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

[toolazy]

I think he was going to take Claire to the stones regardless.  

Jamie swore a sort of half-assed oath of loyalty and obedience as long as Jamie was in Mackenzie clan lands.  

[Keeta]

Regarding Willie showing up in America, someone asked that question to Matt Roberts on Twitter and his reply was "probably not."  For what that's worth.

Also, very interesting to learn about the original plan to have Laoghaire tagging along with Mrs. Fitz in episode 208. That definitely makes a lot more sense.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Keeta

[Nidratime]

Quote

Also, very interesting to learn about the original plan to have Laoghaire tagging along with Mrs. Fitz in episode 208. That definitely makes a lot more sense.

I actually thought that was kind of odd. I know they liked the actress and wanted to have her on the show, but Mrs. Fitz has a big role at Leoch. I know she's the cook, but she's practically the head housekeeper -- or whatever the equivalent was at the time. So, why would she go off on a trip with Colum? Doesn't she have more responsibilities to the entire Castle as opposed to just going along with Colum to do his mending and washing? That doesn't necessarily mean that Laoghaire goes, as there are many other people who work there, but I just thought Mrs. Fitz was far too important.

[Keeta]

46 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I actually thought that was kind of odd. I know they liked the actress and wanted to have her on the show, but Mrs. Fitz has a big role at Leoch. I know she's the cook, but she's practically the head housekeeper -- or whatever the equivalent was at the time. So, why would she go off on a trip with Colum? Doesn't she have more responsibilities to the entire Castle as opposed to just going along with Colum to do his mending and washing? That doesn't necessarily mean that Laoghaire goes, as there are many other people who work there, but I just thought Mrs. Fitz was far too important.

Yeah, I thought of that after I posted. I think it would have made Laoghaire's presence make more sense, but then you have the issue you stated with Mrs. Fitz being away from Leoch. Maybe if they'd just given Laoghaire another female counterpart so it wasn't so obvious that she was shoe-horned in there... Ah weel. Not really a big deal. 

[Summer]

I can't figure out why they decided in the show to tell Murtaugh about Claire being from the future.  It doesn't seem to affect or move the plot in anyway except that Jaime, Claire AND Murtagh are all "in the know".   I know in the one of the companion books it is revealed that Murtagh saw Claire come through the stones, but  they are not adapting those books for the tv show. 

Could they possibly be setting up that Murtagh doesn't die at Culloden (oh please oh please oh please) as Duncan is such a fan favorite? Maybe his knowing about Claire will be significant in one of the last few eps?

Thoughts? 

[morgan]

I honestly think they brought Murtagh in so they could add some conversations with him about the future/historical knowledge into the mix.  They've expanded his role so much and I think it just sort of worked in the show.  I am also starting to get on board the notion that it will be Murtagh either helping to see Claire safe to the stones or helping hold the enemy off so Jamie can.

Sadly someone we know and care about has to die at Culloden. When you think about it everyone else that dies does so at a different time.  

[toolazy]

I'm hoping it's Murtaugh who escorts the Lallybroch men home.  

[morgan]

I would love that.  But I'm doubtful.  I'm guessing it will be Ross or Kincaid (can't remember which died).

[Haleth]

I really hope they keep Murtaugh not only because the actor is so wonderful but because his character gives viewers an opportunity to know what Jamie is thinking.  With Claire we have voice overs but Jamie has conversations with his friend/lieutenant.  Non readers are going to be devastated if Murtaugh is killed off.

[morgan]

Regarding ep 211, no ep spoilers.  Wasn't sure where to put this, but just saw it over on compuserve from Diana and figured here was a good spot 

 
 
 
 

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by morgan

[morgan]

http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Books_and_Writers_Community/Diana_Gabaldon/Episode_211__A_Few_Introductory_Remarks/ws-books/86514.1?nav=messages

I got link to work I think.  

[chocolatetruffle]

I wanted to reply to the spirited debate going on in the Vengeance is Mine bookreader thread about the lack of sexuality/intimacy between Jamie & Claire this year compared to the scenes in the book.  It's not an adaptive issue; I don't even think it's a plot issue because the strength of their bond is crucial for making us feel the impact of their upcoming separation, which is an important plot point. I think it's more of an industry trend: plot first, emotional connection second.

Recently, I filmed a scene in a popular episodic that was a brief moment of warmth and humor amidst a plot that was barreling towards an impending disaster/battle that would end the season.  However, the scene was cut because of time.  And that seems to be the rule in the TV industry - if we need more time and it doesn't further the plot, then out it goes.  Showrunners are not willing to give viewers a momentary break for fear they will get bored and flip the channel.  Outlander is not unique in that way of thinking, which is unfortunate because they have actors who can really sell those quiet moments.

