What's It All About, Outlander?



“Don’t be afraid, “ he whispered into my hair. “There’s the two of us now.”  I felt warm, soothed, and safe for the first time in many days.  It was only as I drifted into sleep under the first rays of daylight that I remembered the knife above my head, and wondered again, what threat would make a man sleep armed and watchful in his bridal chamber? - Outlander, Chapter 15 (Revelations of the Bridal Chamber), Diana Gabaldon

Many people have tried and failed to define exactly what Outlander is with even a modicum of accuracy....
If you’re trying to get the man in your life to watch it, you might tell him it’s an historical adventure about the Jacobite Uprising with lots of sex.

If you’re selling it to your girlfriends, you might tell them it’s a romance.  You’ll describe Claire’s fiery brand of old-school feminism and then wax poetic about Jamie for a bit before adding, “ . . . and there’s lots of sex.”
If you’re trying to convert a Game of Thrones fan, you’d probably tell them it’s a sci-fi time travel epic set in Scotland with plenty of gore.  Oh, and there’s lots of sex.

While each of these descriptors might be true to some extent, none of them could carry readers and, hopefully, viewers, through book after book, season after season.

So, which is it?

It’s an historical epic.  It’s also a romance and has sci-fi elements involving time travel.

So, what’s it all about?

Aha!

Here we’ve hit upon the real question.  What is this unwieldy hobgoblin of a story actually saying?

Let’s step back for a moment and take what we learn about Claire and her history and put it into some chronological perspective. 


We first encounter Claire at, possibly, her most rootless.  She is a woman accustomed to chaos.  Her nomadic upbringing with her Uncle Lamb taught her adaptability and change, but it’s clear there was a strong bond there.  The world around them might be constantly changing, but there were always the two of them, together.

She meets and marries Frank before the war.  Because the show veers away from the book’s account, here, let’s stick with the show.  While it marks a major deviation, it also drives home a more obvious point.

When Frank proposes to Claire outside the Registrar’s Office, it’s a sweet, romantic, and entirely obtuse move on his part.  It’s apparent, here, that Claire, though a strong force in her own right, is already being overshadowed and repressed by Frank.  We see this clearly in the questions she asks and the manner in which she asks them.




“What about your parents?  They’ll be waiting for us at the restaurant!”
“They’ve never even met me!”
“Are you sure you wouldn't rather a big church wedding?”
“Your family would prefer it?”

Claire knows the answers to these questions already.  If she didn’t prior to the proposal, she surely does now.  If he had any desire for that familial connection, he wouldn’t be suggesting a quickie marriage by a Justice of the Peace.  Claire is much more insightful of other people’s motives than she is of her own, so we can trust her to realize Frank’s.

She asks these questions in a way many women do when they are afraid to voice their own opinions; she projects her concerns onto others.  Keeping that in mind, we can re-interpret her questions as statements of objection.

“We are being rude to your parents, who’ve never even met me. I need to know I’ve been accepted first!”

“I’ve always dreamed of a wedding in a church surrounded by family. I would prefer it!”

Frank either doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care, because he brushes this off by stating that she is the only family that matters, she and their future children. If that’s not enough, he “reassures” her by saying they’ll never have to meet “Claire Beauchamp”, they’ll have the pleasure of meeting “Mrs. Frank Randall”, and there you have it. Her whole identity gone in a moment.  It’s the earliest stages of sequestering.

Frank takes his familial ties for granted and can’t comprehend Claire’s ardent desire for an extended family, having grown up with her nose pressed against the glass like a Dickensian street urchin on Christmas Eve.

We’re never given a picture of their early married life, except to say that their time together before the war is brief.

Through Claire’s observations, we see that she may have felt at home at the front.  Certainly, she seems most vital when she’s up to her elbows in viscera as opposed to, say, pressing flowers between the pages of her botany book.




After the war, reunited with Frank, their differences have reached exponential proportions.  It’s important to note, here, that they have not become different people, rather, they have each grown more fully into themselves, and these people are diametrically opposed to each other.  Claire is a woman of action, Frank, a man of study.  She is passionate, while he is resolutely dispassionate.

By the time we reach the central opening image of the vase in the shop window, the through-line of the piece is clear; Outlander is the story of homecoming.  Claire was an outlander in her marriage to Frank, an outlander from his family, who should have been her own, and an outlander from her own time.  Interestingly, her own time is the 18th century, not the 20th.  She feels adrift until she finds a semblance of stability at Leoch and finally finds a home in Jamie.

