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

[ElsieH]

Colum told her on his deathbed about Geillis. Also, he told her who they gave the baby to, that's how she figured out Roger was related. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by ElsieH

[DittyDotDot]

51 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

HOWEVER -- Claire later figures out that Roger is descended from Geillis's child (and right now I can't recall HOW she did that) but even if she came to know that Geillis was left alive long enough to deliver her baby, she has no reason to believe the sentence of burning wasn't carried out afterward.  In fact, the sentence WAS carried out afterward -- but Dougal swapped a recently dead body for Geillis.

I can't remember, has she come to the conclusion Roger is Geillis' decedent on the show? In the book, Dougal tells Claire that they let the child be born before they burned her when they meet in the cave in Outlander and it's Geillis who tells her they switched the bodies in Voyager. Did Dougal mention it sometime last season or maybe Collum or Laoghaire? It feels like show Claire knows this, but I might be being colored by my knowledge of the books here.

ETA: what @ElsieH said...that damn next page thing gets me almost everytime!

Edited November 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

 Maybe the next newbie writer will be better? Here's hoping!

[WatchrTina]

42 minutes ago, ElsieH said:

Colum told her on his deathbed about Geillis.

Okay, I had to go watch and you are right!  TVColum does tell Claire that Geillis' baby survived and even who they gave it to.  Excellent. That's a potential plot-hole plugged.  But he does NOT tell her that Geillis survived through Dougal's trickery.  I'm betting he doesn't even know since he was the one who set Geillis up to be arrested in the first place.  Dougal probably sussed that out and knew to NOT share that plot with his brother.

Interestingly, Book!Colum swears to Claire that he did NOT intend for her to be swept up in the plot against Geillis. (This is when they meet in Edinburgh in Book 2.)  He blames it all on Laoghaire and even offers to punish her for it, should Claire desire it.  But she demurs and even chalks Laoghaire's behavior up to her being sixteen and suffering from the pain of unrequited love.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by WatchrTina

[lianau]

On 29.10.2017 at 10:52 AM, Petunia846 said:

For what it's worth I have the exact opposite opinion and am quite pleased that he's somewhat distracted. IMHO he's been the biggest handicap to the show so far, often making changes or almost changing things that I absolutely hated or would have hated.

I never really had a problem with the changes from book to show before but this season it's bugging me because they are so big and to some essential storylines. First it's  Murtagh . He needs to be dead , sorry for the actor and I liked how he played him but I can't get over that . Then it's telling Claire about Willie too early  and the attempt to deal with Mr Willoughby and f*cking up the entire Whorehouse plot because of it . 

[Nidratime]

I'm still on the fence about the Murtagh situation. I liked the character much more in the show then in the books and we lost so many good characters that it's nice to have at least one familiar face. I can see why the show writers were reluctant to let him go. Creating beloved characters when they weren't necessarily beloved in the books is a real plus and you hate to see all that hard work and talent go up in smoke -- especially since they brutally stuck to the books and killed off so many others.

As for the Willie reveal, I have to admit, I was baffled at the way it played out in the books. I understand how reluctant Jamie was to tell Claire, possibly causing unnecessary trouble, especially since he never expected to see his son again, but the way she found out in the books was cruel. Lord John was jealous of Claire and seemed to tell her almost out of spite to establish his closeness to Jamie. Now, that is a very dramatic revelation, but it was coming on the heels of so much else, it was almost like it was *too* much. Like it almost got buried. It's not like Lord John doesn't have something to tell Claire now ... I'm guessing, and that is *he* is the one raising Jamie's son, so Claire can still be "shocked" and Lord John can still lord it over her ... no pun intended.

The Willoughby thing I feel fine with. I like how they're handling him, giving him dignity and Claire's respect right off the bat. The way he was portrayed in the book was bordering on the cartoonish. He was sometimes played for comic relief at the expense of being a person in his own right. On the other hand, I can't quite see this TV show Willoughby capturing, befriending a pelican, and then running off at the end with him. It'll be interesting what they decide to do with him.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Nidratime

[DittyDotDot]

57 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I'm still on the fence about the Murtagh situation. I liked the character much more in the show then in the books and we lost so many good characters that it's nice to have at least one familiar face. I can see why the show writers were reluctant to let him go. Creating beloved characters when they weren't necessarily beloved in the books is a real plus and you hate to see all that hard work and talent go up in smoke -- especially since they brutally stuck to the books and killed off so many others.