[lianau]

I think that's one reason for it,  but I also think it has something to do with how they ended the first season and started this one . Book Jamie is on the path to mental healing after Claire "plays" BJR and gives him the permission to fight back . They started to connect sexually while still in the abbey . The show dragged it out into the next season (probably fearing accusations of not taking rape seriously enough). So while  living  comfortably and save in France they were not on "sexual speaking terms" for  most of the time . And when they finally broke through that they literally run out time because we have a rising to attend now . 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I understand the reasons for the dearth of intimacy at the beginning of Season 2 with Jamie's PTSD, and it made sense.  However, they had since reconnected (the scene with the pregnant belly on display).  Then Claire miscarried/had a still birth - and it would take some time to reestablish marital relations after that and I understand that also.  But I don't buy the "they literally run out of time because of the rising" excuse.  They at least had one 'fade to black' moment back at Lallybroch.  Somehow (well, we as adults all know how - unless it's supposed to be an immaculate conception - I mean, Claire IS La Dame  Blanche after all...) Claire gets pregnant again before she goes back to the 20th century.  And it can't be because they made love right before she went back and she gets pregnant from that one time.  Why?  Because she knew she was pregnant when she saw Frank, which was only a day or two after she got back.  Back in the 40's that was not enough time to run a test for pregnancy and get results back, and probably would have been too early in her pregnancy for the results to show anyway.  So if that's the way they try to play it, I'm calling foul.  

I'm more inclined to agree with @chocolatetruffle that it's an industry trend to put plot over characterization - which is a real shame in some cases, especially on a show like this which relies so heavily on characterization.  I mean, if I don't care about the characters, the plot itself is not enough to keep me watching.  

And/or I agree with those who theorize that it's an over-correction for all the flak the show got first season on showing so much nudity.

Edited June 22, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[toolazy]

They don't need to show us them having sex for us to know that they're having sex.  We can tell that they are closely connected in most scenes where they're together so clearly they're having sex off-screen.  And I'm okay with it being off-screen, as long as we get the occasional Shirtless Sam. 

[chocolatetruffle]

17 hours ago, Grashka said:

Next season they are going to show Claire making an incredibly bold decision and crossing time once again to find her husband after 20 years of separation. She risks everything and leaves everything behid - her comfortable and safe life in 20th century, hard-earned career as a surgeon and above it all - her daughter. All for a man without whom she just has not felt whole person. I'm not sure the way show has been portraying C&J marriage will make it credible and believable for non-readers.

THIS.  I caught a glimpse of foreshadowing the sacrifice Jamie's going to make by sending Claire back during this episode when he says he will do what it takes to keep her safe.  But imho, there is still work to do in making Claire's choice believable.  I hope they do it in the next episode, because according to the latest Outlander article in my TV Guide, a good chunk of the last episode... 

Spoiler

...will be spent w/ Brianna & Roger, Geillis and Claire - and setting up her choice.

[WatchrTina]

In the after-the-show discussion of The Fox's Lair, Kenney (I think it was her) mentioned that they added Laoghaire to that ep because otherwise things that happened later with her wouldn't make sense.  I LOL'd at that, because basically she was saying that Gabaldon's writing, in that instance, didn't work.

Weel, no, I can't agree with you there.  Remember that TVLaoghaire actually testified against Claire at the witch-trial.  BookLaoghaire did not do that.  And if you've read "The Exile" (Diana's graphic novelization of the first half of Outlander) there is even more ambiguity as to whether BookLaoghaire actually knew that Claire would be arrested as a result of her delivering that letter.  That book strongly suggests that Colum was behind it all.

But in the show, Laoghaire actually testifies against Claire and says to her "I will dance upon your ashes."  I think THAT was a mistake, given what we know will happen in Book 3 between Jamie and Laoghaire.  So I think that Laoghaire turning up in The Fox's Lair and being publicly contrite (while still carrying a torch for Jamie) was the result of the show-writers trying to offset what THEY did last season, not them trying to fix something Diana wrote.

Secondly, in a novel you can reintroduce characters that have not been heard from for a really long time.  You have the time and space to reintroduce them by having Claire or someone else "remember" the last time that person was a part of the story.  That's tricker in a TV show.  You don't want the viewers saying, "Wait, who is that?"  Laoghaire has an important role to play in Book 3 so the TV writers needed the viewers to see her again in season 2, lest they forget all about her.

