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

[AheadofStraight]

On 12/2/2017 at 7:16 AM, Haleth said:

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.  

I have all of them on Kindle and read many times using the app on my phone. It's really not so bad! Here's a screenshot. 

[Haleth]

I'd get dizzy with my eyes going back and forth so quickly.  LOL  Good for you, though!

[GHScorpiosRule]

58 minutes ago, Haleth said:

I'd get dizzy with my eyes going back and forth so quickly.  LOL  Good for you, though!

I got the buiks on Kindle after the first season; and I'm glad; Kindle allowed me to skim and skip through all the wordy mcwordy purple prosey writing and just concentrate on the dialogue/emotional beats. But on my Kindle. Not on me phone.

[Bort]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

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

No, Claire was trying to get away from Archie as soon as possible. She was all, “Well, this is my husband, bye!”

[DittyDotDot]

So a question came up about Joe's lineage in the Ask the Outlanders thread and it got me to thinking: In the book, I believe Ishmael--the slave they take prisoner after the pirate attack, then free in exchange for information and is the leader of the slave-revolting maroons--is is supposed to be Joe's ancestor. I'm woefully behind on the show, but my understanding is they didn't do the pirate attack on the show, so I wonder if the slave Claire owned and freed will become the Ishmael of the books?

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

So a question came up about Joe's lineage in the Ask the Outlanders thread and it got me to thinking: In the book, I believe Ishmael--the slave they take prisoner after the pirate attack, then free in exchange for information and is the leader of the slave-revolting maroons--is is supposed to be Joe's ancestor. I'm woefully behind on the show, but my understanding is they didn't do the pirate attack on the show, so I wonder if the slave Claire owned and freed will become the Ishmael of the books?

I'm not sure how that would work, or how he'd get the name Abernathy.  His name on the show is Temeraire, and he's bought and released within a day.  I have a feeling we'll see him again in the finale, so who knows.  But as of what we know now, I'm not sure how they could write that in.

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I'm not sure how that would work, or how he'd get the name Abernathy.  His name on the show is Temeraire, and he's bought and released within a day.  I have a feeling we'll see him again in the finale, so who knows.  But as of what we know now, I'm not sure how they could write that in.

It could be like how Angus and Rupert were amalgamations of different book characters. Neither existed in the book in the form they did on the show. So, when they meet up with Temeraire again, it could be found out that he was previously owned by Gellis, just like they did with Ishmael in the book. I think it would actually be very simple to do, myself.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

On 2017-12-04 at 5:35 AM, AheadofStraight said:

I have all of them on Kindle and read many times using the app on my phone. It's really not so bad! Here's a screenshot. 

I love this scene. Just saying. Thank you for posting, I definitely needed a good laugh! 

 

I also read all the books on my iPhone. I much prefer reading on paper though. You do what you gotta do when you’ve kids running around, and limited time, I suppose! It’s easier to carry around than a novel ??

Edited December 8, 2017 by LadyBrochTuarach

[toolazy]

Wow. I did not remember that from the book until I read that. I would have sworn the show made it up.  

[DittyDotDot]

I have a question. I'm woefully behind on the show, but wasn't the prophecy in the book that the next kind of Scotland would be from Lovat's lineage? 

So, what was the prophecy on the show? Reading the No Book Talk thread for the last episode makes it sound like the prophecy is that the next King of Scotland will be ushered in when a 200 year old baby dies... .

Edited December 9, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

4 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I have a question. I'm woefully behind on the show, but wasn't the prophecy in the book that the next kind of Scotland would be from Lovat's lineage? 

So, what was the prophecy on the show? Reading the No Book Talk thread for the last episode makes it sound like the prophecy is that the next King of Scotland will be ushered in when a 200 year old baby dies... .

Right... so who was conceived 200 years before she was born?  :-)

[DittyDotDot]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Right... so who was conceived 200 years before she was born?  :-)

No, I understand it's about Brianna, I was just asking for clarification on what the show did for the prophecy and double checking my memory was right on the prophecy in the books. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[AheadofStraight]

The show changed it to say that a new king will rise in Scotland upon the death of a child who is 200 years old.

[Haleth]

On 12/9/2017 at 0:03 PM, DittyDotDot said:

I have a question. I'm woefully behind on the show, but wasn't the prophecy in the book that the next kind of Scotland would be from Lovat's lineage? 