Oh, I think I loved Murtagh of the books the same as the show, but yeah, I get why the show didn't want to let go of him. I'm not ready to judge it yet until I see what they do with him in the end. I'm okay with it if they have something in mind, but if they just did it because they liked the actor only, then... . So far, the change hasn't enraged me, even though I was pretty against the idea last season.

1 hour ago, Nidratime said:

As for the Willie reveal, I have to admit, I was baffled at the way it played out in the books. I understand how reluctant Jamie was to tell Claire, possibly causing unnecessary trouble, especially since he never expected to see his son again, but the way she found out in the books was cruel. Lord John was jealous of Claire and seemed to tell her almost out of spite to establish his closeness to Jamie. Now, that is a very dramatic revelation, but it was coming on the heels of so much else, it was almost like it was *too* much. Like it almost got buried. It's not like Lord John doesn't have something to tell Claire now ... I'm guessing, and that is *he* is the one raising Jamie's son, so Claire can still be "shocked" and Lord John can still lord it over her ... non pun intended.

Yeah, I didn't love how the Willie reveal was dealt with in the books. It seemed to me the time for Jamie to tell Claire was when he was laying it all out there about Laoghaire, but to have withheld it as long as he did was really perplexing to me considering Claire flat out asked him if there was anything else she should know before deciding to stay in the past once Laoghaire was out in the open. I think I understand why they revealed Willie so early on the show--Laoghaire is kinda Jamie's dirty little secret, so to speak, and I don't think they wanted Willie to be that too. So, this change works for me so far.

[Nidratime]

Well this is interesting. They almost had Jamie and Claire tell Jenny the truth about Claire:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/outlander-first-wife-toni-graphia-interview-1054919

[Nidratime]

Interview with John Bell about Young Ian, his feelings for Jamie and Claire and what might be around the corner for him.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/outlanders-john-bell-young-ian-kidnapping/

[FnkyChkn34]

I had no idea where to post this, but since some people were asking about Jamie and Jenny's ages, I found this family tree.  It may help, or confuse people more.  :-) 

[WatchrTina]

I just wrote a post in the 308"First Wife" thread about how the Laoghaire reveal is really the only thing that ever makes Claire question her decision to return to Jamie.  (Jamie, on the other hand, never once questions whether or not she should have returned to him.)  Jamie's lie-of-ommission about Laoghaire (and, let's face it, his decision to marry the woman who nearly got Claire killed) is the only thing that ever seriously threatens their shared belief that they were meant to be together.  The books tear them apart physically time and time again but never again will anything threaten to separate them emotionally.

HOWEVER

I now recollect that there is another scene I'm rather looking forward to.  I'll just have to wait 5-6 years to see it. (Stop reading now if you don't want to hear about way future events.)  When Jamie returns from the dead in book 7 and then they finally have reunion sex in Book 8 (in a potting shed of some fine garden is memory serves) we will be treated to a fairly tense conversation about Claire's having had sex with Lord John and then Jamie will "sympathize" with her having craved physical comfort in her grief by finally telling her about his night in the cave with Mary MacNab.  Oooooh now I'm so glad they kept the Mary scene --both because it was a fantastic acting moment from Sam (oh that anguish on his face as he gives in and the tears from his closed eyes as he kisses her) and so that Jamie can decide to tell Claire about Mary after she explains why she knocked boots with Lord John.  I love the symmetry and the tiny under-current of tit-for-tat in that scene.  I love that, despite all the healing that happens in season 3 after the Laoghaire reveal, and despite all the following years of a solid/unshakable marriage, the specter of jealousy can still rear its ugly head and we discover that Jamie has kept at least one secret from Claire for a VERY long time.

Edited November 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[FnkyChkn34]

I don't find the Mary McNabb secret to be a big deal though.  Clearly, Claire knows that Jamie had sex at some point in those 20 years.  So did she.  He admits to Geneva and Leghair, and (in the show at least) has already said that he had a brute, blind need.  I'm not nearly that far in the books yet, but I would hope that Mary McNabb is not an issue...

