‘Outlander’ season 2: Why there’s no reason to be discouraged after Golden Globes loss
The day after the Golden Globes is a difficult one for many shows. You can be happy for some shows while being sad for others; this is the nature of TV these days, since there is so much good programming on. Someone’s always going to feel snubbed or left out.
The great news for “Outlander” is that it was invited to the party Sunday night, with nominations for the show along with actors Caitriona Balfe and Tobias Menzies. Unfortunately, it ended up losing in all categories to “Mr. Robot,” Taraji P. Henson, and Christian Slater. Is there still a silver lining for fans to take away from the show? We’d say so, and for many different reasons.
1. Fan presence – We weren’t at the Globes this year, but we’ve heard that “Outlander” fans outside the Beverly Hilton were among the most vocal and passionate there. This certainly could open the eyes of many who were in attendance. Sure, people who frequent social media likely know the extent of the “Outlander” fandom already, but it is so easy to be so insular when on Twitter and Facebook, forgetting in the process that the majority of Hollywood Foreign Press voters may not frequent them with the same regularity.
2. Face time with the HFPA – Being at the awards enables the actors and producers to make some more connections, which could pay off in a big way down the road. While some new shows do win at the Globes, there are others that take an additional year or two to get that award. Getting to know the HFPA voters and the organization better never hurts.
3. Screen time – The Globes air on NBC, while the red-carpet pre-show airs on E!. How many viewers of these channels are that aware of “Outlander”? Maybe some, but if the awards exposed even just a fraction of people to it, some of them could turn around and be viewers down the road. That’s excellent free advertising that could help down the road.
4. There’s plenty more to come – Readers of Dragonfly in Amber know a thing or two already about coming up. We’re not the sort to dive into book spoilers in articles like these, but let’s just say that there are going to be plenty of other opportunities for the show to be honored based on the material.
Want to get some other “Outlander” news? Then be sure to head over here right now! Also, sign up here to get some more TV news on everything we cover, sent right over to you via our CarterMatt Newsletter. (Photo: Starz.)
sigrid28
January 12, 2016 @ 3:31 am
The spectacular originality of “Mr. Robot” set the bar too high for Ronald Moore’s adaptation of “Outlander” to compete with it successfully, even though Diana Gabaldon’s novel is just as original as “Mr. Robot.” In fact, her “Outlander” was so unusual that it almost never got published in the first place, because its blend of historical fiction, fantasy, and science fiction, flavored with a taste of Gothic Romance, left publishers wondering how to market it.
So what did Ronald Moore decide to do in adapting the first of eight “Outlander” novels for television? He watered down Gabaldon’s one-of-a-kind masterpiece with a woman at its center, transforming it into yet another run-of-the-mill epic narrative on television, pitting two men against each other, with a touch of homoerotic fan fiction thrown in, particularly in Episodes 6, 10, 15, and 16. Had the adaptation been faithful to its source material, instead of dismissing it, “Outlander” could have given even “Mr. Robot” a run for his money this year, as well as boosting the chances for Caitriona Balfe and Tobias Menzies to win Golden Globes.
Want more proof? “Wolf Hall,” a faithful adaptation of the eponymous historical novel by Hilary Mantel, won in its category. What is the take-away? Originality tops catering to the lowest common denominator. When adapting a series of books for television, select a distinguished body of work and adapt it faithfully. Luckily for Ronald Moore, “Outlander” was renewed for a second season, so he has another chance to get it right.
Joss
January 12, 2016 @ 8:03 am
Randall’s homoerotic fascination with Jamie which resulted in brutal rape, is not Ron Moore’s fanfiction. It’s in the books, the author made it very important and it marked Jamie forever, strongly impacting his future relationship with one man in particular. And the first book basically is a romance mixed with action/adventure, very engaging but not terribly original – the following books add more and more to the blend of genres, creating the fascinating universe.
I have some issues with tv adaption – it lacks the humor of the book and I’m not all too keen on Jamie’s characterization, I hope it’s going to change. But overall Moore’s work is one of the most faithful adaptation of a book I’ve seen so far.
sigrid28
January 12, 2016 @ 5:10 pm
Thank you, Joss, for your thoughtful response and for citing me correctly. You don’t deserve it, but I’m going to go overboard in my response, in the interest of saving Season 2 from what looks to me like a disaster, based on spoilers released so far to the media. A lot of it has to do with the characterization of James Fraser in the adaptation, a subject about which I think you and I agree.
It looks as though Moore’s failure to restore the marriage between Claire and Jamie fully by the end of Season 1, as it is in Gabaldon’s first novel, will assure that the rape trauma dominates Season 2. Moore seems interested in stressing the divisions between the couple rather than demonstrating how they present a unified front from the moment they arrive in Paris, as they do in Gabaldon’s second novel. I find her approach more interesting than what Moore proposes, because it gives Claire much more agency throughout, which gives the tragic consequences at the end of the novel greater dramatic impact. Even though Claire and Jamie move heaven and earth in the service of their cause and even though they work harder on their marriage than any other couple you can see on TV these days, by the end of the novel “Dragonfly in Amber,” they fail miserably, both in terms of their marriage and in terms of their desire to save the Highland culture.