And now let me present a counter-example to my second point.  When a certain character re-appeared on Game of Thrones this season after having not appeared for over five years -- I stood up and cheered. Literally.  Alone in my apartment I stood up and cheered (I'm weird like that.)  But I'm a book-reader and have been posting and reading online theories about the fate of that particular character for years.   There is nothing like that out there for Laoghaire.  There is no large group of viewer fans wondering about her fate.  So it makes sense that we had to see her at least once this season.

ETA:  I moved this from the Episode 212 thread because nothing I said above relates to that ep.

[WatchrTina]

Okay I'm double-posting but it's on an entirely new topic.  I want to give props to the show-runners for some of the changes they made.  Specifically, I think they have done a great job setting up Dougal to go ape-shit next week (oh no, wait, TWO weeks from now, sigh.)  Anyway, I always wondered why we were treated to that over-the-top scene in season 1 where Dougal goes nuts upon learning that his wife has died (that's the first time we saw him whacking his forehead in grief and frustration).  I now think that was some seriously long-range foreshadowing they were doing.  We've now seen that Dougal gets murderously violent when he is full of grief -- especially if that grief is tangled up with guilt over his ambiguous feelings about the dearly departed.  That same Dougal is now overwhelmed with grief over:

1. Colum's death (complete with ambiguous feelings),
2. Colum asking Jamie to be Hamish's guardian and interim laird (no ambiguous feelings -- he's ANGRY), and
3. The shit-show that the Jacobite rebellion has become.

It doesn't matter at all that item 2 is probably moot since Jamie (as a famous Jacobite) won't be "Lairding" anywhere given the way the rebellion is going.  Dougal is now a loaded weapon, primed and ready to go off at the slightest provocation.  And like Chekhov's gun, he's going to go off in the finale.  I think the addition of making Colum's death both recent and infuriating help add realism to the actions we are going to see in the finale.  Did Dougal see the vial grasped in Colum's hand?  I think he did.  So when he overhear's Claire talking about poisoning Prince Charles that's going to just add fuel to his feelings of being "wronged" by Colum's suicide.  It's easy to imagine him transferring his frustration to Claire for her part in that, and even to assign her more of the blame for it (no doubt he can imagine her "tempting" Colum with the promise of an easy death in the same way that he will overhear Claire "tempting' Jamie with poison for Prince Charles.)  Pile that on top of the "righteous indignation" he going to feel at the mere suggestion of offing Prince Charles and the stage is set for the Dougal/Jamie show-down.  Well done show.  I like it!

[GHScorpiosRule]

Eh. I think you're giving the show too much credit, @WatchrTina with respect to the long foreshadowing--that is, if you're saying they had Dougal act so over the top, fakey rage in season one, so that on the eve of Culloden, seeing him go crazy wouldn't seem over the top. Considering the reason why he does so in the buik, him accusing Jamie of treason, etc., etc., isn't out of character.  But potatoes and potahtoes and all that.

Yes, I'm verra leery and dinna trust Moore, what with me not getting the emotional beats, scenes I did want. Just because I got the ones I did, like the Wedding, doesn't mean all is well and forgiven for him choosing to disregard and ignore the others and his "reasons" for doing so.  And this is coming from someone who's not attached to the series, but did and does love the story and those two crazy kids!

1. I dinna get my clear cut decision at the stones.
2. I dinna get Claire's inability to explain how she was from the future, not to mention her agony in choosing to stay.
3. I dinna, get my hilarious Jamie's outrage and then enthusiam over Claire shaving her "OXTERS!"; AAAAND
4. I dinna, dinna, DINNA get my healed hand, with tears on both sides! this season!

So please forgive me for my cynicism and side-eyeing Ron Moore and being skeptical over his most looking forward to things next season.

Edited June 26, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[morgan]

WatchrTina it's funny you say that about that GOT character that comes back.  I half-heartedly watch GOT, haven't read the books (although I did buy a set after the first season, just couldn't get into them).  When said character came back I didn't remember him at all until mr.morgan reminded me.  But then I tend to be interested in the characters others are bored by so I'm not even much like the typical non book reader.  

Back to Outlander...what do you all think the finale will be like?  My first thought was half an hour to wrap up the 1746 stuff, an hour to 1968.  Just finished TSATS podcast and they speculated a fractured timeline, starting in 1968, which I found interesting.  Will be very interesting to see!  For 1746 I'm guessing DougalJamie confrontation, the deed of sasine sent with Fergus and maybe Kincaid (Ross?).  Or maybe just Fergus.  And hopefully JamieClaire goodbye sex and the heartwrenching stones scene (Jamie gives his ring to Claire that we see her scrambling for in 201).  But honestly I don't expect to see  Culloden at all so what else will there be?  That won't take all that long.  