The fact that they spend most of their time on the run makes no matter.  The story is about the homes we find in each other.  As Jamie so succinctly puts it, “There’s the two of us now.”  In a way, Jamie is an idealized version of her uncle and, if it’s true that we marry our fathers, surely Claire has married Uncle Lamb.

When the dust is settled and the choice has been made, Jamie does what Frank never did, he brings her home and surrounds her with family.  While the respite is brief and the family is left behind far too soon, this is the heart of Outlander. ‘The Wedding’, ‘The Devil’s Mark’, ‘Lallybroch’, and yes, even ‘The Watch’, these episodes tell the most important story.  Without this, without knowing and appreciating Claire’s homecoming, nothing else in this story matters.

So what is Outlander NOT about?

It’s not about Jack Randall, or time travel, or the Jacobite Uprising or even falling in love.

It’s about a woman coming home and finding her match and, by the time she finally gets her vase, she has a home to put it in.


This is why Outlander has always resonated with me.  Like Claire, I have a strong desire for family and deep roots.  I grew up rarely seeing my aunts and uncles, cousins and grandparents.  Today, home is my family. It is my husband’s arms and the cherubic face of our little boy. Equally important, home is my husband's family gatherings. Christmas and Easter celebrations which have outgrown a single home and are now held at our church fellowship hall. It is Christmas mornings at my in-laws, wearing matching Santa hats, marching downstairs ringing jingle bells before making a dash for the tree. It is everything I longed for as a little girl, gifted tenfold to my son.  If I lost everything else, I would still have a home here.

So how do you describe Outlander to your friends? What does it mean to you? Where is your “home”?


32 comments

  1. My hubby watches Outlander with me - we both love the story line, and he enjoys watching "Claire" as much as I enjoy Jamie! And then there's the "lots of sex thing" ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha!! That's great, Nancy! Who wouldn't enjoy watching Claire? She is one of the great heroines!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I loved the ode to the vase that Claire mentions in Ep 1 coming back in Episode 12, which is after Claire made her decisions to say with JAMMF! I love the real way the show portrays the relationship of Jamie and Claire. They are by far the steamiest couple on TV and definitely in fiction! It is super important that Sam and Cait had the chemistry that Jamie and Claire had in the book. They must have amazing chemistry and they do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love it, too! When she was handed that vase, I got teary-eyed. Yes, I love the chemistry between Sam and Cait! It plays perfectly onscreen. What's interesting as an actor is that comes from being pretty much strangers. You get to see them "discover" each other. It's why, strangely, real-life couples tend to fizzle-out onscreen. The mystery is gone.

      Delete
  4. I LOVE this! I've never heard it spun this way and think you've hit it on the money. Nice job, Kendra!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What I love most about Outlander is the fact that Claire is a strong & intelligent woman. I think that while Jamie is not used to women with those traits he loves her BECAUSE of them, and that is why Claire chose Jamie as her HOME. She realized that after years apart in the war, she and Frank no longer wanted the same kind of HOME. She saw, felt and experienced that kind of HOME with Jamie. When he married her, when he rescued her from BJR, and from the witch trial, when he took her to Lallybroch, and most of all when she rescued him from BJR physically and emotionally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is so true! So many times, no matter how "in love" two people are, they can't survive the fact that they want two different kinds of home. You can have your differences, but ultimately, you've got to be on the same path together, otherwise, you lose sight of each other and neither of you ends up in the same place. These kinds of things are deal-breakers, unfortunately. Like one spouse being dead-set against children and the other wanting kids.

      Delete
  6. Kendra, you said perfectly what I have always thought about Claire's marriage with Frank. IF the marriage had lasted, she would never have been able to be herself, she wouldn't fit into his world, she would've been restless and despondent without challenging, useful work, he would've been frustrated with her, and the lack of a child would've taken its toll on the marriage as a whole. Frank was not her soul mate or life partner. I think Jamie and Claire are both adrenalin junkies to a certain extent. Challenges make them feel alive. But they do both have a longing for family and belonging and urge to nest and build something to leave behind. The nesting gets stronger with age but they always have a home wherever they are together. They are both so resilient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! They are definitely adrenaline junkies. Throwing back to a comment I made on the podcast in regards to 'The Devil's Mark' (My favorite episode), if Claire is a deep roller, than Frank is most assuredly a shallow roller. Perhaps the roller pigeon analogy needs to be it's own blog.