[DittyDotDot]

19 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I don't find the Mary McNabb secret to be a big deal though.  Clearly, Claire knows that Jamie had sex at some point in those 20 years.  So did she.  He admits to Geneva and Leghair, and (in the show at least) has already said that he had a brute, blind need.  I'm not nearly that far in the books yet, but I would hope that Mary McNabb is not an issue...

It's not an issue, as I recall. It's not some dirty little secret Jamie is keeping from Claire, just something he never thought to tell her before. And, Claire gets it, as I recall.

[toolazy]

4 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It's not an issue, as I recall. It's not some dirty little secret Jamie is keeping from Claire, just something he never thought to tell her before. And, Claire gets it, as I recall.

Also, in the books, unlike the show, she and Frank never stopped having sex.  So she really doesn't have a high horse to get up on.  

[FnkyChkn34]

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It's not an issue, as I recall. It's not some dirty little secret Jamie is keeping from Claire, just something he never thought to tell her before. And, Claire gets it, as I recall.

 

1 minute ago, toolazy said:

Also, in the books, unlike the show, she and Frank never stopped having sex.  So she really doesn't have a high horse to get up on.  

Good.  But we all know that Claire does love her high horses... :-) 

[WatchrTina]

Mr. Willoughby (Yi Tien Cho) saving the day in ep 309 "The Doldrums" was a wonderful moment for a problematic book character.  They’ve eliminated the whole “Fiend” plot line but I’m pretty sure we still need Yi Tien Cho to be falsely accused of murder in Jamaica.  So I’m really glad that we got to hear his backstory and that the way it was presented was that he told the story to stall for time because he knew – because of the bird – that a storm (with wind and rain) were on their way.  It makes this character a hero (which means we’ll care more about him when he is falsely accused).  It shows what an educated man he is and then we glimpse his frustration at being trapped in the company of people he finds disgusting – and who find him disgusting in return.  It is often said in beginning writing classes, “Show, don’t tell.”  Alas, in this case they had no choice but to tell a lot in the case of Yi Tien Cho.  I do think the episode bogs down a bit during his speech.  He’s stalling for time and in a way the plot sort of “stalls” during his big moment.  It’s almost as if the episode hits its own doldrums.  But then his pages are borne away on a fresh breeze and the plot is underway again, along with the ship.

 

On a separate topic, related to the teaser for next week’s episode (look away now if you don’t want to know) can I just say WTF -- that IS Fergus talking to Jamie while he’s in the cage.  I expressed dismay about that scene when I saw last week’s longer teaser for the second half of the season and someone here assured me that no, that wasn’t Fergus refusing to release Jamie.  But now it looks like it IS and that Jamie has to bargain with Fergus, promising to let him marry Marsali, in order to get Fergus to agree to help Jamie.  Ugh.  Do Not Like!

Now I’m guessing that the reason we saw the introduction of the “Jonah” story-line in ep 309, “The Doldrums” was to amp up the sense of tension and risk inherit in ship-board life and make it credible that Fergus would be afraid (for Marsali’s sake) of flouting the will of the captain and the crew.  It also seems clear that the whole – ye-must-be-wed-by-a-priest plot-line will be dropped (which is just tragic if true because Fergus and Marsali’s wedding in the book is a RIOT).  Instead it is Jamie’s refusal to countenance the union that must be overcome (not just the lack of a priest) and Fergus (it seems) is not above withholding aid from Jamie in order to extort that consent out of him. Ugh.  I hope I ‘m wrong.

Edited November 12, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Haleth]

17 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Mr. Willoughby (Yi Tien Cho) saving the day in ep 309 "The Doldrums" was a wonderful moment for a problematic book character.  They’ve eliminated the whole “Fiend” plot line but I’m pretty sure we still need Yi Tien Cho to be falsely accused of murder in Jamaica.  So I’m really glad that we got to hear his backstory and that the way it was presented was that he told the story to stall for time because he knew – because of the bird – that a storm (with wind and rain) were on their way.  It makes this character a hero (which means we’ll care more about him when he is falsely accused).

They paved the way for this with the crewman wanting to toss Yi Tien Cho overboard without any evidence that he was causing the bad luck.  Rampant racism.

[TaurusRose]

On 11/9/2017 at 4:31 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

 

Good.  But we all know that Claire does love her high horses... :-) 

Yeah and I’m realizing that I really don’t care much for the character at all. 