So an hour in 1968 with Roger, Bree, research, exploring, and Geillis.  And of course ending with "we found him, and he didn't die!"

Edited June 26, 2016 by morgan

[Bort]

It's not in the book, but I kind of would like a little scene of Bonnie Prince Charlie sneaking his way out of Scotland dressed as a maid. The Skye Boat song that the Outlander theme is set to is based on this.

[Archery]

Quote

We've now seen that Dougal gets murderously violent when he is full of grief -- especially if that grief is tangled up with guilt over his ambiguous feelings about the dearly departed.  That same Dougal is now overwhelmed with grief over:

Colum's death (complete with ambiguous feelings),

Colum asking Jamie to be Hamish's guardian and interim laird (no ambiguous feelings -- he's ANGRY), and

The shit-show that the Jacobite rebellion has become.

It doesn't matter at all that item 2 is probably moot since Jamie (as a famous Jacobite) won't be "Lairding" anywhere given the way the rebellion is going.  Dougal is now a loaded weapon, primed and ready to go off at the slightest provocation.  And like Chekhov's gun, he's going to go off in the finale.  I think the addition of making Colum's death both recent and infuriating help add realism to the actions we are going to see in the finale. 

Plus the several times Jamie made Dougal swallow his pride and accept his orders.  Dougal's been a ticking time bomb for a fair bit now. 

I'm not going to spend any time worrying over how they will wrap up the season. Like the Pilot, the Wedding, the Wentworth episodes,, and the death of Faith, Culloden and Claire's trip back are so incredibly important to the story and the characters that I would imagine they crafted the S2 finale and worked backwards from there.  Overall, I have been nothing but impressed by how well these writers and directors get the story.  I'm willing to just let them tell it.  

[morgan]

I'm not worried at all, but am curious and will play over different scenarios in my head over the next two weeks.  I really am excited to see Bree and Roger and see how the actors bring those characters to life.  So as much as I am thinking about Jamie and Claire, I am just as eager to see the 1968 part.  

While I don't always agree with Ron's choices, overall I'm so happy with the series.  Just like Diana's books, it is far from perfect, but oh so much to love.  So much good/fascinating/beautiful/heartbreaking and such a rip roaring good story.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, morgan said:

I'm not worried at all, but am curious and will play over different scenarios in my head over the next two weeks.  I really am excited to see Bree and Roger and see how the actors bring those characters to life.  So as much as I am thinking about Jamie and Claire, I am just as eager to see the 1968 part.  

While I don't always agree with Ron's choices, overall I'm so happy with the series.  Just like Diana's books, it is far from perfect, but oh so much to love.  So much good/fascinating/beautiful/heartbreaking and such a rip roaring good story.  

I ken it sounds like I'm not pleased with the show, writing, etc., but I really am. My comments in the various episodes threads are proof of that. That said, I guess, when Moore and company are so very good at giving us what they did, when they ignore or decide "not to" give others, which are just as important, then, weell, I get a wee bit miffed. And then reading that scenes that both Sam and Cait loved and wanted, were cut out for the next season? Aye, I'm going to remain a skeptic, and verra happily chow down on crow if proven wrong.

And yes, for the most part, they've done a great job. I just question some of their choices.

[morgan]

I was a lot like that last season, which I watched with book in hand and was really disappointed with some choices, with stuff left out, etc.  This season I am just going with the flow more.  Kept my book on the shelf and am just enjoying what I get.  Don't get me wrong, I still question and moan and groan a bit, but then I just let go.  I think sometimes for me the book and show merge in my memory and I forget what wasn't shown in the show, was only in the book.  The beauty of being in my 40s!

[peacefrog]

Lol I mentioned the vile in the episode thread. Should have checked here first. 

I think the adaptation is uneven but does the best it could. I don't think the story they are telling jives with what I wanted to see, but that's ok. I think their selling of the story lacks confidence. I think they feel compelled to include as much plot from the books to not disappoint readers but at the same time it handcuffs them by rushing everything else and not being able to enjoy the moments. In the end story and characterization suffers. Every actor elevates the material on this show, but that's not to say the writing is bad, just at times uninspired. I just wish they would gamble a bit and go their own way, with their own storylines. 

I think I'm mostly disappointed at the lost opportunities. I think it could have been a really unique show but ended up being just good mostly, at times excellent but also sloppy. I will always watch. 

[morgan]

I think the adaptation is uneven, but I think the books are too.  Both are far from perfect.....I do a lot of whistling.  But I'm ok with that.  I occasionally bang on my highchair for a bit, and more often than not have a complete reversal of opinion on subsequent viewings.  

