A few thoughts about the differences between the OUTLANDER books and TV show
I posted the following message on Compuserve this morning, about the differences between the OUTLANDER books and the TV show. I thought the rest of you might like to see it, too.
What do you think?
I think as time goes on, it's getting easier for me to separate the books and the show. Think of a map showing two roads that run in more or less the same general direction from Point A to Point B. The two roads intersect in places, they go off in separate directions from time to time, but when viewed from a distance, they're traveling roughly the same route. I think this is a reasonably good analogy for the differences between the books and the show. Some of the details may be different, but the overall direction the story is heading is mostly the same.
Season 2 has taken some detours off the main "highway" of the story (more so than Season 1 did), but I think at this point they've mostly found their way back. The Claire we see in Episode 207 is essentially indistinguishable (IMHO) from Book Claire. The Jamie we see in Episode 209, acting as the leader of men he was born to be, is very close to my image of Book Jamie.
Whizzing along the highway of the TV show at high speed, we don't see many of the details that bring the story so vividly to life in the books. (The humor, the lyrical descriptions, the quiet moments with Jamie and Claire just talking, enjoying one another's company. The list goes on and on....) But I believe it is -- still -- essentially the SAME story. <g> Condensed, compressed, occasionally going off on detours that we didn't expect, but it's still recognizably the same story, and the same characters, when viewed from a distance.
Much as we'd all love for the TV show to take us on a long, leisurely drive down that other road, the one that meanders through the Scottish countryside (and the streets of Paris, and the French court at Versailles), moving slowly enough to savor the sights, sounds, and smells of the land we're passing through (and including all of our favorite scenes from the books, either verbatim or as close to the original as possible), the realities of TV production won't permit it.
I can't speak for anyone else here, of course. But for myself, when I "put the books down" (as Diana has said more than once) and try to take the show on its own terms -- and that doesn't AT ALL mean agreeing with every decision they make! -- I find it's much easier to come to terms with the differences.
IMHO they're not irreparably damaging Diana's story or characters with the creative decisions they've made so far, and I don't think they will in future seasons, either. The journey is a bit different, but the overall path they're following is at least heading in the same direction as the books, and I find that reassuring.
What do you think?
Your analogy reflects what the majority of fans feel at this point. But there is a growing minority of book fans who find the divergences you describe too great and have lost interest in the show. I am one of them.
I can accept all the off ramps the writers made, including all the Leery scenes, but one thing I can’t abide, and which your analogy does not address, is the intentional undermining of Jamie’s character, the relentless emphasis on a kick-ass Claire, and the lack of focus on the love between Jamie and Claire.
This growing minority feels betrayed by Ron Moore. He sought the trust of book fans at the start by giving us two episodes that aptly characterized Jamie and Claire and their relationship. We spread the word and praised the adaptation. But once Ron had that trust, he started diminishing Jamie’s character and turned Claire into a shrew.
Ron promised his wife, Terry Dresbach, he would not “screw up her favorite book,” but what I have come to realize is that Terry read this book far differently than most fans of the Outlander series. She saw it as the tale of a tough female adventurer rather than a love story for the ages. As a result, Moore made his wife happy and just followed the current trend to showcase the heroic female who outshines all the men. For this reason we got “Claire’s story” (Ron’s actual description of the show) rather than the story of a couple whose love manages to transcend time, place, and culture.
The love between Jamie and Claire is possible to tell within the constraints of television and in the diverging and reuniting paths you describe, but it would take more talented writers and a more creative show runner than Ron Moore to make that happen and to justice to Diana’s books.
In many ways the additions and changes that Ron Moore has made have improved on the books. As an example, I never liked that Jamie stripped Claire to the waist without her consent to make William Grey believe he was going to ravage her. I like that in the TV version it is Claire's idea and Jamie remains the gentleman he is and a loving husband sensitive to his wife's dignity at this point. He thanks her for her selflessness and points out that she has saved many lives. I also think adding the flashbacks to WWII helped me to understand TV Claire much better than I did Book Claire. 6 years in the military did more than teach her how to be a good nurse and strong under horrible conditions; it also left its wounds that never really healed. This was never dealt with in the books. The fact that the episode aired during PTSD Awareness week was intentional and shows that RDM is more than a show runner, he is dealing with issues uncomfortable for viewers, which may anger them, but it has been a catalyst for meaningful discussion and healing for some victims of these traumas.
In more than one interview with Sam, he shared that he did not want Jamie to be as perfect as he was portrayed in the books. He wanted to build the maturing of this young man who is 22 with no real responsibilities other than to survive day to day and have him grow into a man by making mistakes and learning from them. We see him at Lallybroch trying be his father and making an ass of himself, but in the end, he realizes that Jenny was right and he is man enough to apologize and grow. We see him fractured because of BJR's torture and rape and I appreciated that we also got to see the impact and his difficult road to recovery. (He is never truly recovered). I think this evolution of TV Jamie is more realistic and not the fantasized version we get in the books. I love both versions or Jamie and Claire and do not find them mutually exclusive. I just see more aspects of each, so it has actually enhanced my understanding of these characters and made them more realistic.
I have taken the scenic route as I am now on my 4th read of the series (currently on The Fiery Cross reliving Jocasta's wedding) and although the TV series has taken the expressway, there is new scenery never seen on the scenic route that gives me an even greater appreciation of the journey and the experiences it provides. I think of the TV series as ADDING to the Outlander World and not SUBTRACTING anything because the scenic route offered by the books is still there.
I don't fully understand any of the negativity... If the author is happy and has a clearly good rapport with the producers, etc...and she clearly is... Who are the rest of us to judge? How is Ron supposed to interpret everything that goes on inside every fan's head? I KNOW these books extremely well... I've had 25 years of reading, re-reading and listening. Both he and Claire are imperfect people...growing into the characters they become in the later books. it's why we love them so much and forgive them. I had no problem "putting down the book" as DG requested...and just sitting back and enjoying the ride.
I wish everyone could see this the way I do; but I understand there is a vocal minority that doesn't. I guess my question is...why do you continue to watch if you find this adaptation so painful? Just go back to the books or listen to the audiotapes. Why waste your time complaining? Life is short; but for many of us...we get great pleasure from all things Outlander and hope it continues with this production team for many more years. I also believe that some of you might see things differently when you rewatch episodes or binge...I think these impossible books are a journey and it's more difficult to see the "whole" when you are just watching a single episode at a time.
It wouldn't surprise me if BJR survives Culloden and I have no doubt that Frank will take over series 3.
One biggie is the inclusion of Murtagh in Claire's back story and I think that was a great decision to make.
I have owned the first 3 books for about a year now, and been thinking about reading them. This last week I ended up binging the first 2 seasons in a matter of days, I just couldn't stop.
I love Mr. Moore as a creator, as he created one of my favorite shows BSG, which is why I decided to give the show a try.
I ended up loving it so much I wanted to pull out the books, but I didn't want to read something if it was exactly as the books.
But based on all of your opinions I decided the books were a must read. And I thank you all for that.
As I have read and seen the true blood series and it is much the same as the books for major plot a lot of the minor plots are different.
I think mostly why I am thanking all of you is for using a series that I knew well to describe the differences in outlander as well.
So yet again I just want to thank all of you for making me thrilled to read the books instead of just watching the show and hoping I wasn't missing antrhing.