[WatchrTina]

Episode 210 310 “Heaven and Earth” shows that Jamie can make some really bad decisions when a woman he loves is at risk.  His attempt to coerce Fergus into setting him free so he could lead a mutiny was a terrible idea.  This side of Jamie is going to show up again next season when he makes a really bad decision (concerning Roger) when he thinks his daughter is at risk. 

In this episode, Fergus is able to prevent that bad decision because following Jamie’s instructions would likely put Marsali at risk.  At that critical moment in book 4, I’m pretty sure Fergus is not around to calm things down.  Instead, wee Ian is there and, like his mother, if there’s a pot of shite on to boil he’ll stir it like it’s God’s will.  Add that to Jamie in full-on “protector” mode (when, as we've now seen, he can go a bit mad) and the result is poor Roger . . . well, you know. 

I rather like that Jamie’s tendency to occasional bouts of really poor judgment (what Claire later calls “testosterone poisoning”) is well-established in the series before he makes that really bad decision in book 4.

Edited November 19, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Episode 210

I think you mean 310!?

[morgan]

So I am already thinking about next season and wondering what we will see/how the show will translate. I’m also thinking about the opening credits because I believe they are the most beautiful opening credits of any show.  They took my breath away when I first saw them on season 1 and I love all the changes that are added depending on the season/what is happening.  I wonder if next year we will have some fife and drum interspersed?

[GHScorpiosRule]

From Episode 10: "Heaven and Earth"

7 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I'm not nearly that far in the books, and I don't mean to go completely off topic, but... why marry Lord John?  If Jamie died, and I were Claire, I'd just go back through the stones with Roger and Bree.  Why live in a much harder time period (and war) if I didn't have to?

But I think this separation is about to end; I think they'll be reunited in this week's episode.  

I think it had something to do with protecting Claire. She might have been in some trouble with the government? And marrying Lord John, having the protection of his name would keep her safe?  And since I burned through the buiks, I don't remember if Bree and Roger had already returned to the 20th century before this happened, or after Jamie came back. They only went back because their daughter had a heart murmur, I think it was.

[WatchrTina]

So . . . there are only three episodes left.  I haven't read the 2nd Half of Voyager in a long time but I still recall the broad outline of the story and we still need to get through:

• Jamie & Claire being reunited (and you recall what a Rubik's Cube of adventures, storms, and coincidences were required for THAT to be accomplished)
• Fergus and Marsali's wedding (and all the hilarity surrounding it)
• The Governor's Ball (will there be a murder or not?)
• A serious injury for Claire followed by (ahem) Turtle Soup
• The locating and rescue of wee Ian
• A second storm to blow them all the way to America.

I'm trying to remember how Claire gets injured and I think I've just recollected that pirates were involved.  Oh.  My.  God.   The people who are complaining about the show ripping off Black Sails (never mind that the books were written YEARS earlier) are just going to have a field day with that.

Honestly, I don't know how they are going to get through all the plot remaining in just 3 episodes.  Buckle up everyone.  We're in for a ride.

[DittyDotDot]

7 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm trying to remember how Claire gets injured and I think I've just recollected that pirates were involved

Yes, it was a pirate attack where Claire is supposed to stay in the hold with Marsali, but someone gets in and attacks her, so she runs up on deck, swings from the halyards and ends up with a sword wound to her arm. I found the whole thing very ridiculous, but this was after I decided to just embrace the whack-a-doo! ;)

Edited November 20, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

So . . . there are only three episodes left.  I haven't read the 2nd Half of Voyager in a long time but I still recall the broad outline of the story and we still need to get through:

• Jamie & Claire being reunited (and you recall what a Rubik's Cube of adventures, storms, and coincidences were required for THAT to be accomplished)
• Fergus and Marsali's wedding (and all the hilarity surrounding it)
• The Governor's Ball (will there be a murder or not?)
• A serious injury for Claire followed by (ahem) Turtle Soup
• The locating and rescue of wee Ian
• A second storm to blow them all the way to America.

Oh, don't forget that Claire attends the slave market, creates havoc and ends up owning a slave herself... .

And, not only the rescue of wee Ian, but the confrontation with a certain crazy person and a trip to the cave where the crazy person ends up dead.