      Delete
  7. Kendra, you said perfectly what I have always thought about Claire's marriage with Frank. IF the marriage had lasted, she would never have been able to be herself, she wouldn't fit into his world, she would've been restless and despondent without challenging, useful work, he would've been frustrated with her, and the lack of a child would've taken its toll on the marriage as a whole. Frank was not her soul mate or life partner. I think Jamie and Claire are both adrenalin junkies to a certain extent. Challenges make them feel alive. But they do both have a longing for family and belonging and urge to nest and build something to leave behind. The nesting gets stronger with age but they always have a home wherever they are together. They are both so resilient.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you hit the nail on the head. Outlander is finding that home, not just in the place, but in each other. Claire and Jamie's relationship feeds off each other. She isn't great with words, but he says the perfect thing almost everytime. Claire is just fearless, unafraid of what is to be, but mostly because Jamie is there. I love how Diana uses the Dragonfly in Amber to symbolize the paradox of their relationship. Timeless yet out of place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree!! I've always loved the symbolism of the Dragonfly in Amber. Trapped out of time, but preserved forever.

      Delete
  9. I think you hit the nail on the head. Outlander is finding that home, not just in the place, but in each other. Claire and Jamie's relationship feeds off each other. She isn't great with words, but he says the perfect thing almost everytime. Claire is just fearless, unafraid of what is to be, but mostly because Jamie is there. I love how Diana uses the Dragonfly in Amber to symbolize the paradox of their relationship. Timeless yet out of place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think you hit the nail on the head. Outlander is finding that home, not just in the place, but in each other. Claire and Jamie's relationship feeds off each other. She isn't great with words, but he says the perfect thing almost everytime. Claire is just fearless, unafraid of what is to be, but mostly because Jamie is there. I love how Diana uses the Dragonfly in Amber to symbolize the paradox of their relationship. Timeless yet out of place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kendra--really deep, well thought out piece!! Loved how you delved into the inner workings of Claire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Sara! I really appreciate your taking time to read and comment! :)

      Delete
  12. While you said your views were going to be taken from the show, instead of the book, I find once you've read the book, your view of the show cannot help but be influenced by it I would never have come to the in depth analysis you gave, by the show alone. The character of show Frank (IMO)was a sophisticated, self assured, educated man, with Scottish history his passion. Yet, he knew nothing about the blood on the doors, or even if it was blood (and this from a man involved in secret war plans). His further ignorance was shown talking to the inn keeper, as she was the one explaining what the blood meant. The only thing show Frank knew about Highlanders, was they were superstitious.... You said show Frank wanted to take away Claire's identity with the marriage proposal, but then he turns right around at train station,and tells her that her stubbornness is why he loves her so much. He even remembered the life lines on the palm of her hands. Add the fact he was a master at sex, ( taking Claire downtown to ecstasy in the castle ruins) and you have one more desirable man. Show Frank was a skilled street fighter, able to take down multiple thugs. Why would Claire, who dearly loves this man, decide to choose Jamie. Only by reading the book would anyone know how opposite book Frank is. Book Frank is the one who belittles Claire. He is embarrassed by her outspokenness and colorful language. He is also extremely knowledgeable of Scottish history. In fact he is obsessed by it. Show Frank couldn't decide what his personality was (perhaps the writers should check and see if they are contradicting themselves. This is but one book character changed completely.
    Claire is the next character that readers could not help but be influenced by the books. A loving and adoring wife is what we see in the show. Once with Jamie, the woman rarely smiles and is angry all the time. Book Claire was attracted to Jamie immediately. His way of calming horses down, had Claire soaking up his talent that she would " I'd let him ride me anywhere". Yes, we see Jamie's attraction immediately, but we needed to hear Claire's s admission of the same feeling, and then really see it. Book readers can project they are seeing something that's really not there, simply by watching and combining the two in their minds.
    Finally lets consider show Jamie. Unless you read the books, how could you come away with the show version, that this is a mature young man beyond his 23 years. A young man already looked up to by his elders. Highly intelligent, and knows how to run his home and all the tenants admire him. Just using the show version, we see an immature man, needing a scolding by Claire, He is self centered by demanding his room. And fails miserably dealing with his clan and tenants. There are no happy family relationships, only strife and anger. When do we see that close relationship with his sister ? Only if you've read the book first. The greatest difference in show and book Jamie came at the last. Book Jamie would never attempt suicide. But when one line of Jamie's is given to Claire, then only readers would know this is not Jamie. "Randall took my body, but he'll no have my soul". Book readers who love the show, are using that knowledge to delude themselves they are seeing this wonderful,as close to the book series And as long as they are happy because Herself says so, then why should Ron Moore change his direction of making Frank the hero and Sam as a brat to his sister and servants (throwing his food) a puppy dog trailing behind Claire, and a weak willed man ready to end his life. Ron wanted Jamie less than a perfect "king of men" and more like the average guy. While Jamie said "I'd like to think I'm not like other men" Ron truly reached his goal....Jamie is just ordinary, while Frank is far above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your feedback and it's very well thought-out! You make some fantastic points and I agree with you very much about the back half of the season. Perhaps I wasn't being clear in my approach to Outlander's themes. I'm not focusing just on the show, but also on the book. I decided to focus on the single scene from the show (Frank's proposal) and interpret that scene based on all the information we have to draw from (including the text . . . given the bounty of information we have).