[peacefrog]

Lol I think the books are way more uneven than the show. The show is better in some ways. The book does relationships better and that allows me to overlook the rest of the story. It's when the show doesn't fix those issues and takes it straight from book it falls apart because they haven't taken the time to make the actions and plot resonate. 

I found this season a bit more entertaining than book 2.

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, morgan said:

I was a lot like that last season, which I watched with book in hand and was really disappointed with some choices, with stuff left out, etc.  This season I am just going with the flow more.  Kept my book on the shelf and am just enjoying what I get.  Don't get me wrong, I still question and moan and groan a bit, but then I just let go.  I think sometimes for me the book and show merge in my memory and I forget what wasn't shown in the show, was only in the book.  The beauty of being in my 40s!

I was the opposite. Well, I did try to read the buiks over 16 years ago, at the behest of my friends (we both love and enjoy Nora Roberts/JD Robb) and tried, I really did, but I loathe first person POV; but I tried. got through Outlander, reading Dragonfly in Amber was a torturous ordeal, but I did it; got far as Chapter three in Voyager before I gave up. And this was in Jamie's POV! 

I decided to pick up the series after I watched Season one, and just read my way through all of the buiks to date by last summer. And like I've stated in other threads, I can now just imagine Sam and Cait as Jamie and Claire.

I try to let things go, but when they are the things that deal with emotional beats, which DG does do verra well with (her writing style, another rant for another thread and already  been there and done that, so no need to repeat myself here), so I'm disappointed when I don't see them. Especially when I can see how this scene or that scene could have been cut to make room for Jamie and Claire scenes.  That said, like others have said, Sam and Cait rise above and give us what they can from what they're given.

[lianau]

How do you think the upcoming slavery will be handled 

[AheadofStraight]

I'm really hoping for at least some variation of this dialog...but trying to keep expectations low because whenever I've pined for certain dialog, it hasn't been there (like at Claire's choice at the stones, Jamie's hand, etc.)

Quote

“I will find you,” he whispered in my ear. “I promise. If I must endure two hundred years of purgatory, two hundred years without you – then that is my punishment, which I have earned for my crimes. For I have lied, and killed, and stolen; betrayed and broken trust. But there is the one thing that shall lie in the balance. When I shall stand before God, I shall have one thing to say, to weigh ...against the rest.”
His voice dropped, nearly to a whisper, and his arms tightened around me.
Lord, ye gave me a rare woman, and God! I loved her well.”
 

[dustoffmom]

I call foul AheadofStraight!  You can't just lay that bit of dialog on me first thing in the morning with absolutely no warning!  Now I'm sitting here all blubbery and the day has barely begun.  

Quote

“I will find you,” he whispered in my ear. “I promise. If I must endure two hundred years of purgatory, two hundred years without you – then that is my punishment, which I have earned for my crimes. For I have lied, and killed, and stolen; betrayed and broken trust. But there is the one thing that shall lie in the balance. When I shall stand before God, I shall have one thing to say, to weigh ...against the rest.”
His voice dropped, nearly to a whisper, and his arms tightened around me.
Lord, ye gave me a rare woman, and God! I loved her well.”

1

[morgan]

Sigh.  So perfect.  But I don't expect to see that exactly as written.  Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised, but so many of ShowJamieClaire's big moments/conversations are just so different than BookJamieClaire that I guess at this point I don't expect it to be the same.  I guess I'm just hoping whatever they do will be poignant and satisfying and achingly beautiful.  

[morgan]

Lianau, I guess I expect the slavery to be handled much as other shows handle it.  Show it for what it was.  

I am hoping they include the indenture stuff and how it tore families apart.  The scenes with Roger and Bree in Scotland after they travel were really hard to see, and something a lot of people don't know about or understand.  

[Clawdette]

I guess, when all is said and done, Ron and company are getting enough of the book into the show to make sense to at least some of the non-readers. I have several family members who are hanging in there without the books foundations.  My most unexpected convert is my brother-in-law, a retired West-Point-educated Army colonel.  He is a voracious reader but I feel confident in saying he's never read "romance" and probably not historical fiction.  But, he is really enjoying the series and thought the swan dress and the bare honey pot scene were hysterical. (He is a man, after all.)  He hadn't watched Prestonpans when we talked but I think there was enough military strategy presented to please his military mind.  

Voyager has a lot of what I would term adventure so I think he'll be good with those threads, too, assuming they translate from book to screen.

Perhaps the audience for Outlander is wider than we might have suspected.

[CatMack]

There was a discussion happening in the Casting thread about Mr. Willoughby and how he'll be portrayed and how other characters act towards him.  I am responding here since it was getting off topic there.  