Oh, and the "seance".

And...

Seriously!

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2017-11-20 at 4:27 PM, WatchrTina said:

So . . . there are only three episodes left.  I haven't read the 2nd Half of Voyager in a long time but I still recall the broad outline of the story and we still need to get through:

• Jamie & Claire being reunited (and you recall what a Rubik's Cube of adventures, storms, and coincidences were required for THAT to be accomplished)
• Fergus and Marsali's wedding (and all the hilarity surrounding it)
• The Governor's Ball (will there be a murder or not?)
• A serious injury for Claire followed by (ahem) Turtle Soup
• The locating and rescue of wee Ian
• A second storm to blow them all the way to America.

I'm trying to remember how Claire gets injured and I think I've just recollected that pirates were involved.  Oh.  My.  God.   The people who are complaining about the show ripping off Black Sails (never mind that the books were written YEARS earlier) are just going to have a field day with that.

Honestly, I don't know how they are going to get through all the plot remaining in just 3 episodes.  Buckle up everyone.  We're in for a ride.

 

On 2017-11-20 at 4:43 PM, DittyDotDot said:

Oh, don't forget that Claire attends the slave market, creates havoc and ends up owning a slave herself... .

And, not only the rescue of wee Ian, but the confrontation with a certain crazy person and a trip to the cave where the crazy person ends up dead.

Oh, and the "seance".

And...

Seriously!

Too. Much. Plot!

Gah! I've no idea how they'll do it with 3 episodes left. I stand by my comments in a few of the episode threads. So much time was wasted on nonsensical things and changes from the buik that wasted time and were completely unnecessary. I really hope they don't shift anything from Voyageur to season 4. 

 

Speaking of future seasons, I'm thinking that they may combine future books into single seasons? Maybe? Book 5 was SO hard for me to get through, way too slow for my tastes. I struggled significantly ? I don't think I can deal with slow and filler episodes anymore...

[WatchrTina]

Shower thought of the day: The Porpoise dramatically sinks in a second storm near the end of the book (I love Diana's description of seeing the drowned faces of the crew, including the young captain in the surging wave that follows its sinking. ) But since John Grey is not a passenger on the Porpoise (as far as the TV audience knows) what do you want to bet that the TV!Porpoise goes down in the first storm with all hands BEFORE it reaches Jamaica?  That will eliminate the threat of Jamie being identified as Alexander Malcolm.  If so, I will mourn for Annika  

On second thought we do see Jamie being dragged away from the ball in the teaser trailers. Okay I'm going to speculate that a murder DOES happen at the ball and Jamie is arrested on suspicion (and later cleared) but his secret identity as Alexander Malcolm never comes to light again -- it only serves as the plot reason why Jamie does not return to Scotland after Wee Ian is rescued. 

And now now I have to go peel potatoes. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

ETA:. Ooooh I've had another thought -- what if Jamie IS accused if being "Alexander Malcolm" and no less a personage than the new Governor, John Grey makes a surprise appearance to declare his accusers to be mistaken as "Mr. James Fraser is personally known to me."  That would be an interesting parallel to Black Jack riding in at the last second and saving Jamie from being hanged in ep 115.

Edited November 23, 2017 by WatchrTina

[theschnauzers]

8 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

 

Speaking of future seasons, I'm thinking that they may combine future books into single seasons? Maybe? Book 5 was SO hard for me to get through, way too slow for my tastes. I struggled significantly ? I don't think I can deal with slow and filler episodes anymore...

With the amount of plot condensing that has been going on, I doubt any season will be more than one of the big books. Likewise, I don’t see how anything from season 3 can be shifted to season 4. You might see some minor characters appear earlier than in the books as the might become the composite of several book characters, and the writers might use passages from future books in fleshing out scones from multiple points of view, but not the sort of shifting you’re suggesting.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2017-11-23 at 11:13 AM, theschnauzers said:

With the amount of plot condensing that has been going on, I doubt any season will be more than one of the big books. Likewise, I don’t see how anything from season 3 can be shifted to season 4. You might see some minor characters appear earlier than in the books as the might become the composite of several book characters, and the writers might use passages from future books in fleshing out scones from multiple points of view, but not the sort of shifting you’re suggesting.