      Now, in regards to RDM's interpretation, yes, at points he is WAY off the mark and Diana many times directly contradicts her own writing in her defense of RDM's meanderings from the source material.

      In defense of Frank's not knowing about the blood . . . even extraordinarily educated people have gaps in their knowledge, however, let's also examine his interaction with Mrs. Baird. When she begins to explain the rituals, he immediately chimes in, acknowledging that he is aware of the history and the rituals. He is STILL an Oxford professor (or about to be) and he asks about it to engage Claire and get Mrs. Baird to tell her the story. It's a thoughtful gesture to put himself on the same level as Claire, rather than talking down to her.

      In regards to Lallybroch and RDM's re-casting of Jamie in a more humanistic light, I both agree and disagree with you. When I first watched the episode, I hated it. I thought they got Jamie's character utterly wrong from the book. The more I watched it and the more I realized where Ron was coming from (a post-modern Jamie, rather than a historical one), the more I understood the choices he made. In a post-modern world, a 23 year old man is still very much a boy. In a historical context, especially given Jamie's personal history, he is already a man. I think Ron was inserting the "Father usurped by the Son" theme so ubiquitous in literature and needed the audience to see the struggle. He wanted us to see Jamie fail so that we could see him grow. In the text, we get the growth through pages and pages and pages of backstory involving Brian's love and discipline of Jamie. Not having the luxury of an hour-long series of flashbacks, he gives us "Jamie the man-child, coming into his own".

      Lallybroch wasn't as warm as it needed to be and while Jenny was understandably catty in the book, on screen, particularly in that episode, she was positively beastly.

      That said, I'm not defending the series. It is what it is. But I do believe we can look at both of them and find thematic parallels. I always approach film and television with a critical eye so I'm not easily duped by prior knowledge of the source material, in fact, I would be far less critical had I no prior knowledge. That said, I also have some major issues with the book that RDM was able to correct in my opinion.

      I'll just end on this . . . Jamie is not a perfect "King of Men" either on the page or the screen. That's something fans have fabricated in their own minds. Surely, he is a GOOD man, but he does some deplorable things throughout the series, including beating his wife after she had been a victim of sexual violence not once but twice in one day.

      Delete
    2. As an avid series re-re-re-reader and now obsessive re-watcher, I have found a maturation process in the TV series that was not apparent in the books. This is most visible between Lallybroch and The Watch. In Lallybroch, we almost see a young man trying on his father's shoes (coat and sword), but in The Watch find him wearing the mantle of Laird more comfortably. I found that even Sam's body language spoke of a greater maturity in The Watch....

      In the book, Sam's experiences had already matured him; by the time he met Claire he was already her equal in life experience, more so than equal-aged men of her time. This type of maturation is supremely difficult to portray visually, which may be why Ron et al chose to show his growth via Lallybroch and The Watch.

      Hmmmmm..... perhaps I should write a blog article..... grin.

      Delete
    3. Trying to figure out how to change my profile identity, lol.

