Diana Gabaldon Offers Surprising Take On EW Cover And Blake Reacts

Written by: Blake Larsen



Recently, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the Entertainment Weekly cover that featured a scantily clad Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe. While everyone is entitled to their opinion about the nature of the cover shoot, this humble podcaster believes that everyone needs to chill the heck out. But, really, what does my opinion matter? I talk into a microphone in my studio with my wife about this show and while I absolutely adore my listeners/readership, my pull in the Outlander community can only go so far. The one opinion about the cover that actually mattered, however, was that of Diana Gabaldon herself - and she made sure people people knew she was going to weigh in on the controversy.

Weigh in, she did, and it really surprised me. Hit the jump to find out what she had to say and why I was ready to pounce ALL OVER her - but couldn't.

So before we get into any of this, let's take a look at the cover in question just in case you have been living on Mars with Matt Damon for the past few weeks.


Man, I still can't get enough of this photo and neither can our staff - read all about it here. Whatever you want to say about the cover, whether it's good like us, or critical like other well known Outlander Blogs, you have to admit that the picture is freakin' sexy as hell.

And not just for either women, or men - it's steamy for both.

But, there have been some people that have complained about how the cover didn't tell the complete story of Outlander, or that it's "selling out," or that it's soft core porn, etc. That vocal minority was so adamant that many people felt compelled to address those claims, including Diana Gabaldon.

Soon after the "controversy" started to gain traction, Diana published the following status on Facebook:

Two covers. Compare, contrast, discuss. And later tomorrow, I'll tell y'all what _I_ think about the Scandalous Cover,...


Essentially she was inviting people to talk about the cover without giving too much inclination on what she thought. Not one to shy away from social media posturing, it was a unique thing to do for Diana - call the cover "scandalous," encourage discourse, and then see what happens.

Do I think she was trying to get the temperature of her fans before she committed either way? Well, eh, no. Not entirely. I don't think Diana has ever had a problem sharing her opinion - torpedoes be damned. But, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least mention this as a possibility for her social media tease. 

Either way, I was dying to know what she thought about the cover.

If she were to disparage the now infamous cover photo, I was going to pounce all over her potential negativity. In fact, I was going to write a piece so scathing that if I had published it, I might as well have taken this blog, poured gasoline all over it, lit a cigar, and watched the whole thing burn in a glorious blaze right down to its virtual ashes - people would have been THAT pissed off about what I would have had to say (more on this in a bit).

If her remarks were positive - well, I'd back her up no problem.

Regardless of her choice, I was going to tell you, the reader, the truth about what I felt. Good, bad, or ugly.  Let me just say, I was quite impressed with DG's response.

But before I tell you why I was so impressed, let me say first that from what I've heard, the books are great. (If you don't know, no, I have not read them yet. And I intend on keeping it that way because I like being a show-watcher only.  I also am a HUGE Ron Moore fan, and trust him to give me a fully realized adaptation of Outlander.)  That being said, even though I still don't understand why people call her "Herself," I do respect Diana's work, her accomplishments (as she is more talented in writing than I am in any aspect of my life), and the sheer creative nature that she must possess to develop such a lush, vibrant story. But, in light of my relative newly-indoctrinated membership to this universe, I will freely admit that I'm not as invested in Outlander as our many readers and still have yet to see the "smoking gun" reason for the zeitgeist surrounding the story.  Although, I do suspect this will probably come with time.

Outlander, its fandom, its podcasts (including mine) its blogs (including mine), the books, and everything in between aren't the end-all-be-all for me. Which, given my role as podcaster, is a good thing because not worshiping at the temple of all things Gabaldon affords me the chance to analyze/interpret and ingest the (slightly) less biased bigger picture of Outlander.  In other words, Outlander and DG are not the rock upon which my modern era of entertainment is built. (In the spirit of full disclosure, that space for me is reserved for the likes of only Damon Lindelof and JJ Abrams.)

So the next morning, I opened Facebook to see if DG has posted her response to the "CoverGate" and like any good blogger, I had my figurative lighter in hand, ready to watch the world burn - just in case.