As it was in Season 1 of Moore’s adaptation, in Season 2 (rumor has it) the emphasis will once again be on Fraser’s immaturity rather than his personal strengths. His worries about fatherhood, for example, are nonexistent in the novels. In Moore’s version, Frank is more of an adult about wanting a family with Claire than Fraser is. In “Dragonfly in Amber,” the novel, Jamie trusts Claire with the pregnancy: She is a nurse, after all. Until Claire miscarries, the topic of their pregnancy is more of an occasion for humor than anxiety. For example, Jamie’s a trouper when it comes to helping her avoid vomiting at the dinner table at Versailles. I think Gabaldon’s fans are going to miss that.
The latest weakness of Moore’s Fraser, floated in the media, is the idea that he is somehow conflicted over deceiving acquaintances (I guess) in his quest to prevent the Scottish Rebellion and the massacre at Culloden. Gabaldon’s Fraser takes to deceit like a fish takes to water while operating as a double-agent in Paris (and elsewhere), a reminder that in the novels, at least, he is a card sharp who takes it on faith that the only way to fight is dirty, a trick he picked up from his Uncle Dougal. If Moore’s Fraser isn’t capable of ENJOYING being totally deceitful in Season 2, how will he pull off his first meeting with Lord John before the Battle of Prestonpans, which is such a terrific scene in the novel? Banging on about honor is Lord John’s thing in Gabaldon’s universe, not Fraser’s.
For my money (admittedly not a lot), most of Fraser’s bravado is missing from Moore’s adaptation. In the novels, as a sixteen-year-old Fraser plays a very “dirty” trick on the Duke of Sandringham and makes him the butt of a joke he tells about it at great length to the amusement of the whole population of Castle Leoch just before the duke arrives there for another visit six years later. In Moore’s version, Fraser sucks up to the duke big time, even seconding him in a duel in Episode 10, which is almost entirely of Moore’s invention. This is what I mean by homoerotic fan fiction.
Here’s another example: The flirtation of Corporal Hawkins’s shaving Black Jack Randall in Episode 6 mimics the scene in which Claire shaves Frank in the same episode—they even use the same razor. As they say on SNL, what’s up with that? A little humor about “beards” for the insiders? There’s the illogical order of the torture in Episode 16, especially the romanticized content of the third flashback, which, following the initial brutal rape as depicted in the adaptation, would seem highly improbable given the violence of the first encounter, even for a man of Fraser’s considerable physical prowess. Another example, from Episode 15, would be the moment when Black Jack Randall saves Fraser from hanging, which is part of Moore’s fantasy, not Gabaldon’s.
Diana Gabaldon on her website explicitly forbids fan fiction. In the Hollywood media, however, she has given her imprimatur to Moore’s adaptation. I will gladly go on the record that this would not be the first time an author disavowed her own work. Some writers do so in hindsight out of real disappointment, some out of a sense of false modesty, some in the interest of drumming up the kind of controversy that sells more books. Some are intimidated by critics, and who can blame them. Let’s face it: Therapists around the world are putting their own children through college on the profits of treating sons and daughters who had the misfortune of being once loved and then rejected by a parent.
I will also concede that we could argue for a good long time over the
literary merits of the “Outlander” story, but we could not argue for long about its originality (which is why Gabaldon had some trouble initially getting it published) or the fact that a woman and her marriage is at its core. Unfortunately, this is what Moore decided to overlook in favor of beefing up the conflict between Fraser and Black Jack Randall, changing the structure of “Outlander” from Gabaldon’s unique admixture of literary genres to the tried-but-true, good-guy-vs.-bad-guy epic narrative formula that is the basis of all the police procedurals, westerns, and superhero series that now dominate the television and feature film industries.
One could argue that this safe choice by Moore and his co-creators resulted in the awards and nominations “Outlander” has received so far. That assumes Moore and Co. are satisfied with nominations alone and with the approbation of fans, which is no small thing. “Outlander’s” fan base must be the envy of many of Moore’s peers.
Yet Moore and Starz seem willing, even eager, to go the distance. With the talent and popularity of his cast, the expertise and ingenuity of his crew, and the state-of-the-art studio resources at his disposal in Scotland, Moore could do very well indeed, and much better than he has, if he would just heed the lessons of this award season: Ditch the safe, over-worked, male-centric epic narrative formula for TV success. Instead, trust in Diana Gabaldon’s originality by adapting her novels faithfully for Season 2 and (hopefully) beyond.
