oh I don't blame the actor that plays Willie.  I said above that if the show really wanted him to be available they should have paid him to be available.  I was just noting that Ron has mentioned in two pod casts in a row the was upset about the actor not holding himself available.  We'll never know if verbal promises were made and broken or if each party had a different understanding of whether a promise was made in the first place.  It's just interesting to see the impact that actor availability has on the writing process.  They REALLY wanted Mrs. Fitz in episode 208 (Laoghaire was supposed to be traveling with Colum in order to work at the beck-and-call of her grandmother who was also part of Colum's entourage) but she only had one day of availability at the time the castle was available and so they had to re-write around her.

Okay maybe I blame Finn (the actor) a wee bit because of course Outlander should be more important than any other acting opportunity (in my me-centric view of the world.)  But I think he's currently appearing on stage in the West End in a play with Gillian Anderson so that's nice for him.  I hope that goes well. (Note -- I'm totally speculating there, reading between the lines from some of his tweets.  We need an IMDb for live theater so that we can keep up with actors when they are treading the boards.)

Edited June 12, 2016 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

I think if they kill Murtagh he s going exactly the way he does in the books. What happened at Culloden between Jamie, BJR and Murtagh is probably the 2nd biggest question of the books besides Jamie's ghost. 

I am wondering about the breakdown of the next 3 also. I don't think they filmed Falkirk battle and they said they moved an event up to Prestonpans so I assumed it was Rupert's death, which went to Angus.

I think everything with the Duke will take place next week, maybe ending with BJR at Claire's door? Gosh there's a lot of death to come. Maybe 12 is BJR/Mary wedding, Alex death and maybe even Colum dies? I think I read they won't go to Edinburgh but move those storylines to near Culloden. I mean technically we are still at 6-8 months away from Culloden? Probably a time jump next episode.

13 could be Dougal, stones, 60's. Maybe it will start in 60's and be Claire telling them what went down the night before Culloden. So we will also hear about Frank's death!

So we have potentially 4-6 more character's death to cover. Red Wedding has nothing on them!

[morgan]

I don't blame Finn/Willie because we don't know what happened there.  But Ron definitely sounded pissed about it.  

I found it interesting in Ron's podcast for 210 he said he thought they made a mistake with Lt Foster...said either they shouldn't have brought him back, or should have given him more of a story so people would care.  I seriously was more affected by his death than Angus.'  I know I shouldn't be, but I am.  Like I said, I expected Angus, and eventually Rupert, Murtagh and Dougal all to die so am braced for it.  But I was just not expecting it.  I loved that boy.  I'm sad we won't see more of the actor because I found him so personable.  Again, would have made a fabulous LJG.

i would love to see more from the actor who played Anderson/led the scots on the secret path.  Very charismatic.  

Edited June 12, 2016 by morgan

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 minutes ago, morgan said:

I don't blame Finn/Willie because we don't know what happened there.  But Ron definitely sounded pissed about it.  

I found it interesting in Ron's podcast for 210 he said he thought they made a mistake with Lt Hawkins...said either they shouldn't have brought him back, or should have given him more of a story so people would care.  I seriously was more affected by his death than Angus.'  I know I shouldn't be, but I am.  Like I said, I expected Angus, and eventually Rupert, Murtagh and Dougal all to die so am braced for it.  But I was just not expecting it.  I loved that boy.  I'm sad we won't see more of the actor because I found him so personable.  Again, would have made a fabulous LJG.

i would love to see more from the actor who played Anderson/led the scots on the secret path.  Very charismatic.  

Same here. I mean, unless there was more than verbal, that there was something in writing or that Finn was contracted to do the work, I can see him being pissed. But if Moore just assumed Finn wouldn't take on any other projects and just expected him to be available? Then Moore can just take a seat.

I believe it's Lieutenant Foster, not Hawkins.

Agree--I found the actor who played Anderson very charismatic, and that brogue. So sexay. But I've a weakness for the Scots Brogue, going back to when I visited Scotland.