That is how I remember it, that the next king would be from Jamie's line.  I fear that Diana will end the series with Bree being declared queen.  (Kidding, but I wouldn't put it past her!)

[WatchrTina]

My interpretation of the prophesy is that if one traced the lineage of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (a.k.a. Queen Eizabeth, the Queen Mother) far enough back, one would encounter William Ransom, 9th Earl of Ellesmere who is (as we know) the bastard son of James Fraser, who is himself the son of a bastard son of Lord Lovat.  I like to think that the current Prince Harry's red hair was inherited from his many-times great grandfather, Jamie.  

If I'm right then whatever Book!Geillis was planning to get up to back in the 20th century involving Brianna -- it would all have been for naught.  The line to the new king descended through Jamie's other child -- the one she had no way of ever finding out about.  (There was nothing in the book prophesy about the death of a 200-year-old baby -- they changed that in the show to make the risk to Brianna more explicit.)

BTW the reason I picked The Queen Mother is that she was a "mere" English aristocrat (the daughter of an Earl) when she married into the royal family.  Most other royal brides before that -- certainly the ones that married the heir to the throne -- were with foreign princesses.  When she married, she wasn't marrying the heir, she married the "spare" -- a shy man with a serious stutter -- who no one expected to be king.

Edited December 12, 2017 by WatchrTina

[auntlada]

On 12/10/2017 at 9:38 AM, AheadofStraight said:

The show changed it to say that a new king will rise in Scotland upon the death of a child who is 200 years old.

Is that supposed to be Brianna? Although she was conceived in the 1700s, she was born in the 1900s. Most people count age from birth, so she was not 200 years old (in most reckonings with which I am familiar).

Spoiler

Now, if you want to go into later books, Brianna's children were, for a brief time, born 200 years before the time in which they were living.

 Spoiler-tagged because the show hasn't got there yet -- and may not do that anyway.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, auntlada said:

Is that supposed to be Brianna? Although she was conceived in the 1700s, she was born in the 1900s. Most people count age from birth, so she was not 200 years old (in most reckonings with which I am familiar).

I think it was stated a child who is 200 years old at birth. So, yeah, I believe it's about Brianna.

[theschnauzers]

3 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I think it was stated a child who is 200 years old at birth. So, yeah, I believe it's about Brianna.

That’s a tricky one. It works if you count age at conception as the Chinese or some fundamentalist Christians do, otherwise you're meaning a 200 year old fetus at birth.

[Bort]

The prophecy referred specifically to a person who was born 200 years after they were conceived.

[AheadofStraight]

Does the prophecy ever come up again after the death of Geillis? I can't remember. I haven't read any of the later books more than once so they are a blur.

FYI - no spoiler tags necessary in this thread!

[DittyDotDot]

9 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

That’s a tricky one. It works if you count age at conception as the Chinese or some fundamentalist Christians do, otherwise you're meaning a 200 year old fetus at birth.

Right, but it's a prophecy which are usually ambiguous and somewhat nonsensical. I think the idea is it's supposed to be a child who is born 200 years out of their time--like Brianna.

56 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

Does the prophecy ever come up again after the death of Geillis? I can't remember. I haven't read any of the later books more than once so they are a blur.

FYI - no spoiler tags necessary in this thread!

Yes, it comes into play later. That's why I was curious about the change they made. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[morgan]

So speculating a bit here.  In the show they didn’t really make reference to the oaths the Highlander’s has to make about loyalty to the crown/not taking up arms against the English.  Am I wrong?  I don’t remember it.  It was such a point in the colonies, I wonder if it won’t come up?  Any thoughts?  Reading the unsullied they all seem to automatically assume the Highlanders will automatically be rebel’s.

Edited December 13, 2017 by morgan

[DittyDotDot]

3 hours ago, morgan said:

So speculating a bit here.  In the show they didn’t really make reference to the oaths the Highlander’s has to make about loyalty to the crown/not taking up arms against the English.  Am I wrong?  I don’t remember it.  It was such a point in the colonies, I wonder if it won’t come up?  Any thoughts?  Reading the unsullied they all seem to automatically assume the Highlanders will automatically be rebel’s.