Joss
January 13, 2016 @ 8:34 am
Thank you for interesting and informative response. Now I see what you mean by “homoerotic fanfiction”. Regarding scenes between Randall and Corporal Hawkins, I assume these were meant to give the audience a hint that Randall is partial to young men (moment when he pets Hawkins a little after “shaving” him). I heard – from one of interviews or podcasts, I don’t remember unfortunately – that they wanted to include a scene in episode 6 where Claire catches a glimpse of BJR and Hawkins having sex but ultimately gave it up. Why they did not include the story of Alex McGregor from the actual book – I have no idea.
Regarding Duke of Sandringham – I suppose they wanted to subdue his portrayal and make it less…offensive, I guess? In book he is portrayed as a predatory man who chases teenage boys around trying to force them into sex. Jamie’s perturbations with him at the age of 16 might have not sit well with general audience.
I agree with you completly on the “third flashback” in episode 16. I was not convinced by show’s portrayal of Jamie’s trauma and the way they focused on gory details of his rape and Randall’s sadistic antics instead of Jamie’s healing and Claire’s mad fight for his life.
As i said in my previous post, I’ve been disappointed with Jamie’s portrayal on the show, so far he has been lacking the edge and humor of the character from the book IMO What I find the most interesting about book Jamie is his dualism – he is well educated gentleman with broad way of thinking BUT he is a Highlander with strong religious beliefs and firm attachment to traditions and strict code of honor. He is capable of violence but also of great empathy and compassion. He can be intimidating but also humorous and charming. And so on. I don’t know what they will make of it in the future seasons. So far the show version of character is rather flat, sadly. But about honor, I think it’s actually a huge thing for Jamie as well. He is repeatedly refererred to as a man of his words. He kept his word to Randall afterall in the most unthinkable situation (Wentworth), Claire manages to convince him in “Voayger” that she must come to British soldiers’ aid by reciting him Hippocratic Oath, “Drums of Autumn” is a book which strongly focuses on Jamie’s sense of honor and pros/cons of it.
As for Frank vs Jamie in season 2, we will have to wait and see. Though Zap2it posted an article which describes a new trailer released only for tv critics and it features a scene between Claire and Frank that seriously alters their reunion in hospital, as written in “Voyager”.
sigrid28
January 13, 2016 @ 12:28 pm
Once again, I’m firing up the old keyboard and drinking a nice cup of coffee, contemplating your latest post, which most certainly deserves a decent response. Your point about the duality of Fraser’s character is, I think, the key for me in putting a finger on how Moore’s adaptation seems likely to fall flat in Season 2 as it did in Season 1, at least in the eyes of some book readers. I think one problem is that Moore’s adaptation does not give Gabaldon’s historical content its due.
“With her tough approach to spirituality and paganism as an indispensable part of history, Gabaldon does for eighteenth-century Europe (and the New World later on in her novels) what these popular television series did for Southern Gothic [Season 1 of HBO’s “True Detective” and “True Blood”]. The strict religious practices in the eighteenth century match the harsh realities of the life of its believers. It’s a straight line between Wentworth Prison and the monastery.” (I posted this in the comment thread to an article about “Outlander” that appeared in Design&Trend 10-27-2015)
The duality you speak of is embedded in Gabaldon’s personification of Fraser as, quite specifically, a well-educated, Scottish Catholic of the eighteenth century who in the end disagrees with the many other Highlanders who support the Rebellion. Lord John embodies another kind of duality linked to that historical timeframe. He is both a Royalist, loyal to king and country, and a universalist in terms of religion, dedicated to the humanitarian values associated (ironically) with the Founding Fathers here in the U.S.: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who, as we both know, makes his appearance in Gabaldon’s seventh novel in the “Outlander” series.
By refashioning Gabaldon’s content into an epic narrative, Moore has diluted her characters, making them rather flat, as you
say. To adapt her historical fiction faithfully, Moore has to do more than just dress up Gabaldon’s characters in elaborate period costumes and place them in spectacular locations as if they were paper dolls.
The question I would ask is, why does Moore refuse to take the structure of Gabaldon’s novels seriously after going to all of the trouble and expense of getting the setting right? A forgiving answer is that Moore truly under-estimates both the author and the capacity of the viewing public to appreciate the real content of her books. Otherwise, I’m afraid Moore’s approach is symptomatic of the superficiality and self-indulgence that permeate the entertainment industry worldwide and that foster a not so very well-concealed attitude dismissive of female artists and their points of view.
Joss
January 14, 2016 @ 7:50 am
Here is the actual quote from Ron Moore:
“Q With so much of Jacobite history being intertwined with
religion, was it a conscious decision to downplay Jamie’s faith versus
Claire’s nominal Catholicism?