I was prepared for the worst - a huge piece condemning EW, which would have cataloged how the cover was pedestrian, insensitive, inaccurate, demeaning, and a poor representation of Diana's authorial triumphs. It was a reasonable expectation considering how she framed the teaser status, and the fact that she asked the readers to compare the (admittedly "scandalous") EW cover to the more academically attuned cover she personally designed however many years ago. It even almost felt a little like a loaded question. Moreover, she has expressed in the past how her opinion has differed with the people who run STARZ, or the show beforehand - so it was certainly plausible.

But then, a most curious thing happened - I read her eagerly awaited response (click here for the entire facebook status) and before I could even bring out the slightest hint of my inner Joker, I actually agreed with what Diana had to say.

Her response was well-written (it would be hard to imagine anything else), tempered, and even a little critical of the naysayers. I was genuinely impressed with DG's response to EVERYONE.

The part where I fully bought in, however, was when she says:

"If you honestly think this cover is “smut” or “soft porn,” then all I can say is that y’all should maybe get out more. If you’ve ever watched television in the UK, you’ve seen more explicit things than this three or four times in an evening. If you’ve been watching “Outlander,”(as theoretically you have) you’ve seen much more explicit sexual encounters on several occasions. Were these not “smut”? Is it OK to watch “soft porn” in the privacy of your home, but intolerable that other people should glimpse it on a magazine cover?"

That's it.  Pack it up, ladies and gents - call it a night. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.

This is all that needs to be said about the cover. I couldn't have crafted a better statement myself.  But for the sake of this exercise, let's keep going.

In the end, neither she, nor I, can help if you're a prude. Sorry - if you don't like that idea, or you disagree with that assertion, well, this is America and you're entitled to your opinion. But I can't help that person who doesn't like this cover because it makes them feel "uncomfortable," or if they're worried people won't watch Outlander because the cover doesn't properly encapsulate every waking detail about RDM/DG's story. That's a preposterous claim, and an even more preposterous expectation. Even Diana is aware of how problematic it can be to try to find a single shot to tell the complete story:

"For those complaining that the EW cover doesn’t properly express the depth, complexity, etc. of the story (books or show)…well…no. It doesn’t. Would you like to suggest a pictorial cover that a) would express that, and b) would appeal instantly to a wide audience? It’s one image; there’s no conceivable way for a single image to encompass this story, or a fraction of it. A magazine cover is meant to do _one_ thing: attract eyeballs. With luck, said eyeballs will zip to Jamie and Claire, but will also see the word 'Outlander'.... It’s _one_ magazine cover. To assume on the basis of this that the whole world will gasp in horror and make a note circled in red to Avoid Watching Outlander, at all costs, is…perhaps a trifle over-reactive."

Outlander fans claim an inordinate amount of ownership over their favorite work.  Many are very touchy, overly sensitive, quick to condemn and/or defend, and are extremely vocal no matter what. Which, I suppose, is a good thing and a bad thing.  In fact, their feeling of ownership is almost as much (and I stress the word 'almost' very heavily here) as those people who love Star Wars. (I would most certainly fall into this category for Star Wars by the way.)  Too often, however, some fans have ascribed an aura of infallibility to Outlander.

My unique perspective of the Outlander fandom has shown me that while there are fans who are totally realistic about their expectations of Outlander, there are also those fans who think Outlander is "just the greatest book/TV show ever!" and can do no wrong (and I suspect that most of the critics of the cover fall into this category). These people are entitled to their opinion, and I respect their undying love of Outlander. Truly I do.  I, too, really like Outlander. But, it is not above reproach. I mean, Outlander, in terms of just the television show, has A LONG way to go if RDM intends to knock on Breaking Bad's door.