Two points I want to make:

As long as there has been racism there have been people willing to call it out as wrong.  There were abolitionists in this time period.  Making your characters behave in racist ways is a choice.  It is not an apolitical truth, and acting like it is is narratively lazy.  If you're going to do it, own it and own up to what that means for your characters.  Historical characters not being racist is not modern PC propaganda or whatever, it is acknowledging that not everyone held the same views.  If you make your hero, the person your audience is supposed to root for, a racist, you better be willing to deal with the implications of that.  Jamie behaves in a racist fashion because he is a racist and instead of treating it like a big deal it's treated, by the narrative and large parts of fandom, like a minor character flaw at best and not a problem at all at worst because "that's just how everyone was" except no, not everyone.  That's how racists were.  There may have been more of them and society as a whole was more overtly racist then it is now, though it's still pretty damn racist, but there have always been individuals throughout history who could see injustice for what it was.  

That being said, my second point it the problem has never been that racism exists in the story, it's that it's treated in the most shallow and lazy way possible.  You can write about racism without being racist.  Gabaldon frequently fails to make this distinction, and it's not surprising considering she makes it a badge of honor to avoid being "PC".  You can't treat something with nuance if you aren't willing to think about it and put effort into it, and 99% of the time that's what happens when people complain about political correctness.  Mr. Willoughby isn't cringe inducing because other characters are racist towards him, he's cringe inducing because he is a shallow collective of racist asian stereotypes, which Gabaldon might have realized if she actually gave a damn about the POV of people who aren't white.  

[maraleia]

I worry that in this age of #BlackLivesMatter Diana's books post-Dragonfly are going to be problematic to depict on-screen based on what you said CatMack. Diana, like a lot of white people, comes across as very unenlightened about a lot of intersectional issues and I wonder if Ron and Maril will make wholesale changes to Jamie's character (that won't harm his journey with Claire) in order to address these issues.

How does slavery manifest itself in the books?

For book readers who read these books when they first came out have you changed your views about how she depicts POC characters over time or were you outraged from the beginning?

[lianau]

I was never outraged at all (full disclosure , I also had no problem with the beating in book 1 and various other  scenes ) . It's historical fiction and she is writing books set in the 18th century where slavery was practiced . Jamie doesn't like  the concept , can't own people himself but also has no ability to influence other people away from owning them . That includes his aunt and her handling of River Run plantation. 

[WatchrTina]

Quote

How does slavery manifest itself in the books?

Jocasta has slaves but the only one you hear about very much (her butler) holds a position of privilege and respect in her household.

I have a vague memory of the mistreatment of some slaves in book four -- was it at an ironworks where an injured worker was receiving no treatment?  It had something to do with Jocasta's plantation but I can't recall the details.  I also have vague memories of someone running away from Jocasta's estate -- maybe the daughter of one of her house slaves?  

Lord John Gray has a sexual relationship (consensual as far as the reader is aware) with the cook at this plantation.  

There is a slave girl in book 8 who suffers terribly as a result of having been made pregnant by her owner at too young an age.  I'll spare you the gory details but at least the man's wife brings her to Claire seeking treatment.

Spoiler

Roger is essentially sold into slavery by Jamie.  The slavery practiced by the Mohawks issn't what one thinks off first when one thinks of slavery in the American colonies, but it existed.

I know we're in an all-book-talk zone but I hid the comment above because its a big plot point and I recommend that anyone who has not read book 4 should not look at it.

The bottom line is that slaves aren't talked about very much in the book and when you are focusing on the central cast of characters the presence of slaves is unlikely to enter into your thoughts.  But remember how Jared's servants were always there in the background in the Paris scenes -- at least the ones in his house?  I think any time Jamie and Claire visit a great house in the colonies, there will be slaves in the background.

Edited June 30, 2016 by WatchrTina

[WatchrTina]

One more thought on this topic: in Book 3, when Jamie & Claire get to the Caribbean there are definitely slaves working on the estate where young Ian is being held.  And I seem to recall a weird, spooky scene involving slaves and voodoo.  Isn't there a slave rebellion of sorts going on at the time?  Isn't that the end of the story for Mr. Willoughby?  Doesn't he got off to live with escaped slaves?