A No, it wasn’t a conscious decision. I think it was
just a question of emphasis. We didn’t try to play it down, I guess it
didn’t quite play into the story as much. We just didn’t write it, we
could have, it wasn’t a strategic choice, or a creative choice, it just
sort of evolved that way.”
sigrid28
January 14, 2016 @ 4:13 pm
Hi, Joss. I’m glad our servers finally caught up with each other. I, too, missed Gabaldon’s take on religion in Moore’s “Outlander.” By following other TV series devoted to historical fiction, I’ve had to conclude that Moore is not alone in failing to develop the subject adequately. My adventures in historical fiction adapted for the small screen have taken me from—
the sublime: BBC’s “The Last Kingdom” based on Bernard Cornwell’s novel series “The Saxon Stories” chronicling the efforts of King Alfred to unify what is now Britain in the ninth century (eight episodes renewed for a second season of ten);
to the ridiculous: Kurt Sutter’s “The Bastard Executioner” set in thirteenth-century Wales, an unacknowledged retread of the film “The Return of Martin Guerre” (1982), based a true story of imposture in sixteenth-century France, published by historian Natalie Zemon Davis in 1983 (Sutter himself discontinued this series after eight episodes);
and in between: a version of the first Thanksgiving, “Saints&Strangers,” a two-part limited mini-series aired on the National Geographic Channel November 22 and 23.
In Gabaldon’s novels, two major characters, Claire and Ian, are developed through the story-telling device of the captivity narrative: Each is forced to assimilate an alien culture and then forced to return to his or her own, with unpredictable consequences. The captivity narrative is an interesting plot device in drama and literature because it teaches tolerance both through the captive totally assimilating a culture that is not his or her own and then through confronting his own culture when he returns “home.”
What made BBC’s “The Last Kingdom” so impressive was the way two complex plot devices, a captivity narrative and conspiracy to commit regicide, were intertwined. This is a very hard lift dramatically speaking. It was done so well that I feel bad for pointing out a weakness which there was, perhaps, not room in the series to correct.
In “The Last Kingdom,” a fictional character named Uhtred is adopted by the Danes as a boy and immersed in their culture. When he returns to his Saxon origins, his presence allows the Saxons and King Alfred to appreciate the Danish approach to warfare, the Danish philosophy of life and death, the Danes’ fierce loyalty, and their love of family. However, in the television series Uhtred does little to help Saxons understand the religious orientation of the Danes. You wouldn’t know it from watching the series, but there was one.
And it is no consolation that the Saxon take on Christianity in this period piece has a tinge of anti-clericalism to it, because the subject is not developed accurately or with a feeling for King Alfred’s sincerity. The audience knows no more than Uhtred about the religion that governs Alfred’s behavior and beliefs, which is a failing in the plot itself and a failing of the series as historical fiction.
“The Last Kingdom” is not alone in flunking the religion portion of the test of authenticity in a television series belonging to the genre of historical fiction. “The Bastard Executioner,” set in fourteenth-century Wales, and “Outlander,” set in eighteenth-century Scotland, come up against the same difficulty, whereas none of these three fails the test of depicting the contingencies of living and dying by the sword within each of these period settings.
We live in an age of tolerance and religious diversity in which religion and politics have, with great sacrifice and violence, been carefully disentangled, particularly in Russia and China no less than in Western Europe and the United States. Television adaptations like “The Last Kingdom” and “Outlander” force us to work intellectual muscles that may have undergone some atrophy since the first Thanksgiving when religion permeated every aspect of life for Pilgrims and Native Americans alike, even Squanto, the real-life subject of a fascinating captivity narrative.
Perhaps producers worry that contemporary audiences will tire of the content needed to depict correctly how religion played a part in the cultures that threaten to tear apart the hero-captive of each of these narratives. Certainly it is easier to entertain with gore and swash-buckling. I look for the best producers to find a way to make the religious underpinning of historical fiction just as interesting as the recourse to torture and warfare.
Joss
January 15, 2016 @ 12:32 pm
Again, thanks for a lot of interesting info. Unfortunately I’ve not seen any of the above mentioned tv series so I cannot comment on them, though I’m familiar with Bernard’s Cornwell works. But speaking of “captivity narrative” you mention, one thing that immediately springs to my mind is History Channel;s “Vikings” which features exactly the same plot device. There is a young monk abducted by the Vikings from English monastery, who ultimately becomes close friend to the main protagonist, jarl Ragnar. These two have deep interest in each other religion and mindset, Athelstan was meant to give the modern audience a reference point and navigate them through the world of Vikings. I don’t know if you are familiar with the show but it’s certainly one which is not afraid to acknowledge the subject of faith and how important it could be without casting easy judgements.
sigrid28
January 15, 2016 @ 1:45 pm
Bit groggier this morning, though now finally accessing Mission Control and today’s initiation sequence: coffee, keyboard, Joss
(Hello!), “captivity narrative,” Vikings, “without casting easy judgements”—speaking of judgements, yours, so succinctly put with just the right amount of detail. Well, I’m envious. Every time I try to get into “Vikings,” I get restless and turn the channel or pick up a book. Maybe I will give it another try.