Did it come up in the books before Drums of Autumn? I'm racking my brain trying to remember if there was a mention of it in Voyager. These books, I tell ya, so damn much stuff to keep track of!

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Did it come up in the books before Drums of Autumn? I'm racking my brain trying to remember if there was a mention of it in Voyager. These books, I tell ya, so damn much stuff to keep track of!

It didn't come up at all in Voyager but it did come up in later books.  I want to say it was mostly a theme in Fiery Cross, but it might have been touched on in Drums of Autumn. 

[morgan]

I couldn’t remember when/where it came up.  Must be time for another re-read!  Lol.  I was just thinking about it and wondering if it will be included.

[WatchrTina]

Well if we are talking about the requirements placed on Scots who made their new home in the American colonies, it's time for ime to weigh in with a bit of book speculation I've been tossing about for YEARS.  In book 4 -- when the Governor gives Jamie the land, with the understanding that he'll "tame" the wilderness by collecting a bunch of Scots as tenants to populate it -- there is this whole wink-wink-nudge-nudge thing going on about how they'll just not mention the fact that Jamie is a Catholic.  The book implies (and I presume this was based on history) that Catholics were systematically discriminated against in that colony, at that time and that they were prohibited from receiving a land grant of that kind.  I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever sense.  I've been waiting for someone to declare that they are shocked, SHOCKED to discover that Mr. James Fraser is a stinking papist and so of COURSE that land grant from the Governor is null and void.  

I have, however, already cooked up the foreshadowed solution to that speculative plot point. (If you don't want to read some speculation about Book 9 that actually could be right, stop reading now.)  Remember how Jamie had to sign over Lallybroch to his nephew in order to keep it in the family?  I think Jamie is going to forced to sign over his holdings at the Ridge to Roger.  Remember how there was some difficulty in getting a priest to officiate at Roger & Brianna's wedding at the Gathering?  They were very publicly married by a protestant minister in front of TONS of witnesses who are in no way related to the Frasers.  Later Roger even begins the process for ordination as a minister (but has to leave before the process is complete to rescue Brianna).  Again, there are tons of witnesses to this clear evidence of Roger's sincerely-held protestant faith.  So I speculate that -- perhaps in book 9 -- some arsehole with an attorney is going to try to get Jamie's ownership of The Ridge declared null and void and that Jamie will save it by gifting it to Roger & Biranna or (even better) to his recently back-from-the-future grandson Jem. (Wouldn't THAT be a nice parallel to the Lallybroch maneuver?) You heard it here first.

[toolazy]

How can Jamie legally give away land that is deemed not his to begin with? 

[WatchrTina]

I speculate that placing the land in the hands of the irreproachably protestant Roger will be enough of a work-around to allow the governor to hand-wave away whoever it is that is trying to make trouble for Jamie.  That's my speculation.  Diana would probably come up with a better work-around.  

Then again, that whole lets-just-ignore-the-fact-that-you-are-Catholic thing that we read in Book 4 may have been the end of it.  That may have been Diana's work-around for the fact that Jamie, as a Catholic, should not have been eligible for that land grant.  My speculation above (about future trouble on this point) may never come to pass.  But it has worried me for years.

Edited December 14, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

4 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I speculate that placing the land in the hands of the irreproachably protestant Roger will be enough of a work-around to allow the governor to hand-wave away whoever it is that is trying to make trouble for Jamie.  That's my speculation.  Diana would probably come up with a better work-around.  

Then again, that whole lets-just-ignore-the-fact-that-you-are-Catholic thing that we read in Book 4 may have been the end of it.  That may have been Diana's work-around for the fact that Jamie, as a Catholic, should not have been eligible for that land grant.  My speculation above (about future trouble on this point) may never come to pass.  But it has worried me for years.

I would worry about this if we knew that the English won that war but they didn't.  The Americans win it, presumably with a fair amount of help from Jamie, his family and his men.  If his Protestant tenants/homesteaders/whatever they are didn't try to take his land when he was gone for so long fighting and traveling to Scotland, I've got to think that it's pretty safe.  Especially with Roger back.  

[toolazy]

I'm not sure where this goes but I haven't seen anything about them casting Lizzie.  Are we not going to have Lizzie?  Or have I missed something?