[CatMack]

I have mixed feelings about her handling of slavery and Native Americans.  She makes an effort, I will give her credit for that.  But it's inconsistent and leads to unfortunate implications.  She has a few major examples of the horrors of slavery, but then she kind of lets it fade into the background and while Jamie and Claire both disapprove of Jocasta's slave owning, that fact is the narrative by and large treats Jocasta like a "good" slave owner, wherein yes it's bad to own slaves but at least Jocasta isn't abusing her slaves left and right like those *other* slave owners.  And don't even get me started on the only "major" recurring black character in the entire series being a slave who's in love with his owner.  Yikes.  Likewise with Native Americans, she's clearly making an effort.  The fact that she acknowledges the existing and complex politics and differences between NA tribes, instead of treating them like a homogeneous group, is already way more than a lot of media bothers with, but there's still a tendency to fall back on racist stereotypes.  

At the end of the day part of the problem is wanting to touch on these issues for the sake of historical accuracy, but not wanting to actually spend a lot of time with any of these characters because they aren't part of the main family group.  And I get it to an extent.  Some media focuses on secondary and even tertiary characters quite a bit, some focuses more on a limited group of main characters.  Both are valid options.  But if you're only going to focus on your core group of characters and not flesh out anyone else, then maybe don't make one of your recurring locations a slave plantation.  Because one of the unintended side effects of Gabaldon's refusal to spend any time or nuance fleshing out these non white characters is that people of color become props to her white characters.  That is their only purpose.  The slave who is injured horrifically when Claire and Jamie first arrive?  What is his name, motivation, literally any fact about him?  We don't know, because he's not actually a person, he's a prop so that Claire can feel the appropriate amount of horror and white guilt.  That's the extent of the role black people play in the story.  Native Americans fair a bit better (their part in the war has actually been acknowledged, hurray!) but not enough to avoid a lot of cringe worthy moments.

As for the argument that it was the 18th century and we shouldn't view it with a modern lens, here's the problem with that - these are still modern problems.  Black people face horrendous racism and by and large are still dealing with the financial and educational ramifications of generations of slavery and segregation.  Native American tribes are still actively being screwed over by the government - treaties are still being broken and land that's supposed to be theirs is still being given away (not that you'd know it reading most newspapers - if we don't talk about it, it's not happening, right?).  Writers should absolutely write what they want, and shouldn't gloss over the ugly parts of history, but if you're not going to actually put the work into understanding the modern implications of history you're probably going to unintentionally write some pretty racist shit.  Especially if you're a white woman who doesn't have to live with those implications as part of your every day life.

[toolazy]

I think she did a pretty good job, for the most part, with the slavery issue.  They were people, not caricatures.  More than one Fraser declines inheriting the plantation because they cannot stomach the thought of owning slaves.  Jamie had been a slave of sorts - both when in prison and at Helwater so he, in partcular, was repelled by the practice, more than most people of his time.  Claire, Brianna & Roger are from the 20th century so they, too, are repelled.  

I do not envy the showrunners who are going to have to walk a pretty thin tightrope in order to portray all of this in ways that won't cause the internet to lose its shit.  

[maraleia]

Maybe one of the reasons why Diana fleshed out the Native American characters more than the African-American slaves is due to where she lives in the US which has a heavy NA presence. Maybe it's better that I've only read excerpts of the books because I might start hating Diana's interpretation of any of the topics we've discussed of late in this thread. I'm curious to see how Ron, Maril and the rest of the producer/writers handle seasons 3 and 4.

[peacefrog]

Claire bought a slave also right? I think both J&C discussed how they couldn't release slaves because then they could be recaptured by anyone. I remembering a bit surprised by Brianna making herself at home at Jocastas which included having slaves wait on her. As for Willoughby I'm most disappointed in not having Claire call it out.

The same goes for homosexuality. Yeah I know she has a major gay character but no one seems to call out the homophobia. I've posted on this before, probably in this topic, saying the same thing. There had to have been someone that had enlightened views. 

[lianau]

1 minute ago, peacefrog said:

Claire bought a slave also right? I think both J&C discussed how they couldn't release slaves because then they could be recaptured by anyone. I remembering a bit surprised by Brianna making herself at home at Jocastas which included having slaves wait on her. As for Willoughby I'm most disappointed in not having Claire call it out.

The same goes for homosexuality. Yeah I know she has a major gay character but no one seems to call out the homophobia. I've posted on this before, probably in this topic, saying the same thing. There had to have been someone that had enlightened views. 

Well , Claire accidentally ended up being the owner of a slave after losing it at the slave market and her fist impulse is to set him free and send him back to Africa only to realize that this is a pipe dream .  Regarding homophobia , how can these characters be enlightened? Let's take Jamie and other 18th century characters out of question for a moment and look at Claire . She was born in 1918 and left the 20th century for the second time before the Stonewall riots and before homosexuality was taken off the mental illness list . Brianna and Roger ,while younger , were still both born in the 40ies 

[peacefrog]

It's easy to have someone enlightened, because it occurred.  You can't get to where you are today if people weren't ahead of the times at some point. 