Yvonne
January 14, 2016 @ 4:33 pm
I feel Ron intentionally played down faith in OL. He was forced to include the Anselm scene. I’d read that DG wanted and insisted on it, and had sat next to a Starz exec (at some function) who also liked it, and the Anselm bit ended up in the show, albeit a shallow version as compared to the book. In podcast 16, Ron and Ira discuss faith in a cavalier way, and sound apologetic for having included it, IMO. Ira says “being in the science fiction realm, we did a lot of stuff about faith and belief and religion that we got away with
because it was science fiction. And in a way, you could do it here because it’s a period piece, it’s not as fraught as it is today, if you’re doing a contemporary piece.” There’s more in that podcast on this subject.
Joss
January 15, 2016 @ 12:05 pm
Well…if Ron Moore plan to adapt all of “Outlander” books or at least most of them, there is no way he can shy away from the themes of faith and religion. It becomes huge in the following books, particulary book 5 and 6, beginning with Roger’s vocation and the conflict between catholics and protestants as represented by Jamie and Tom Christie, with a lot of musing about predestination thrown into the mix. It was such an inherent part of life of these people back then, one simply cannot ignore it if one approaches the subject seriously. I’ve heard that Ron Moore is not too keen on including supernatural/magical aspects of “Outlander” (and that’s why they avoided to film the opium induced havoc Claire created to bring Jamie back, as written in the novel) which is rather confusing given the nature of these books. Sure, time-traveling stuff may belong to the realm of sf but when the father of main male character is believed to be a giant selkie while other characters speak to ghosts or have visions, it’s hard to pretend that Gabaldon’s books are hard realism.
I’ve always thought that Claire relationship with Anselm was one of the most important points of their stay at the abbey, certainly more important than prolonged scenes of Jack Randall lubricating Jamie with lavender oil *eye roll* so it’s surprising they wanted to exclude Anselm completly.
Yvonne
January 15, 2016 @ 5:01 pm
Joss,
an eye roll doesn’t work for me haha, I’ve needed to press my fingers onto my popping neck veins to push them back into place after watching Ron’s part 2 OL eps, and now, with the S2 trailers showing befuddled Jamie listening to Claire push infiltrating the Jacobites, and angry Jamie threatening Claire with a dirk from across the room. I totally agree that Claire’s relationship with Anselm was important in OL. Ron shorted that relationship (part of which, Claire confesses, Anselm absolves) followed by exclusion of redemption that was the saving of Jamie Fraser’s soul by the end, as it was in OL. I think a lot of people aren’t fond of Claire’s seemingly supernatural, magical and opium-induced rescue of Jamie, but I see it differently. She selflessly risked her life, basically as a punching bag, and then dug out Jamie’s rage that was buried under his lack of will to live. Okay, granted, the m-mother that Jamie finally says is rather disturbing to me, since they’d just connected sexually. It also bothers me that Abot Alexander was excluded, Jamie’s beloved uncle who administered last rites to Jamie. Jamie’s struggle to utter every last “aye” to Alexander, after which he became calm and peaceful.
As for Ron’s view on TT, sci-fi, magic. I read that he didn’t want to film a cheesy stones scene (paraphrasing here) when Claire is making her choice, yet, we did get that excellent scene when she first comes through. The stones should always be shown as terrifying, and how they are terrifying. Here’s what Graphia said about the J / C stones scene in the ep 11 that she wrote and IMO she has zero grasp of Jamie and Claire as well as those stones: “My interpretation is that the rocks are magnets and both sides of the rocks have a pull. For me, the pull of Jamie at this time was just stronger at that point. I think she does love Frank and was very tempted to go back, but in the end the pull of Jamie won out.” Add to that, Ron says in podcast 6 that he wanted to “play on the time travel aspect of it” when he filmed that razor in the hands of, first, Claire shaving Frank followed by Corporal Hawkins shaving BJR.
I think S2 will include that scene / meeting with Germain and Raymond in the king’s dark chamber, because there was a BTS shot of filming of a snake, and an article referencing snake handlers on set. So it seems Ron is not totally averse to addressing TT and magic.
Personally, I hope Ron never gets a shot at “adapting” any further books. Every season on air offers him another chance to change “the story” as it was written. He thinks he has a better story, and
IMO, he does not.
Joss
January 16, 2016 @ 3:12 pm
My perception of opium-rescue has been changing over the years. When I first read it I was very young (teenage young) and I had problems with comprehending it. I read this passage several times and still wasn’t sure what exactly had happened. But when I was rereading the books some years later, I saw it differently.
I think many people are bothered that Claire drugged feverish, very sick Jamie and forced him to relive his rape, they look at it from the modern point of view and say it’s a horrible way to deal with a victim of rape. And yes, I wouldn’t recommend that “procedure” to anyone today. But back then, when they didn’t have any modern tools to deal with a person suffering from severe trauma, when no one heard about psychology, psychiatry or therapy, hell when there were no antibiotics to cure Jamie’s sepsis – Claire’s idea was ingenious and probably the only thing she could do to bring him back.