[Ziggy]

On 3/6/2018 at 2:33 PM, toolazy said:

I'm not sure where this goes but I haven't seen anything about them casting Lizzie.  Are we not going to have Lizzie?  Or have I missed something?

I think they like to spread out the casting announcements.  So it's quite possible she simply hasn't been announced yet.  But now that I think about it, is Lizzie crucial to the plot?  She certainly is an interesting character (especially in when she gets married), but I think I could see them deciding that her story line could be dropped.  I hope not, but it has to be hard to condense those books!

[DittyDotDot]

40 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I think they like to spread out the casting announcements.  So it's quite possible she simply hasn't been announced yet.  But now that I think about it, is Lizzie crucial to the plot?  She certainly is an interesting character (especially in when she gets married), but I think I could see them deciding that her story line could be dropped.  I hope not, but it has to be hard to condense those books!

She's really only key to the stupidity of getting Jamie and Ian all worked up and thinking that Roger raped Brianna. But, I'd be pretty pleased if they reworked that whole sequence. Other than that, she's more just someone for Brianna to talk to on her trek across the ocean, more than anything.

[Glaze Crazy]

Lizzie is crucial to the whole Roger misunderstanding since it's her that sees him and then tells Ian and Jamie about what she suspected was rape. Unless they actually plan to drop that whole story line of Roger being sent to the Indians or bring it about in a different way. Other than that her story line is kind of minor but infinitely amusing and thought provoking, IMO.

 

Edit: Snap DIttyDotDot! Like minds and all.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Glaze Crazy

[Ziggy]

7 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

She's really only key to the stupidity of getting Jamie and Ian all worked up and thinking that Roger raped Brianna. But, I'd be pretty pleased if they reworked that whole sequence. Other than that, she's more just someone for Brianna to talk to on her trek across the ocean, more than anything.

 

6 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

Lizzie is crucial to the whole Roger misunderstanding since it's her that sees him and then tells Ian and Jamie about what she suspected was rape. Unless they actually plan to drop that whole story line of Roger being sent to the Indians or bring it about in a different way. Other than that her story line is kind of minor but infinitely amusing and thought provoking, IMO.

 

Edit: Snap DIttyDotDot! Like minds and all.

That's true ... I think they do need to include the mix up and Roger being sent to the Indians.  It wouldn't surprise me too much if they decide not to include Lizzie and just find another way to cause the mix-up.  But I do still think that they will announce more castings over the next few months..

[Cdh20]

On 2015-06-11 at 4:05 PM, stormy said:

Did Jenny ever know Claire had lost baby Faith?

I thought she must not have because she never mentions anything about the pregnancy which I kept waiting for since her baby's due any minute when Claire and Jamie return.

I just watched “ the Fox’s Lair “last night ( finally got my husband to watch the show), & when Jamie is talking to baby Kitty, Jenny says to Claire something about knowing what it’s like to talk to them before they are born so she clearly knows about them losing Faith. I do not remember if it’s talked about in the book. I realize I am a few yrs late with this answer! I wish I found this show, & this board years ago. Such an interesting thread! 

[abbey]

Per Diana Gabalson Lizzie is in the show.  I read this on one of the Outlander Groups in Facebook.  I don't remember which one, sorry, but DG  apparently mentioned it in the literary forum she frequents and someone brought her quote over to facebook. 

[lianau]

I hope that's true. I love Lizzie's development from shy girl to bigamist .

[toolazy]

9 hours ago, lianau said:

I hope that's true. I love Lizzie's development from shy girl to bigamist .

That is one of my favorite things about the later books.  

[AheadofStraight]

On 4/19/2018 at 4:13 PM, lianau said:

I hope that's true. I love Lizzie's development from shy girl to bigamist .

I'm in the forum and can confirm that Diana said she is in the show. That's all she said as she can't give any further details.

[toolazy]

On 4/23/2018 at 9:26 AM, AheadofStraight said:

I'm in the forum and can confirm that Diana said she is in the show. That's all she said as she can't give any further details.

Well, they just now cast her father but the thing I saw said that he was to be in one episode of the season.  Since they haven't announced Lizzie's casting yet, and Sophie S has been filming scenes set in the colonies, I guess they will be introduced in a way different from the books. 