      Ingrid (as opposed to Unknown)

      Delete
  13. I think I need to re-read your first thoughts on the show. I took it as trying to see it without the influence of the book. I don't think its possible, as least not for me. I hear what you are telling me about Ron trying to show non-readers an immature Jamie, so they can see him develop into a man. But why? Readers understood how different Jamie was, not only in his time ,but ours as well. And we were able to see this without having to read an added version of a bratty Jamie. The bottom line, Ron did not want Jamie to be like a superman and unrealistic, He wanted a man who the younger male viewers could relate to. If you think about it, Ron isn't giving those male viewers a compliment, but rather a marked put down. He should have left Jamie intact ,in order for men to admire and strive to be more like him. I understand fans have given him the 'King of Men' image and dismissed his human errors. But even with his flaws, he is still unlike most men. Accepting ones faults and trying to correct them are not actions most humans possess. Jamie does. He admits freely his mistakes, both big and small, takes the blame, and sets out to correct them. This is a character that should not have been changed, in order for non-readers to understand and relate to. The story does have historically correct events, peoples lifestyles, dress etc., but it is still a sci-fi. Would viewers want Superman less in order to relate. Would they like him more if he went and picked up a prostitute to show his faults ? So we could say " Hey ,he's just like us" Ron's reasoning does not add up. What does add up, is someone who acts jealous of a fictional character Why else would he choose to make Frank more appealing than Jamie? Someone with a lot of time on their hands,(but I'm glad they did) timed the amount Sam was seen in the first half of the season......1.5 out of 8 hours. Something is seriously off with this picture. A recent dinner and Q?A revealed even more of Ron veering way, way, off. We know there will be more Frank and they will have Claire back in the 1940's, just from clips already seen (so no spoilers here) But a statement made, leaves little doubt that big changes are coming, There is a scene taking place in 1968 and in a hospital. We are told viewers will be brought to tears by what takes place between Frank and Claire. Whether this is in the 40's or 60's is not told. Regardless, Frank has been elevated to hero status, while Jamie has been severely demoted. Sad and upset and not expecting a S3 ( ratings went down and Power took over as Starz's biggest hit) Will I still watch S2 ? Yes, just to see Sam trying his best to give us the real Jamie, in spite of poor dialogue going against his character, and less screen time than the (supposedly) supporting actor.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow really popular post. I love your thoughts kendra. I call outlander a romance and action TV programme. It's a complex story with a variety of themes running through it. I love the relationship between Claire and Jamie. My home is very like yours at home with my loving family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Caroline! Yes, it's an incredibly complex story, which is why it continues to fascinate for decades on end. :)

      Delete
  15. This is incredibly interesting conversation and I am happy to be able to contribute a few thoughts to it. I could go on and on at great length about various scenes in the books and in the production. What I want to say simply though is that this story - the books, these two people and their connection - while all rare and while a made up story from an incredibly talented writer's imagination, what the books and series did for me was remind me of that rarity. Sounds a bit corny and I have shared this elsewhere with some trepidation, but they and their love and bond to each other is very much my personal experience. I had forgotten that for quite some time and discovered this or rather re-discovered this when I discovered Outlander. I have tried to share this feeling with my closest friends and family, to encourage them to read and watch and share the joy. They pretty much look at me like I'm nuts. But there it is. My husband - my very own red-headed "islander" (British) is much like the character Jamie - sword fighting, torture, etc. aside. So when I try to share that with others, I think it's lost on them. But not for me - and my husband. It's a love story, it's a story about human resilience, and human frailty, about time travel, loyalty, simplicity, compassion, and so very much more. Some people I know share some of my love for the stories, others just don't get it. And I guess that's ok. I take from it what it gives me. Sheer and utter joy, a safe place to be when my real world isn't, an anchor and a true belief in the beauty of a lasting love with all of its ups and downs. I love it. And I love your writing Kendra. Thanks for this. You're wonderful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so very much, Lisa! How wonderful that you have your own personal Jamie! It IS rare and should be celebrated! Thank you so much for reading and taking the time to share with us! 😊