It just seems like there is so much to get through in 3 more episodes, which makes me wonder how things will be condensed, or maybe left out altogether. I prefer the second half of Voyageur to the first half, so I'm very much looking forward to how the rest plays out on screen. 

 

I guess you're right in that, that would be the wisest course of action for the remainder of the novels, to show from different points of view. I think that's the only way they'll be able to flush it out on screen. 

 

I'm also looking forward to Drums on screen (again, I preferred the second half) and to see how Roger and Brianna handle living in the past. I'm also team Roger, so there's that ???

[WatchrTina]

Well, I listened to 9 hours of audio book on my drive to and from my brother's house for Thanksgiving.  That took me from the chapter in which Claire goes over the side of the HMS Porpoise (the last scene of the last episode that has aired) through Claire's fighting her way through the mangrove jungle in the middle of a storm, Claire meeting the naturalist and the crazy priest (and Mamacita), Claire finding the Artemis (sans Jamie), Jamie's adventures on the HMS Porpoise (I have never actually understood HOW he gets on board.), Jamie's inexplicable appearance at the beach where the Artemis is keeled over -- in command of a company of soldiers(!), the capturing of those solders (after they help with the repair), Fergus & Marsali's wedding, the taking on of a load of bat guano, Claire accidentally acquiring a slave, Jamie having to rifle through the bodies of the dead slaves as they are being burned, searching for Ian (I cannot even imagine the smell), a pirate attack, Claire's wound (and Mr. Willoughby stitching her up when Jamie just can't) the questioning of Ishmael (the "rescued" pirate), Turtle Soup (good grief that scene is funny), arrival at Jared's plantation, crashing the governor's ball, Claire meets Lord John (again), all the way to Jamie and Claire's encounter with "Mrs. Abernathy" and ending with their standing in the rain on their horses in a makeshift shelter, plotting the rescue of Wee Ian and watching Archie Campbell ride toward the Abernathy house.

How on EARTH are they going to get through everything in 3 episodes?

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, I listened to 9 hours of audio book on my drive to and from my brother's house for Thanksgiving.  That took me from the chapter in which Claire goes over the side of the HMS Porpoise (the last scene of the last episode that has aired) through Claire's fighting her way through the mangrove jungle in the middle of a storm, Claire meeting the naturalist and the crazy priest (and Mamacita), Claire finding the Artemis (sans Jamie), Jamie's adventures on the HMS Porpoise (I have never actually understood HOW he gets on board.), Jamie's inexplicable appearance at the beach where the Artemis is keeled over -- in command of a company of soldiers(!), the capturing of those solders (after they help with the repair), Fergus & Marsali's wedding, the taking on of a load of bat guano, Claire accidentally acquiring a slave, Jamie having to rifle through the bodies of the dead slaves as they are being burned, searching for Ian (I cannot even imagine the smell), a pirate attack, Claire's wound (and Mr. Willoughby stitching her up when Jamie just can't) the questioning of Ishmael (the "rescued" pirate), Turtle Soup (good grief that scene is funny), arrival at Jared's plantation, crashing the governor's ball, Claire meets Lord John (again), all the way to Jamie and Claire's encounter with "Mrs. Abernathy" and ending with their standing in the rain on their horses in a makeshift shelter, plotting the rescue of Wee Ian and watching Archie Campbell ride toward the Abernathy house.

How on EARTH are they going to get through everything in 3 episodes?

You ask that as if they won't be condensing any of what you just posted! You know they wull. And I don't recall in the buik, Wee Ian asking the pirates that kidnapped him what they wanted with him, but we did see a scene where a bloodied Wee Ian asks that question of his captors.

[ruby24]

I'm finding this season very frustrating and I REALLY disagree with so many of the changes being made from the book this time. Also, I think these new writers are plain bad- I'm sorry, but I feel that they don't understand the characters of Jamie and Claire very well, and some of the things they've had them do and say are just perplexing.

[Clawdette]

I had Thanksgiving dinner with my sister and her husband, both of whom I had gotten interested in Outlander and Poldark. They were disappointed in both series’ season threes. They had a lot of misunderstandings of the whys of character behavior and, as neither have read the books, I understand this. 

With Outlander, I think the problem has been sheer amount of material to get through and the choices made to condense the material have led to unclear characterization.  Book readers probably understood why Claire took the risk to jump overboard while my non-book reading sibling thought it was “just silly.”