[morgan]

Doh!  Foster, not Hawkins.  See, I'm so upset I can't get the name right!  

[Archery]

Anderson's brogue, with his deceptively deep voice?  Rewindable.  

They may not have Jamie kill Dougal at all, or have it be completely self defense, given Dougal' s simmering rage. It would simplify the story somewhat.  There's a lot to cover still.  But just like at the end of last season: they've already thought it all the way through.  He can still have his "I must see my wife safe" moment. 

[morgan]

5 minutes ago, Archery said:

Anderson's brogue, with his deceptively deep voice?  Rewindable.  . 

I really think he needs to head to the colonies.....seriously.  I rarely check IMDb but did to see what else this actor was in and I'm not seeing anything.  Hope tptb took note of him and can find a way to use him somehow/someway.

I also agree about Dougal.  It could be handled completely differently.  

[WatchrTina]

I could totally support the actor who played Anderson showing up on the Ridge. He was verra easy on the eyes and the ears.  We could just ignore the fact that he played this role and give him a new name.  It's been done before -- one actor played two entirely different roles on HBO's Deadwood.  I don't think he can continue to play the same role he did in this ep because that guy was a real historical figure and some people might object to the re-writing of his personal history.

[morgan]

I'd be good with that!

[ulkis]

7 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I could totally support the actor who played Anderson showing up on the Ridge. He was verra easy on the eyes and the ears.  We could just ignore the fact that he played this role and give him a new name.  It's been done before -- one actor played two entirely different roles on HBO's Deadwood.  I don't think he can continue to play the same role he did in this ep because that guy was a real historical figure and some people might object to the re-writing of his personal history.

Much more well known personages' history have been re-written, so I don't think it would be a problem for this guy.

Well, I think there is a chance Willie will show up on

the Ridge; otherwise why mention him going to America? 

maybe Ron was pissed, but hopefully he gets over it. He's an actor, they mostly can't wait around for another job if someone is already giving him one.

[morgan]

Yep.  Ron was pissed, but sent him to America. He could easily have had him die in a cattle raid or by disease.  So door is open.  

[chocolatetruffle]

I'm actually very glad that Finn didn't return to the role, if they were only going to kill him off at Prestonpans.  Now, at least, the character is still alive and there is the possibility that he could show up again in America, if the actor and the producers can come to an agreement, of course. 

As far as Jamie killing Dougal, I could see them either not doing it, or there being no witnesses because, if I remember correctly, Jamie never suffers any consequences for that act, right? The big rush to get Claire to the stones could be so that he can be back in time to fight at Culloden. Basically, the event dies w/ Willie, and the last we see Jamie, he's fighting Redcoats at Craigh na Duhn.  

ETA: or what WatchrTina said earlier.

Edited June 13, 2016 by chocolatetruffle

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, chocolatetruffle said:

As far as Jamie killing Dougal, I could see them either not doing it, or there being no witnesses because, if I remember correctly, Jamie never suffers any consequences for that act, right? The big rush to get Claire to the stones could be so that he can be back in time to fight at Culloden. Basically, the event dies w/ Willie, and the last we see Jamie, he's fighting Redcoats at Craigh na Duhn. 

Yeah, there's no mention of Jamie suffering consequences before Culloden--I just assumed he coped to killing Dougal and they figured if they survived the battle they'd deal with Jamie then, in the meantime, they needed him to fight for them.

But there is the guy Young Ian kills who was trying to blackmail Jamie. It was Willie who told the guy he witnessed the fight. I don't think they need that plot-point, though.

[GHScorpiosRule]

31 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Yeah, there's no mention of Jamie suffering consequences before Culloden--I just assumed he coped to killing Dougal and they figured if they survived the battle they'd deal with Jamie then, in the meantime, they needed him to fight for them.

But there is the guy Young Ian kills who was trying to blackmail Jamie. It was Willie who told the guy he witnessed the fight. I don't think they need that plot-point, though.