My point is this, let's calm down with all the rhetoric about how the cover has demeaned the sacrosanct story of Outlander and how it's done the show, DG, the fans, and hell, even the world at large, a disservice because of its racy nature. (sarcasm very much intended)

When an episode of your perfect and venerated show/story STARTS with Jamie orally pleasing Claire in bed for no other reason other than just, "because," even the cover's most ardent detractor has to admit that a major (load bearing) pillar of the show is sex. Humor me here; where was they public outcry when that scene happened? Where, exactly, was the call to action for sensible nature at that point?  Guess what, there wasn't one. So, say it with me now (even in whispered acknowledgement if you must) - it's OK.

And, get this, ready for me to bake your noodle?

Putting the idea of sex-in-Outlander, even it's implied nature, on the cover of a magazine is OK, too.

Beautiful people sell magazines. Sex sells magazines. (Hell, Cosmopolitan has based an ENTIRE company on sex and beautiful people). And when your show has beautiful people like Jamie and Claire, who have (married) sex as often as they do, guess what's going to be advertised? It's not gonna be the Scottish hills, I'll tell you that much.

In fact, the magazine has created such a buzz that the show has received more publicity than ever before! But, don't let me tell you that; let Diana herself tell you:

"God bless those of you who _did_ express outrage, concern, or dissatisfaction, whatever your motives for doing so. <g> Because nothing—and I do mean nothing—makes more effective publicity than controversy. By objecting and writing blog posts and heated comments, you’ve done more to stimulate interest in the show (and by extension, the books) than the EW piece could ever have achieved had it been received with universal approbation by fans. So thank you!"

Kendra Spring Klasek, Editor In Chief of this blog, made a STELLAR point to me while proofing this article when she said, "that cover was the stroke of genius from STARZ that we've been begging for, and those fans [who complained] were biting the hand that feeds them."

Dear Lord, is she correct. We've waited God knows how long for STARZ to catch the lightning-in-the-bottle that would give Outlander it's due and it finally happened. People are talking about it on multiple levels and popular interest is finally piqued. But, now that's not good enough? Now we're playing down to the lowest common denominator of sex?  We're suddenly above that aspect of humanity? Highlighting sex appeal is ok for everything else, but not Outlander? It needs attention, but not THAT attention?

What are we, six years old?

As a book reader, or even show watcher, you know that sex, and sex appeal, are HUGE parts of the Outlander story.  This is not a recent revelation.  You already read what was coming in the book while sipping on your cup of tea, or eating popcorn as you watched our beloved show on Saturday nights.

To my understanding, when people have sex, they're usually naked, right?

So now you're surprised that when STARZ, EW, and Outlander advertises a major load bearing portion of the show (which we already established as sex),  they use a method whose sole purpose is to do what any self respecting business is supposed to do: employ a known commodity, spark interest, and market that commodity as effectively as possible? (Sex being a method that is also just as bankable as death and taxes no less)

How is any of this a surprise at the least, or wrong at the worst?

I don't know - I HONESTLY don't know why some people have a problem with the cover. Sex, and sex appeal, are featured on other magazines. It's all over television.  It's everywhere in movies.  Given the fact that you know it's a huge part of your show, you know that sex appeal is bankable (especially considering the actor's chemistry), and the fact that Claire and Jamie's sexual relationship is widely applauded during the run of the show, then it only leaves a few logical explanations left.

Are the critics happy to see two people who are posing in a sexual manner in the comfort of their own privacy, but embarrassed to see it at, say, the checkout counter while buying groceries?  Are they whistling past the graveyard? Or are they the like old timey magicians who are screaming, "hey, look at this over here! See how great this is! ::cough:: But, don't pay any attention to that over there - nothing to see there ::cough::"

C'mon, really? Are we all dumb enough to fall for that?

Are these people Obi-Wan Kenobi?

"These aren't the kilts you're looking for. Move along."

via GIPHY

Then again, perhaps these critics aren't like Obi-Wan, trying to trick everyone into thinking there's nothing there.  I'm willing to admit that.  But, then they are, at the very least,  like Spock - a Vulcan who abides by logic but is also haunted by his deep rooted human emotions that he desperately tries to suppress.