(With Polark, I lay the blame squarely on the revisions that have altered the course of events as well tweaked character motivations. “Soap opera” was the tag my brother-in-law used. I read the first seven books and never thought of Poldark as soap opera.)

While there have been several areas of Outlander I’ve loved this year, on the whole, Season Three has been a little off for me. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well I didn’t remember Claire jumping out of the ship from the buik, but even I was yelling at her to Jump because why is she suddenly questioning that after what she and Jamie have been through? Based on what I’ve seen onscreen for the past two seasons? I think, contrary to knowing and seeing the changes made in the first two seasons, people who have read the buiks expected this season to be everything from the buik translated to screen, based on the comments I’ve read here and other places. 

Sure, I’m blaming the new writers for writing Jamie and Claire out of character in some episodes, because it’s clear they don’t know them. But Sam and Cait have done their best to make sure that we can see Jamie and Claire in those scenes. And like Gabaldon stayed-she can tell the writers what makes sense and what doesn’t, but she can’t force them to heed or follow her suggestions. 

Inspite of these problems, I am loving this season because of the GREAT job Sam is doing.

[nodorothyparker]

I've really enjoyed individual episodes, even ones that veered a fair bit from strict book canon, but as a whole I'm struggling to make this priority TV this season.  On two separate weeks now, I've let the episode sit for days because it felt more like another chore to check off than something to get excited about.  There's been some really good stuff there when those individual episodes focused on just telling a good story, but I stand by my earlier opinion that the show has seriously whiffed on a lot of the big iconic stuff that they hyped to hell and back with tinkering that didn't need to happen and it's killed a lot of the enthusiasm and momentum for it.

As much as I generally enjoy Voyager, the back half is definitely the weaker half for me and knowing what's still to come vs. what the show has already changed and that we have only three episodes left, this looks to be the third season in a row that will likely collapse in on itself in a mess of pacing issues.

[DittyDotDot]

On 11/25/2017 at 6:41 PM, Clawdette said:

With Outlander, I think the problem has been sheer amount of material to get through and the choices made to condense the material have led to unclear characterization.  Book readers probably understood why Claire took the risk to jump overboard while my non-book reading sibling thought it was “just silly.”

Well, you can tell your sibling that I had the same reaction when I read the book as she did on the show. Granted, I thought Jamie strolling onto the beach as a French officer and the hijinks of the two of them hiding behind a tree to discuss which of them were crazier even sillier than that. TBH, this whole section of the book I found mostly silly, but that's when I decided to embrace the whack-a-do. 

[Athena]

While I understand the frustration, please do not discuss the Non Book posters opinions in Book Talk threads in depth. It's not really fair or civil since they won't see them or reply with their justifications. Thank you.

[Haleth]

A friend told me last night she's reading the books... on her phone!  I cannot imagine reading those enormous books on an itty bitty screen.  

[WatchrTina]

Speculation for the Season 3 Finale:  

I predict that Governor Gray is going to squash that ungrateful little shit, “Captain” Leonard by informing him that he is QUITE mistaken and that Mr. James Fraser is personally known to him so he can’t possibly be this miscreant, “Alexander Malcolm” that they have mistaken him for.  Please please PLEASE let this happen.  I want to see Lord John go full-on I-am-the-son-of-a-duke-and-a-peer-of-the-realm-who-the-fuck-are-you on that plummy-lipped little wanker.

[morgan]

2 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Speculation for the Season 3 Finale:  

I predict that Governor Gray is going to squash that ungrateful little shit, “Captain” Leonard by informing him that he is QUITE mistaken and that Mr. James Fraser is personally known to him so he can’t possibly be this miscreant, “Alexander Malcolm” that they have mistaken him for.  Please please PLEASE let this happen.  I want to see Lord John go full-on I-am-the-son-of-a-duke-and-a-peer-of-the-realm-who-the-fuck-are-you on that plummy-lipped little wanker.

I would love that too.  I do wonder, though, that the Campbell’s know Claire as Mrs. Malcom and whether that will come into play.

[Clawdette]

Well, the captain said James Fraser also known as Alexander Malcolm so he's got both identities covered. 