What I'm saying is also DG did not want to explore these topics. It's lazy again to use the excuse "because that's how it was". It's a fantasy, romantic saga. Yeah there are some historical facts but once you add time travel then it's really an alternate view. 

I feel it's situations like this that lead to organic drama. I mean a time traveler from the future should have a ton of issues. Take voting for example, Claire just mentions it in passing. No real thinking about what right she has lost. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by peacefrog
Add thoughts

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, peacefrog said:

Claire bought a slave also right? I think both J&C discussed how they couldn't release slaves because then they could be recaptured by anyone. 

Claire did indeed buy a slave, but not exactly intentionally, as I recall. She kinda started a bit of a riot at the slave market and Jamie was basically forced to buy the slave for her. I believe she legally freed him, though. Isn't that how Brianna found out Jamie and Claire had been in Jamaica, she found the papers Claire filed to free him?

It wasn't always that easy to free slaves in the colonies. Slave owners couldn't free their slaves without the written permission of the local assembly. And even if they got that permission, the freed slave was required to leave the colony. Plus, there was no guarantee the freed man or woman wouldn't be captured and enslaved again. It was a shitty system designed to make sure slavery continued. 

[Glaze Crazy]

3 minutes ago, peacefrog said:

It's easy to have someone enlightened, because it occurred.  You can't get to where you are today if people weren't ahead of the times at some point. 

What I'm saying is also DG did not want to explore these topics. It's lazy again to use the excuse "because that's how it was". It's a fantasy, romantic saga. Yeah there are some historical facts but once you add time travel then it's really an alternate view. 

Yes, there were enlightened people who affected change over the years/centuries, but Diana didn't choose to make her characters part of that history. The people who did work for change didn't do it easily and those historical changes are complex in both their execution and results, even to this day.

So I would disagree that it is lazy to say "that's how it was" because, it is how it was. Colonial and Jamaican slavery, the Native American genocide, racist reactions to people from different cultures, those things did occur. 3 individuals who land in those times from the present via fantasy time travel are not going to raise an army of folks to overthrow social and cultural ideas on a dime.  Again, Diana did not choose that storyline for her main characters.  I think the choices she did make, for her characters to try and reduce their impact on the people affected by trying to be respectful, fair and not as oppressive as they could have easily been, is what she did choose to do with her fictional characters.  In fact, she does have a fictional character who travels back to try and help a culture not be destroyed and, well, if you've read the book you know what happened to that guy (and his friend, for different reasons), which I personally didn't find so unlikely, if it had been a real situation.  Ignorance of other cultures, beliefs and peoples existed and still does.  From both perspectives.

I hope the show runners don't feel pressured to make adjustments to the story for political correctness. Of course, they can cut a lot of chaff in the attempt to tighten up some stuff and a lot of this might get cut for that anyway.

[peacefrog]

It's not changing things by whitewashing what was written, quite contrary. It's adding a bit more depth by having the issues called out by other characters. Yes the men and Claire were horrible to Willoughby. Keep it but why not go a little deeper than that's the way it was. Why? 

To be honest it's not even so much the treatment of a Willoughby or the way that was written, but it's the way he was written. It's racist and no argument will change my mind on that.

Also I'm certainly not talking about time travelers and what they should change on a large scale like Donner. It's the personal reactions and thoughts by Claire, Brianna & Roger that seem to get skimmed over. Even Jamie and John don't get good reaction scenes. 

[CatMack]

11 minutes ago, peacefrog said:

Even Jamie and John don't get good reaction scenes. 

I roll my eyes every time I read the scene where Bree tells Jamie about the Trail of Tears and what happens to the Native Americans.  Jamie and Claire tried and failed to change a big event, and he went through the loss of his culture.  It's basically perfectly set up for his reaction to be sadness and horror but also resignation that there's nothing he can do.  Instead his reaction is basically to shrug.  Gabaldon apparently thinks empathy is anachronistic.

As for how the show will translate things, I don't want them to sanitize the books, I want them to improve on Diana's shortcomings as a writer (because she does have them) and the limitations of a book format with, in the beginning at least, a limited number of POV characters (because if you're going to adapt something to another medium, use the difference in medium to do something meaningful).  I don't want Mr. Willoughby cut, I want him to be written as more than a caricature and I want the racism he faces to be portrayed with nuance.  I don't want Jocasta to suddenly not own a plantation, I want the black slaves to be portrayed as actual people with personalities and motives and not props for the white characters to occasionally feel guilty about when it doesn't get in the way of the plot.  I want them to do more with it, not less.  

Edited July 1, 2016 by CatMack