There is that whole logic and excuse of refinement some of the critics could employ - maybe some fans want to feel more secure in Outlander by only publicly regarding/dissecting everything else in Outlander like character development, plot setting, literary mechanics etc.. Could it be they do this because it makes them feel smarter, more authorial, or more high brow than other fandoms?  Is the facade of sophistication what gets them through the night?

Another idea is that they're insecure in their own sex life, or maybe it's because they're sanctimonious "pearl clutchers." (thank you guys for that amazing line - you know who you are).  Maybe they're too mortified to admit that they like sex in the same way that everyone publicly hates Donald Trump, yet the guy absolutely dominates his competition by HUGE amounts during the primaries and Super Tuesday.  Somebody voted for him, right?

What if they don't want to have to explain to their friends why they like the show so much because they can't eloquently quantify their inner desires. So they only speak about it in hushed tones like a mid 20th century Boston Irish Catholic family who's guilt shouldn't be talked about in public, yet must be worshiped privately as a deep, dark, and shameful secret at all times.

Christ, it's like they have to apologize for how sexy the show is. I'm sorry - WHAT!? WHY!?!?!?

NONE, that's right, none of the Outlander fandom can promulgate the notion of Claire as an amazing, independent, fierce, idyllic model for all modern women (which, she is), and then persecute STARZ, EW, or Outlander for highlighting one of the MAIN characteristics of Claire that make her so exciting and different from other cardboard-cut-out female leads in Hollywood: her sexual power/prowess.

I daresay there may be hypocrisy at work here ::GASP::

And this is why I was ready to absolutely TEAR into Diana's response if she were to speak out against the cover.

She can't write the books she has written, participate in the production of the show like she did, or write the script of an episode as she has for season 2, and then declare how the sex in the show shouldn't be held up as a selling point to readers of the magazine or potentially new viewers of the show. But most importantly, my god - could you imagine how her words would have hurt the public relations of Outlander the show?

I can see the headlines now, "Outlander Author Condemns Photo Shoot!" Talk about undercutting all the work that not only Ron Moore has accomplished, or STARZ has accomplished (in a time where it's truly hurting for exposure and ratings) but also the PERSONAL investment she has in the production of the show as well. It would have been devastating.

Luckily, none of that happened.

Which is why I was massively impressed by Diana's statement. She didn't come off as a ball washer for the show (she admitted that the photo doesn't capture the complete essence of Outlander), but she also gave her approval for what they tried to accomplish.

Touche Diana. I'm honestly wicked proud of you for going against the grain here.

But I can't call you "Herself" until someone gives me a reasonable explanation about what the hell that nickname is about.  I mean, I get where it comes from, but I'm not grasping the "why" of it.  Please forgive me.

What do you think about Diana's response to the EW cover? Do you agree?


29 comments

  1. I was one who had 'concerns' about the cover. I'm NOT a prude, am well aware sex is an integral part of the show/relationship between these two characters and that the magazine will definitely grab attention of fans and non-fans alike.

    The photos are amazingly well done, artistic, striking and defining. What I had a problem with is how the cover photo was presented with the title 'bodice-ripper'. Be honest...what image does that evoke with you? Some horribly written, trashy, housewife-porn, not worth reading/seeing tripe? Because it DOES evoke that sort of idea in many, many people - especially guys. THIS is what I took issue with. The photo is wonderful - present it that way. The photo speaks for itself - headline the intrigue, danger and politics; coupled with the awesome picture and it completely changes the idea presented. Is the sex & sex appeal still there? Of course, but there is a lot more to it than 'just' sex.

    I am a big fan of both the books and show. I think DG is great if only because she doesn't try to please everyone. She is 'herself' and has final say over her world. That being said, I don't love everything about the show or the books and they are not the be all end all. I read a LOT of other things and watch other things. I did just fine during 'Droughtlander' because I have other interests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I known people who've read Outlander cover to cover, and yet classified it as a Bodice Ripper. These perceptions are out anyone's control, except that of the reader/viewer.