[Nidratime]

That prediction that Margaret made could apply to Roger as much as it would to Brianna, right? Margaret mentioned nothing about the Frasers of Lovat.

[WatchrTina]

2 hours ago, morgan said:

 I do wonder, though, that the Campbell’s know Claire as Mrs. Malcom and whether that will come into play.

Yeah I'm worried about that too.  The able seaman with the milky eye is the one who told Captain Leonard that "James Fraser" was really Alexander Malcolm.  I can see Lord John dismissing that as utter nonsense -- the lies of a sailor seeking to ingratiate himself with his captain.  But if Archie Campbell also says he knows Jamie as "Alexander Malcolm" of Edinburgh, that COULD be a problem.  So . . . I speculate that Archie is going to meet an untimely end at the hands of Yi Tien Cho and then he and Margaret are going to run off together and join the Marroon settlement where (as in the book) Margaret's gifts will be appropriately valued and not treated as a parlor trick.

7 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

That prediction that Margaret made could apply to Roger as much as it would to Brianna, right?

No, I don't think so.  Roger was conceived and born in the same century.  Even Roger & Brianna's children don't match the prophecy.  Only Brianna was conceived in one century and born 200 years later.

Edited December 4, 2017 by WatchrTina

[morgan]

2 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Yeah I'm worried about that too.  The able seaman with the milky eye is the one who told Captain Leonard that "James Fraser" was really Alexander Malcolm.  I can see Lord John dismissing that as utter nonsense -- the lies of a sailor seeking to ingratiate himself with his captain.  But if Archie Campbell also says he knows Jamie as "Alexander Malcolm" of Edinburgh, that COULD be a problem.  So . . . I speculate that Archie is going to meet an untimely end at the hands of Yi Tien Cho and then he and Margaret are going to run off together and join the Marroon settlement where (as in the book) Margaret's gifts will be appropriately valued and not treated as a parlor trick.

I could live with that!

[Nidratime]

Quote

No, I don't think so.  Roger was conceived and born in the same century.  Even Roger & Brianna's children don't match the prophecy.  Only Brianna was conceived in one century and born 200 years later.

Ah, thanks. I just thought there should be a 200 year life span.

[morgan]

10 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

That prediction that Margaret made could apply to Roger as much as it would to Brianna, right? Margaret mentioned nothing about the Frasers of Lovat.

No I don’t think so.  Roger is descended from Dougal and Geillis and while Geillis did travel backward, Roger descended traditionally from then on.  As far as we know only Brianna fits the prophecy of being born 200 years after conceived.

[Bort]

35 minutes ago, morgan said:

But if Archie Campbell also says he knows Jamie as "Alexander Malcolm" of Edinburgh, that COULD be a problem.

It’s actually only Claire that the Campbells know (as Mrs. Malcolm). They never met Jamie.

[WatchrTina]

7 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

It’s actually only Claire that the Campbells know (as Mrs. Malcolm). They never met Jamie.

Archie met Jamie -- as the husband of "Mrs. Malcolm" -- when they walked into the ball.  And Archie's such a slime-ball I can TOTALLY see him trying to make use of that knowledge to blackmail Jamie & Claire (once he figures out that they went by Mr and Mrs. James Fraser to everyone else at the party).  In which case someone (Yi Tien Cho perhaps?) would need to eliminate that problem.  But that is pure speculation by me.

ETA:  The more I think about it the more I like this idea because in the book isn't it Mr. Willoughby who saves Claire by killing the exciseman and then saves her again by killing the evil Reverend Campbell?  That first bit of heroism was taken from him in the show (Claire defends herself) so I'll bet his second moment of heroism WILL happen.  I'll bet Yi Tien Cho will kill "The Fiend" after all.

Edited December 4, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Bort]

4 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Archie met Jamie -- as the husband of "Mrs. Malcolm" -- when they walked into the ball.

I meant before, in Scotland. It could still come off as Claire just saying that Archie is mistaken about her last name. He’s the party entertainment, his word might not be so ironclad.

[FnkyChkn34]

8 hours ago, kariyaki said:

I meant before, in Scotland. It could still come off as Claire just saying that Archie is mistaken about her last name. He’s the party entertainment, his word might not be so ironclad.

And, Claire never introduced him, did she? She told Jamie who Campbell was, but I don't remember her introducing Jamie to him.