Outlander season 3: Diana Gabaldon on Culloden presentation, differences
Now, let’s get into the meat of this article, especially since it does so heavily pertain to the premiere episode and the depiction of the Battle of Culloden — something that you get a small sense of in the photo above. This is obviously a turning point in history, but it also marks a significant departure when it comes to the Diana Gabaldon source material with the novel Voyager. The show is going to throw use directly into the battle, whereas the books did more to give fans a sense of the pain and suffering that came about as a result of it.
As Gabaldon herself noted in response to a Facebook comment, distinction between the source material and the show lies in perspective and also in some of the limitations that come with a more visual form of media like television:
“[Ronald D. Moore and the team] couldn’t reasonably do a long first scene of the first episode in Jamie’s head, with a long voiceover (and a blank reddish screen) talking about Purgatory. So they did it differently. Also–I chose not to have the reader live through the Battle of Culloden (for a lot of reasons, the main one being that by only referring to it–repeatedly, in small flashbacks and stories–and by showing the horrible effects of it, that let the reader encompass it as the massive tragedy it was, and add layers to it as more is revealed). To “show” the battle in a book would mean either pulling back into an “authorial” voice and describing it–never good; no impact–or to “live” through it in the viewpoint of one or a few people. That’s vivid (or can be), but it’s limited, and my point was to tell the story in such a way that the true horror of the battle would be remembered, not one person’s experience.). Ron wanted to live through the battle, and because of the way visual media works, it’s possible to switch rapidly among multiple viewpoints and overviews, in a way that you really can’t do effectively in text.
“There’s nothing righter or wronger about the two depictions; I’m just saying they’re different. You’ll recognize Jamie’s experience, though, which is the important thing.”
There are probably mixed reactions out there to the changes, just as there are any time that something is changed from the source material to screen — it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about Outlander or anything else. Our sentiment over this topic has remained the same over the years: If you want to replicate the experience of the book, read the book again. TV shows and movies based on books are often (when done properly) trying to recreate the essence of the source material as opposed to the actual words on the page. Sometimes, things may need to change in order to bring that spirit to life. Writers are not often writing thinking “how will this look on TV?” — it’s more about them telling the best story that they can for the readers within that medium. Moore and the Outlander team have shown through two seasons that they can tell a beautiful story in their own medium; hopefully, they’re managing to appeal to both book readers and show viewers alike. (We obviously cannot speak for every person out there and we have never made it a secret that we have not read the books.)
Want some other Outlander news?
If you missed it, we suggest that you head over here for some further insight — including a breakdown of some of the new promotional stills of the show. (Photo: Starz.)
Joyce Metheny
August 12, 2017 @ 6:06 pm
Okay , last sentence in the article ( who are they saying has’nt read the books) ? Cause you just lost all credibilty !!!!!
1mars
August 10, 2017 @ 6:05 pm
DG is such a drama queen, any time the adaptation is a minute different from the book, she throws shade on it. At least RDM lets us know what happened to BJR and that is more than DG ever did. I am not happy with a lot of changes he made or him thinking this story is a love triangle. smh
Joyce Metheny
August 12, 2017 @ 6:09 pm
She is not throwing shade , I’m sure she is responding to complaints from HER fans. Is that okay with you ?
mable
August 10, 2017 @ 5:20 pm
I’ve read Voyager and while I’m not looking for a literal adaptation from the book, there are some things that must be in the show in order to capture book enthusiasts, a built-in audience from the beginning. Moore promised to keep the story close to the books and for the most part he has done so with some exceptions. However, he’s starting to lose some of these folks with the choices he’s been making. As fans start to read the books along with watching the show many more will desire a closer adaptation. If he doesn’t deliver, he could risk alienating these fans.
nimue
August 11, 2017 @ 11:44 am
Moore’s adaptation is closer than MOST book>visual media adapts. I think he has done an incredible job. As someone who is struggling to finish the 5th book-a book with HUNDREDS upon hundreds of pages of sheer boredom with a few chapters worth of romance and actual meaningful story action, I’m very much looking forward to Rons distillation of the story essence for Fiery Cross!!!!!!!!
Sara
August 11, 2017 @ 12:12 pm
From what I’ve read here and there, some fans have issues with this adaptation not because it doesn’t follow the plot close enough (it does) but because it seems to focus on everything and everyone but the main theme, which is the story of love and marriage between C&J. Or at least that was the case with season 2. To be honest, had I not read the books I would have a problem to buy that Claire is still pining for Jamie after 20 years and decides to go back in time, abandoning her life in 20th century, Their interactions and intimacy in season 2 were so sparse. The best example would be probably the second to the last episode, when the show spent all the time on Claire with Black Jack, Mary, coughing Alex Randall, Collum and Murtagh, everyone but her husband she was supposed to leave for 20 years in the next episode. Which again spent like 10 minutes on Jamie&Claire and their last day together.
So yes, I agree that some of the choices made for this adaptation are questionable, which doesn’t negate hovewer its value as a beautifully made show.
Matt Carter
August 11, 2017 @ 12:32 pm
This is a very interesting perspective! The biggest reason I’m waiting to read the books is because I find it useful to view from a show-only lens — otherwise I know I’ll probably favor the source material.
LJ Pierce
August 12, 2017 @ 9:54 am
Matt, I admire your decision to focus on the TV series before delving into the books. I have been an avid reader of Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series from the early 1990s, and like many of DG’s fans, have read all books multiple times.
That said, Ron Moore’s adaptation is BRILLIANT, and now I find I would rather watch the series than read the books!! I’m sure my heretical statement will make many rabid defenders of DG’s canon foam at the mouth, but Moore distills the heart of DG’s saga into a beautiful and well-acted visual treat.
You may find yourself with a slightly different opinion when you finally do read “the source material”!
Joyce Metheny
August 12, 2017 @ 6:14 pm
JHRC…He ripped the heart right out of them .!
tafkah
August 10, 2017 @ 4:41 pm
Having seen S3 Episode 1 at SDCC last month, and having read Voyager multiple times, I can say that Team Outlander did a great job in adapting the aftermath of Culloden. Some things are pulled straight out of the book and others are new, but it was overall a great episode.