Certainly it was better than show’s lame “You must get better NOW or I will drop dead with you!!!” *sob sob* I really really liked a lot of episodes of STARZ “Outlander” but the last two gave my a headache. “Wentworth Prison” was borderline campy IMO and “To Ransom a Man’s Soul”…well…if anyone out there was curious how vicious, sadistic male on male rape looks like, they certainly know it now with all gross details. And that’s all I guess. Where was Claire in all of that, or Jamie as a person (instead of Jamie’s abused flesh)?
As for S2 trailers, I was also taken aback by Jamie’s “But we would be lying to everyone!” but then I read the actor said the audience will see Jamie acting deceptive and being really good at it so there is a hope. That moment with dirk is probably taken out of the context – Jamie giving the knife to Claire and asking her to kill him if she chooses Frank/BJR’s life over him.
Joss
January 14, 2016 @ 8:30 am
Strange, my previous post hasn’t been posted. Oh well.
This is really interesting. I’ve always been fascinated by the way Diana Gabaldon incorporates religious themes into her books and spiritual life of her characters is so rich. From the way Jamie accommodates his deep catholic faith with a dose of “old ways”, to Young Ian looking for a proof that there is a God and being torn between his christian and Native American identity. But I often wonder how/if it’s going to translate on screen. In the last chapters of book one the characters are shown healing at the abbey in France and I thought that episode 16 of the show didn’t do a justice to Claire relationship with Father Anselm, perhaps due to lack of time spent otherwise (read: on Jamie being maimed by BJR for an episode and half).
Above I posted a response from Ron Moore regarding religious themes in “Outlander”, he gave at ComicCon.
Jessabean
January 14, 2016 @ 3:20 pm
Bravo!!! I have no faith in Ron Moore’s judgement. I will be skipping Season 2. Naive, clueless, and useless Jamie – one of the most original characters of the last 30 years – is just too painful to watch.
sigrid28
January 14, 2016 @ 4:58 pm
Thanks, Jessabean. But think about this: If Moore knows we are going to hold our noses and watch Season 2 anyway, maybe we can hold his feet to the fire. I’m only writing this stuff because I understand the fluidity of film editing (I worked in the film editing department of a news station for a year). You might be surprised at the ease with which a scene can be altered significantly in the editing room clear up until the last minute before going on the air. I’m trusting in the immediacy of the post-production process–and Moore’s hunger for success–to help him overcome the self-indulgence that damaged Season 1. No matter how far along they are, if he wants to, Moore can still put finishing touches on Season 2 that will help him do a better job of adapting Gabaldon’s second novel than he did with the first.
Yvonne
January 14, 2016 @ 6:00 pm
Love your optimism, but when Ron says repeatedly in interviews and podcasts over many months that “Frank defines Claire” and that he loves to shock the book fans with his changes, I, too, have no interest in watching a continued destruction of characters and story. Complaints about the adaptation have been going on since the part 2 eps were airing and especially after the WW eps, and by the looks of this latest S2 trailer, I don’t see that Ron is aware of them or, perhaps he’s chosen to ignore them. I don’t know how to hold Ron’s feet to the fire, other than cancel viewing.
sigrid28
January 14, 2016 @ 11:02 pm
Hi, Yvonne. Count me in when it comes to resentment on Gabaldon’s behalf over RM’s little “surprises.” What a low bar for entertainment. Those comments make me think he has no idea what the fans of her novels are really like. I for one would love to read your posts during Season 2 to clear the palate, however. In the meantime, on four Mondays beginning January 18 on LIFE (also on A&E and History, I believe) I plan to watch the BBC’s new adaptation of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” (bought a used copy for $1.50). Sunday “Mercy Street,” set during the American Civil War, begins on PBS.
Yvonne
January 15, 2016 @ 5:09 pm
Alas, I’d rather take a dirk in the eye than watch S2. I may watch select scenes / episodes if I hear the story and characters are corrected. By the looks of the last trailer, they are not.
sigrid28
January 15, 2016 @ 9:44 pm
Oh dear. That’s my answer. I’m unwillingly concluding myself that the failures of this adaptation are a result of self-indulgence, Hollywood-as-High-School-with-money style AND a combination of under-estimating, misunderstanding, and disrespecting both the author and the people who admire her books. Still, being a glutton for punishment, I’ll probably test my patience when Season 2 rolls along, on the off-chance that there’s something to be learned from Moore’s mistakes. Thanks for your honesty and wise take on industry standards, Yvonne.