Except that he didn't die. He survived. Badly burned, but he did survive. So Wee Ian actually didn't kill anyone. But, as you say, we don't need this plot point.  And I'm perfectly happy with Jamie not "suffering any consequences" for killing Dougal. It wasn't in cold blood, after all.

Aye, I'm TOTALLY Jamie's BITCH.

[DittyDotDot]

23 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Except that he didn't die. He survived. Badly burned, but he did survive. So Wee Ian actually didn't kill anyone. But, as you say, we don't need this plot point.  And I'm perfectly happy with Jamie not "suffering any consequences" for killing Dougal. It wasn't in cold blood, after all.

Wait, what? Didn't Ian slit the guy's throat?

Wait, I think you're thinking of the guy who got burned in the print shop in Voyager. No, I'm talking about the guy who came to Claire and Jamie's camp and tried to blackmail Jamie in Echo in the Bone. Willie had been sent to Jamaica after his imprisonment and, on his death bed, told this guy the story of Jamie killing Dougal.

 

ETA: IMO, Jamie suffering consequences isn't about whether Jamie's a murder or whatnot. To me, it's about Jamie and who he is. He killed a clansman and someone he swore and oath to. Scottish culture aside, there's no way Jamie is not going to confess and/or take responsibility for that. It's just not who Jamie is. IMO, that was the whole point of him whisking Claire off to the stones. Even if he survived the battle, there was no way they could go back to living their lives again with this hanging over them.

Edited June 14, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Wait, what? Didn't Ian slit the guy's throat?

Wait, I think you're thinking of the guy who got burned in the print shop in Voyager. No, I'm talking about the guy who came to Claire and Jamie's camp and tried to blackmail Jamie in Echo in the Bone. Willie had been sent to Jamaica after his imprisonment and, on his death bed, told this guy the story of Jamie killing Dougal.

  25 MINUTES AGO, GHSCORPIOSRULE SAID:

Except that he didn't die. He survived. Badly burned, but he did survive. So Wee Ian actually didn't kill anyone. But, as you say, we don't need this plot point.  And I'm perfectly happy with Jamie not "suffering any consequences" for killing Dougal. It wasn't in cold blood, after all.

Wait, what? Didn't Ian slit the guy's throat?

Wait, I think you're thinking of the guy who got burned in the print shop in Voyager. No, I'm talking about the guy who came to Claire and Jamie's camp and tried to blackmail Jamie in Echo in the Bone. Willie had been sent to Jamaica after his imprisonment and, on his death bed, told this guy the story of Jamie killing Dougal.

 

ETA: IMO, Jamie suffering consequences isn't about whether Jamie's a murder or whatnot. To me, it's about Jamie and who he is. He killed a clansman and someone he swore and oath to. Scottish culture aside, there's no way Jamie is not going to confess and/or take responsibility for that. It's just not who Jamie is. 

 

 

 

D'OH! You're right, @DittyDotDot! 

Just ignore me! 

Wait. When did Jamie swear an oath to Dougal? I know he swore one to Colum.  Not saying that Jamie wouldn't feel guilt for what happened, and what he was forced to do. I guess it's the phrase "suffer the consequences" that rubs me raw. It gives off a vibe that he got away with something and should have had to pay-publicly or something.

Edited June 14, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Nidratime]

Looks like Hugh *is* going to be in Diana's episode:

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

D'OH! You're right, @DittyDotDot! 

Just ignore me! 

Wait. When did Jamie swear an oath to Dougal? I know he swore one to Colum.  Not saying that Jamie wouldn't feel guilt for what happened, and what he was forced to do. I guess it's the phrase "suffer the consequences" that rubs me raw. It gives off a vibe that he got away with something and should have had to pay-publicly or something.

Didn't he swear an oath to Clan MacKenzie? And with Colum dead, Dougal is the leader of Clan MacKenzie.

Either way, I wasn't meaning that Jamie needed public punishment, but the main reason he decided to take Claire to the stones and why he was so set on dying at Culloden was because he was planning to answer for killing Dougal. I just meant I don't think they need a witness because I think Jamie would stand up and take responsibility regardless of a witness or not.