[Ziggy]

On 4/24/2018 at 7:23 PM, toolazy said:

Well, they just now cast her father but the thing I saw said that he was to be in one episode of the season.  Since they haven't announced Lizzie's casting yet, and Sophie S has been filming scenes set in the colonies, I guess they will be introduced in a way different from the books. 

Or they just haven't announced her yet.  The announcements don't always happen before the actor films scenes.

[toolazy]

10 hours ago, Ziggy said:

Or they just haven't announced her yet.  The announcements don't always happen before the actor films scenes.

Why announce Lizzie's father and not Lizzie? Especially since he'll only be in one episode (according to the thing I read.)

[Ziggy]

12 hours ago, toolazy said:

Why announce Lizzie's father and not Lizzie? Especially since he'll only be in one episode (according to the thing I read.)

I can't seem to find a rhyme or reason behind which actors/actresses are announced and when.  They don't announce every role, and they don't seem to do it in any particular order. 

I could be completely off base.  I just don't know that we can assume anything based on casting announcements.

[DittyDotDot]

On 4/27/2018 at 12:43 AM, toolazy said:

Why announce Lizzie's father and not Lizzie? Especially since he'll only be in one episode (according to the thing I read.)

It probably comes down to the actors' management. Sometimes it's them who announce a role for their client, not the show itself. Maybe whoever they cast for Lizzie is young and doesn't have anyone marketing her the same way?

[ruby24]

I've been thinking about how they will adapt Book 5, and to me that's the hardest one to remember everything what happens in it. I think it's because of the absence of a strong villain (Bonnet shows up near the end, but he's not really an active presence throughout), and there's a lot of storylines that kinda start and then fizzle out, like the War of Regulation or whatever it is Jamie's doing, that whole thing about the baby Claire almost adopts but then doesn't, and I think mostly I forget stuff because there's just so much everyday dealing with the people on the Ridge (who aren't that memorable, really).

Probably the starkest thing I remember is Roger almost getting hanged because of how brutal it was. I bet that season will end up feeling the least focused onscreen too- there's just no driving through line in this one.

[FnkyChkn34]

On 9/10/2018 at 2:37 PM, ruby24 said:

I've been thinking about how they will adapt Book 5, and to me that's the hardest one to remember everything what happens in it. I think it's because of the absence of a strong villain (Bonnet shows up near the end, but he's not really an active presence throughout), and there's a lot of storylines that kinda start and then fizzle out, like the War of Regulation or whatever it is Jamie's doing, that whole thing about the baby Claire almost adopts but then doesn't, and I think mostly I forget stuff because there's just so much everyday dealing with the people on the Ridge (who aren't that memorable, really).

Probably the starkest thing I remember is Roger almost getting hanged because of how brutal it was. I bet that season will end up feeling the least focused onscreen too- there's just no driving through line in this one.

I can't even get through the book.  This is where I stopped reading... nothing happens and I lost interest.  "The longest day ever" was such a struggle, I just couldn't keep going.

[lianau]

On 9/14/2018 at 1:37 AM, FnkyChkn34 said:

I can't even get through the book.  This is where I stopped reading... nothing happens and I lost interest.  "The longest day ever" was such a struggle, I just couldn't keep going.

I think that day would be easy to film . You pick out the more important scenes , write and act them properly and then you have a montage of people going along their gathering business.

[ruby24]

The Gathering could definitely be done in one episode, imo. There's no need to include even half of that stuff.

[FnkyChkn34]

On 9/17/2018 at 7:32 PM, lianau said:

I think that day would be easy to film . You pick out the more important scenes , write and act them properly and then you have a montage of people going along their gathering business.

 

On 9/19/2018 at 7:03 PM, ruby24 said:

The Gathering could definitely be done in one episode, imo. There's no need to include even half of that stuff.

Oh, I agree that it would be easy to film.  And IMO, it shouldn't even be an entire episode.  But when reading it in the book?  Such a struggle.  Ugh.

[Heathrowe]

Someone asked why announce this actor/character and not another upthread-I will tell you why, because different actors have different agents and some agents are much more insistent on their client being part of the press process, being announced, being announced now instead of later. Sometimes it's a PR strategy and sometimes it's just an agent being a pain in the butt.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Heathrowe