Yvonne
January 15, 2016 @ 10:43 pm
I am not really wise about industry standards haha, but I do know OL after reading it repeatedly since the 1990s, and it pains me to see that story and those two soul mates be misrepresented and / or diminished in digital format. Re season 2, I’ll be looking for _your_ posts to help me determine if I should be watching. And I agree with every one of your conclusions, above. edited to add, I see my reply to your question below “what do you think” does not show up below, and basically, it agreed with your conclusions above)
sigrid28
January 15, 2016 @ 10:58 pm
Be assured, I will be posting online with you in mind.
Yvonne
January 15, 2016 @ 11:54 pm
oh Sigrid. I have seen ep one of War and Peace already, and I was very disappointed, as were my friends who did actually read the book (I have not.) We’ve also seen ep 2 and agree it was “better” than the first, and because more time was taken to develop several characters. For me, the nonreader, ep 1 was very fast moving, and I didn’t get a grasp of the characters (my reader friends resorted to the book to fill in the blanks, and haha, exactly what we had to do with OL). There’s a Tolstoy facebook with comments on the first episode. It’s beautiful to look at, though.
sigrid28
January 16, 2016 @ 1:35 am
Oh dear, Yvonne. Thanks for the heads up. Well, it may be the Golden Age of Television but it ain’t the Golden Age of Television Adaptation yet. I guess I should be glad I’m rereading this “War and Peace” for a second time BEFORE Monday night (well, I do keep skipping around in it). It really is a spectacular novel (worth listening to in the audiotape, but only if as well done as Davina Porter reading OL). By the by, what did you and your friends think of the latest film version of “Anna Karenina”? I’d be curious to know.
Yvonne
March 6, 2016 @ 8:22 pm
well, now I’m not sure how I will find your posts on S2 …… :-(
sigrid28
March 6, 2016 @ 11:05 pm
Find me on AV Club, CarterMatt, wherever Disqus is still accepted, as I go nuts if I cannot edit my posts once I put them up. I’ll fix my Disqus profile so it will allow you to follow me there. Hope that answers your question.
I’m not very reassured by the most recent Season 2 preview on Starz, the one with RM in his grannie glasses. This preview features not “Jamie the cardsharp,” who lies cool as ice whenever he has to/wants to, but “anxious Jamie,” who whines: “Claire, whatever will we do? We have to lie to everyone!” I’m puzzled because I still think adolescent boys and men are the preferred demographic for RM and Starz: Witness “Black Sails,” “The Girlfriend Experience,” and what happened to Season 1 of “Outlander.” I don’t see boys and men as big fans of “anxious Jamie.” I’m not sure the guys in this audience will identify with the men featured in the episodes taking place in eighteenth-century Paris, what with men dressed in androgynous wigs and heels and jabots. And we know from the recent, “content-rich” EW spread that 40% of Outlander’s audience is men: That’s their claim and they’re sticking to it. On the other hand, we’re not being hit over the head with BJR in Season 2 previews, which keeps the focus on the historical conflict between the Highlanders and the British army of occupation, something I do like. So much for Season 2 and its appeal to men.
As for women in the audience, the good news is, some parts of the previews suggest that RM has gotten the idea that “Outlander” is the story of a marriage, which is progress on his part—enormous progress. The bad news is that the content RM released to EW for its article and photo-shoot promotes a frat-boy approach to intimacy within that marriage. This makes me worry that Season 2, like Season 1, will be written by people who haven’t read Gabaldon’s novels. I got the impression from the EW piece that RM and Starz think women are attracted to soft-core porn and cute guys and pretty dresses, sort of the message in all of the Season 2 PR that boasts of “a completely new setting and gorgeous costumes for Season 2.” It is as though RM thinks the women in the audience for Season 2 are like the main characters of Starz “The Girlfriend Experience”—or maybe he only wishes they were. Oh well, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Yvonne
March 7, 2016 @ 2:29 pm
Thanks, Sigrid, you answered my question.
I agree with you. And I also don’t see boys and men as devoted fans of that crushed Jamie that we saw at the end of episode 16. I doubt they’d return to season 2 to find out what happens to him, and especially after seeing weak (but well-dressed !) Jamie of the season 2 trailers. oh well, maybe they’re fans of empowered Claire. ha !
I have not seen one trailer released that changes my mind that I won’t be watching season 2. I see a “grateful” Frank, a weak Jamie and a still-bossy and in-charge Claire who has been called “the mastermind” in numerous articles. When will Jamie “heal” and be Jamie of the book. Who knows, maybe not until they lose Faith, which is just in time to head off to Scotland. Will he be a leader in Scotland. Who knows. I think by now all the writers have read at least the first two books, but it doesn’t matter, because they all think they / Ron have a better story to tell. Also,maybe they avoid BJR previews so as to not spoil that he’s alive ? I remember catching the SDCC video online before it was pulled off the internet, and it was footage supposedly from episodes 1-2-3. BJR was seen, half naked, as was Jamie who was covered with blood and stabbing something or someone with a long knife, although the two scenes were separated in the video clip. DG has said “less sex” in season 2, on compuserve. And I agree, that EW shoot was frat boy effort.