      Delete
  16. There is a lot of complaining in the Outlander fandom about Ron Moore idealizing show-Frank as compared to book-Frank, as well as giving him a lot of screen time. I personally am really annoyed by it, I feel like I am being a bit short changed on Jamie screen time, and that less time was spent on Jamie-Claire romance than should have been. Although I don't agree with Ron Moore's reasoning, I think I understand it. I believe he was simply trying to ramp up the love-triangle drama. I.e. by making Frank more sexy and appealing than book Frank, and by making show-Jamie less intelligent and less mature than book-Jamie, he creates a more "equal" competition between the two men; a more difficult dilemma for Claire to choose between the men. So while in the book Jamie is clearly a far superior human being, Ron Moore deliberately makes it less clear in the show (also, he probably thinks tobias is a great actor and doesn't want to under-utilise him. While I agree Tobias is a great actor, I think Ron Moore is over using him as Frank, and it is unfortunately distorting the core story of the book)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ps- although I'm annoyed by Ron Moore's "improving" Frank and distorting the book, I am nonetheless incredibly grateful to Ron Moore for this show. It is an absolute masterpiece in my opinion, beautifully realized with incredibly high production values. But most importantly, the world's greatest ever casting in Sam & Caitriona. They're two of the most beautiful, charismatic, sexy people on the planet, and we as an audience are incredibly lucky and privileged to have them. By sheer good luck they are also tremendously good actors (can people that beautiful really be that talented!?) and they have unbelievably strong chemistry on screen- they look as though they really do want to rip each others clothes off. So my gripes are very minor compared to how wonderful the show is overall. It could have been soooo much worse !!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. You're absolutely right! Something, in Claire, has been immediately like a blow to the head, first than to the heart. That vase is her symbol: something to put in the right place and something to fill. Because the vase is empty. Claire fall in love with the Jamie's love, learn to love by a man, Jamie. But Claire, learn him to live. I don't know the end, for now. And I don't care. Go on. TY

    ReplyDelete
  19. Great piece! I agree with some of your points and some of the comments. I think the book Frank was a harder man to live with, but I am curious to see how they will deal with Claire and the issues her and Frank have when she returns. I do believe you are right about her wanting the whole kit and kaboodle with a family, and about her identity being gone in one fell swoop. I have felt the same way about family and wanting to belong. I have been lucky enough to have my own "Jamie" for 35 years, and he is my home. I think the similarities between my husband and him are what so attracted me to the books in the first place. Thanks for this insightful offering.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Excellent post, Kendra! I hadn't thought about Claire needing a sense of home so much as she was at loose ends after the war, craving stability yet fearing it at the same time. As horrific as the war was, a part of her had become incredibly alive with the knowledge that she had ability and was needed. Was life with a scholar going to give her that sense of self?

    I don't think Ron Moore shortchanged Frank at all by having him ask Mrs. Baird about the blood (I'm a show watcher only, BTW). Simply having Frank spout knowledge at Claire would have been off-putting. It was far more interesting to see him enthusiastically engage with Mrs. Baird, and Claire's admiring him doing so showed us so much about their relationship. A TV show needs to keep moving; while it is wonderful to savor pages of dialog and exposition in a book, that doesn't work for TV. Mrs. Baird also showed us that Druids, etc. weren't just the stuff of legends and gave viewers a hint of the 'magic' that was to come.

    I also didn't see Jamie as horribly immature at the beginning, either. He is almost immediately very protective of Claire, while still suspicious about her story, and offers his strength to her in a way that does nothing to diminish her or her own strength. He sees her, who and what she is, in a way Frank doesn't, right from the get-go. That is a mature man right there. Ron Moore also beefed up the characters of Murtagh, Rupert, Angus, and Willy (from what I understand of the books) so that we could see Jamie through their eyes. They see a man worth following, a leader. Jamie's mistakes when he first assumes the role of laird at Lallybroch are ones many have made. It takes him some time, and some insight from Claire, to realize that he was looking at being laird as he did when a boy, impressed by his father's sword. He was also scared he wouldn't live up to the standard his father had set, and so assumed the trappings of room, coat, and sword. He learned quickly enough, and I thought it very understandable.

    I've listened to RDM's podcasts for both Outlander and Battlestar Galactica, and know that he has enormous respect for his characters and in this case, the source material. Time, budget, and the attention span of TV viewers all affect how he chooses to tell the story. I know many readers were upset that he left out Claire's fight with the wolves and the water horse, but those would have been nearly impossible to do realistically on television, and I for one think the wolf fight would have crossed a line into the ridiculous. It may have sounded great in the book but would be silly on TV. Even if I had read the books, I would expect the TV series to be different. At some point I will read the books, but for now I'm eagerly anticipating continuing this marvelous journey in season 2.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If you need your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (no matter why you broke up) you got to watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Text Your Ex Back?

    ReplyDelete

Back to Top