      Delete
  2. Yes, I agreed with Herself's (ha!) response, and frankly, I was not surprised with it, as Herself is pretty smart. Many in the fandom are of a proprietary bend. I like to think it's out of love.

    PS. Blake you really should read the books. They're amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Herself...it is a mark of respect. Like a leader, or a sage...someone who is in charge. Get it? She is our LEADER...she is HERSELF....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's Blake's question, Unknown. WHY is she a leader? Even Pulitzer Prize-winners bow to criticism from time to time. Why is "Herself" immune?

      Delete
  4. I think the cover is FABULOUS !!!!! Sexy and very eye catching (and apparently the magazine sold out very quickly) If it draws much needed attention to the show-- then GOOD JOB !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I happen to agree. I thought my eyeballs had won the lottery when I saw the cover.

      Delete
    2. Outlander is the best show I have ever seen --and I'm infuriated that so many people have never heard of it !!! I think that STARZ PR has done a TERRIBLE job of promoting the show up until now, and I hope the EW Cover pushes the envelope a bit -- they need to ramp up their strategy to grab attention and eyeballs !!! The show is sooooo good; people need to know about it !!! It doesn't hurt that the lead actors are two of the most beautiful and sexy people on the planet, so yes, Starz should "exploit" that.

      Delete
  5. re Herself ... or Himself ...... Brits have a strange way with words. We all do. And for many years ... as a sort of sideways form of 'deference' we have used Himself and Herself ... such as re the Laird or Lord who lives locally 'Himself is going to the court ball this year you know!' ..... and so .. we are using Herself as both a form of deference and friendship, rather like a pet name.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Long time book fan here and the Starz show has exceeded my expectations! I was one of the fans who did not love ep 16 for multiple reasons, so I know what it is like to not agree with the masses. I happened to love the steamy beautiful cover on EW recognizing that it only a glimpse into the depth and breath of the rich Outlander world. The pictures are beautiful and the article is not frivolous. The title did make me cringe a little. My 82 mother lol at the sub title CLAIRE FRASER CAME TO STOP A WAR, NOT PARLEZ-VOUS PENIS. Anyway, I can see where some of the concern stemmed from, but I'm a little glad EW doesn't think my demographic is not interested in human sexuality especially when it involved two beloved madly in love married characters. And Diana is simply awesome!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I absolutely agree with Diana...http://lorischmitt.blogspot.com/2016/02/those-sizzling-sexy-smoldering-photos.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. The cover did do what it was intended to do.. grab attention alright. I wrote a comment on Diana's wall in response to her note about the cover and I'm going to share it here. I have a childhood friend that is a professor at an Ivy League University that teaches a very dry subject (IMO) and Outlander is not her cup of tea by any means.. usually. Please read on...

    A friend of mine who has never seen the show or read the books (Shocker, I know!) was over for dinner a few days ago and the EW magazine was sitting on the coffee table. She is a University professor who can be considered a bit stuffy , but when she saw the cover she immediately picked it up. I figured she would look down her nose at it so I was very surprised and happy when she said something along the lines of, "Wow, what a photo" and then immediately said "Outlander.... most of my students and some of my colleagues are forever talking about either the show or some book or other." Meg sat and read the article and asked if she could borrow one of my books so I gave her Outlander. Meg is not usually swayed by things such as covers but if that EW cover could grab the interest of someone like my friend than I think they did their job and I say thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, PJ! I completely agree. The cover is not just stunning, but has depth. I've been rather critical of Starz PR until the season 2 trailer dropped and since then, it's been one mic drop after another. This was BRILLIANT. Thank you so much for reading and sharing!

      Delete
  9. Blake loved what you wrote,yes the cover did what it was supposed to do get more viewers for OL which is great! I really like DG she is a excellent writer & she calls a spade a spade ( aussie slang for you guys) as I'm fr OZ!So roll on Apr 9th.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great job! I would add a point to DG's, magazine covers are styled to sell magazines that is it! Outlander has now garnered enough attention to get a coveted cover. Even if it is on the rag version of People. I worked for Time Inc for 10 years, the publishers of People and EW!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Obviously I'm missing something here... When I look at the EW photos, their faces appear devoid of any emotion. I see nothing of the passion or smoulder that is so evident on the show or in so many other photo shoots. I see two beautiful people that look like they'd rather be anywhere than there.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Diana's take on this, as usual, was spot on. I think the cover is beautiful, and my only problem is with the text which accompanies it, and the "demeaning" characterization of Outlander as a bodice-ripper. Diana Gabaldon and many others have been fighting that battle since 1991, and it doesn't look like the war will be over any time soon.

    I posted in another forum that I was dismayed to see this magazine characterized as "smut", "porn"or "raunchy", and I did feel a bit better when I learned that The Scotsman's use of the term raunchy was o different "British" definition than the one we use for this word in North America. They don't define "raunchy" as offensive. I stand corrected.

    What concerns me even more (and this is just MY personal opinion, and I;m a nudist), is people's "FEAR" of the unclothed human body, and their concern that children might see this image on the newsstands - and be scarred for life. How old are these children? 3? And where do they live? In communities where everyone is fully covered, from their necks, to their wrists and ankles?

    Do these people NOT KNOW that the whole reason they even exist is because their parents had sex? Get a grip, all you prudes and pearl clutchers. Maybe you'd be happier, back in the 1740s. Sex has been happening since Adam and Eve. DEAL WITH IT.

    OOPS, I just rethought that. Obviously sex (and lots of really GOOD sex) was obviously happening in the 1740's. At least, for Jamie and |Claire.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree Blake! Well said!

    I loved the oover photo for EW. I don't think it does a disservice to the book at all. After all, this wasn't a cover photo for "Literary Guild Weekly" it was for ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY!! It was promoting the TV show..not the book per se.

    I was a viewer of Outlander before I became a book reader. It's because of the show that I read the book at all. And because of this cover..there might be a lot more viewers and future book readers and hopefully this will lead to a season three and beyond.

    I think what's more scandalous than this cover photo is that Black Sails (another Starz series) has been green-lighted for a season 4 and Outlander fans are still waiting to hear about whether or not we get a season 3 despite way more viewers..over a million FB fans after one season, way more awards and nominations...why are they making us suffer!!?? Just tell us already!! You have to let us have a season 3 especially after what's to come in season 2!!

    As for Diana being called "Herself" C'mon Blake!! You've heard Colum MacKenzie being called "Himself" He is the Man of the House..the leader of the MacKenzie clan!! And Diana is the Woman of the Outlander Clan..the leader. She is Herself :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. HUGE grin... both for Diana's response and yours.
    My response to the cover? Settle back....
    (1) As a woman; I LOVE it. Sexy, provocative, both genders "caught" in flagrante delicto... If I had no clue what Outlander is about, it would definitely catch my eyes.
    (2) As an avid book and series fan, I agree that not one single photo could ever capture what the heck Outlander is about. Some of the naysayers griped that one of the photos revealed inside the magazine (one with their clothing covering all the "naughty" bits) would have been more appropriate. However, I would have to say that it would have led some people to believe this series to be nothing more than one of the myriad of period pieces out there.
    (3) To the "pearl clutchers"... grin. I realize that a lot of North America is caught in either leftover Puritanical mores or their modern revival. I wonder what these folks would say to any European television program where nudity and sexuality are depicted as normal aspects of life (gasp!). I howled in laughter when Diana called the pc's out, and can visualize them sitting in a darkened living room with blinds tightly drawn, watching episodes on their TVs, feeling guilty for enjoying the episode.
    There you go... my two cents' worth.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have been one of the people who expressed that the cover only highlights one aspect of the books. Personally, I love it, but am afraid that it will scare off some people. I guess, upon reflection, in this country, it will attract more people than scare off others. I can't disagree with all that DG and you have said.
    My husband watches the show with me. He seems to be engrossed in the series, but every time one of "those" scenes appears he says - "Did they HAVE to show that?" I tell him YES! sigh!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Love Herself's response! (Hope you get an explanation from someone for "Herself".)

    Also, channeling my inner Beavis & Butthead: Heh heh heh! He said "ball washer"! Heh heh heh!

    ReplyDelete
  18. FINALLY found EW Outlander issue in stores today. (Thank you Barnes and Noble.) The cover and Outlander pictures and articles inside are fabulous. As a reader and watcher, I just shook my head in response to the controversy. This is a beautiful series centered on a beautiful relationship between two characters played by beautiful actors. Thanks to Starz and EW for publicizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Has anyone here grasped the fact Caitriona Balfe has remained completely silent on the EW coverage on all her social media??? Usually she RT's or promo's it in some way. Nada this time. She's obviously not happy with something. That's the more important question because she is playing the show lead. Also she has gone to great lengths to discuss sex scenes are done because they're an integral part of the Jamie and Claire story. A scantily-clad photo shoot that promotes a trivial them of a bodice ripper? Not so much.

    Perhaps while Herself can rationalize it, the female actually posing in it cannot, but for the sake of her job keeps quiet.

    Starz has undermined its strong, outspoken Outlander heroine with this sort of promo. But that's business as usual for most Hollywood leading ladies and most female fans accept it. Claire never would. She would be raising holy hell and telling Starz to go fuck themselves. But rarely does anyone walk the walk anymore. Those who do are vilified and I completely expect I'll be lashed by replies to this post for going against the grain.

    Hopefully this is the last time Starz takes the path of least resistance in promoting this show. They need to make the effort to promo it as historical fiction with the sex on the back burner. Not because the sex is a bad thing, just that it's not ALL the show is.

    All right folks, do your worst. Je suis prêt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one "rips" anyone here. You have a right to your opinion.

      Delete
  20. To the non-Outlander TV watcher or book reader, the grasp of the magazine cover may not be as defining as the book readers know it to be. Sam's 2 scars are an integral part of Jamie's life. The placement of his hands on Claire (Cait) are described in that manner over and over in the book series. The placement of her hands around his neck are the same throughout the books. Her white shift is often pulled up and lowered to accumulate around her waist in various marital sex scenes in the books. Their love and sex life are very passionate, but I personally think Diana describes it just like it would be in the average marriage, except for the fact that most marriages don't stay "that" passionate! Ha!
    I've watched numerous panel interviews on YouTube where Ron Moore has stated that he switched around some of the quotes and scenes in non-sequential order to accommodate adaption. The opening scene you referred to about orally pleasing Claire wasn't "just because". It actually happened in the book on the wedding night.
    The Lairds (Colum and Jamie) are referred to by their tenants as "Himself" out of respect for their leadership. So naturally the fans refer to Diana as "Herself" because she is creator of the story and leader of the fandom.
    You really should read the books to understand why some scenes are not "just because".
    So in my ranting here, I have no problem with the cover or with it saying OUTLANDER. Thanks for listening.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I hit post by accident before I had finished. You're right it is interesting that Cait has not promoted the cover in her social media. Why? I have no idea. But by her own admission in interviews I've watched on YouTube she has said performing in the nude does not bother her because in the many years she was a model she had to strip before. And in another interview when asked by the interviewer if they wore modesty patches while filming, Sam and Tobias said 'yes' but that Cait sometimes did not wear hers (and she was sitting right there and didn't deny it). So if she feels exploited by EW or Starz, I'm unable to understand why. Maybe it disturbed her more when it was actually published, than when she was in the photo shoot..IDK.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree the photos lacked emotion in the form of desire. From viewing off camara shots, Cait and Sam were playful and smiling. So the directors were obviously calling the shots on what they perceived as sexual desire.....look angry. Otherwise, photos were not the best. Odd angles made Sam's chest look deformed, and where were his legs on the bed? Standing in a hole in the bed? I'm not against the nudity...... just wish Cait and Sam could have shown their well known chemistry.
    And to the remark made about the modesty patch..... Tobias was not wearing one.....as Claire said to Angus "not a sight I'm likely to forget" ugh

    ReplyDelete

Back to Top