Joss
March 7, 2016 @ 5:04 pm
If I can put my two cents in…IMO “Outlander” writers have problem with potraying J&C relationship on screen because they don’t fit one of the two molds that are usually used in movies/books/tv shows/other mediums. One is a couple with strong male and woman being a perpetual damsel in distress. Other is a strong, dominating female paired with a gentler, sotfter man. The former is not often used nowadays, but it’s still there, particulary in fanfiction which sometimes turn even the most headstrong females into weeping willows, always in some sort of opression: wounded, fainting, helpless, hurt… anyway – in constant need of rescue from her man. The latter is more popular but is also more diverse, version “light” is, for example, “Hunger Games” with badass woman and vulnerable but still capable guy. Version “hard” you got in Harry Potter the movies, with two dumb guys, who wouldn’t find their way to toilet without their spunky sidekick – turned – heroine, who doesn’t have much in common with book!Hermione.
What I’m trying to say is that Diana Gabaldon’s “Outlander” is about neither of those couples. It’s about two strong, willful, capable and resourceful individuals who are each other equal in every way. They draw strenght from each other, sometimes he needs something from her, sometimes she is in the more vulnerable position. Claire is a strong, independent woman. She is no Bella Swan (egad) and didn’t curl into fetal position and die after losing Jamie for 20 years, she raised he daugher and became a fantastic doctor. Yet she have never felt complete without Jamie but there was nothing demeaning about it. She lost her husband, her partner, her friend. And the same could be said about Jamie. He remained a strong, dutiful man despite of years of unbelievable heartbreak and hardship but it wasn’t until his reunion with Claire that he felt whole again.
The show runners are obviously into the second mold, with Claire being the alpha-female and Jamie pushed into the role of her hunky, bare chested husband. And while I’m grateful that they are doing Claire justice (for the most part, they should allow her lighten up a bit, book!Claire has more sense of humor), I’m disappointed with the loss of book!Jamie and his exuberant, vibrant nature. Strong woman and strong man should not be mutually exclusive.
sigrid28
March 8, 2016 @ 12:59 am
Joss, you take us back to the top of the comment thread, where we discuss the way for Moore to be successful in adapting “Outlander” and its sequels: Capture Gabaldon’s originality by being faithful to the novels.
Yvonne
March 8, 2016 @ 4:11 pm
Yes, adapted Jamie is certainly a boy toy. I find it hard to believe that Claire would choose him, or that he would love that harsh Claire. I don’t recognize either one of them. (And I agree with your description of Jamie and Claire. They are certainly a power couple.)
sigrid28
March 7, 2016 @ 9:58 pm
Since you bring up “grateful Frank” as he appears in the Season 2 previews, I want to mention what I see in this peek into Menzies’s characterization of Frank Randall. From a disability perspective, when Claire returns to the twentieth century, Frank is like the spouse of a survivor of traumatic brain injury, the husband of a woman who has been permanently altered almost beyond recognition. Husbands and wives of injured veterans, no less than family members caring for parents or children with traumatic brain injuries and other neurological deficits, can identify with this virtual loss of a loved one, which they must deal with on a daily basis, all the while striving to keep faith with a spouse or a parent they no longer recognize, who may not recognize them. The failings of Gabaldon’s Frank Randall (his unfaithfulness, his refusal to believe Claire, his choosing Brianna over Claire every time) could probably, quite convincingly, also be part of Tobias Menzies’s characterization—and I hope they are. This scene in the preview made me guardedly hopeful about Moore’s approach in Season 2 and the prospects for a third season, if Starz should renew “Outlander.”
Yvonne
March 8, 2016 @ 4:05 pm
I agree with your description of Gabaldon’s Frank although we don’t find out some of that until reading Voyager. But nowhere did we get from Claire’s thoughts that Frank was grateful to see her, he was downright verbally nasty to her as she remembers him in both DIA and Voyager. I’m still not seeing a faithful adaptation or that they’re getting it right by the season two trailers, and did love your comment at the top:
select a distinguished body of work and adapt it faithfully. Luckily for Ronald Moore, “Outlander” was renewed for a second season, so he has another chance to get it right.
sigrid28
March 8, 2016 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks for the kind remarks. I’m going to have to retire from this critique until Season 2 begins, because I have to make headway on my own work-in-progress. When I surface again on a comment thread a month from now, I’ll be looking forward to finding out what you think, Yvonne (et al).
sigrid28
January 16, 2016 @ 4:30 pm
The great server in the sky misplaced a reply I wrote to Jessabean by posting it here. I’ve corrected the error (that’s why I use Disqus, so I can correct mistakes). Forgive me if this is getting tiresome. Now must get back to “War and Peace.”
Traci M
February 28, 2016 @ 4:09 am
I am very late to the party but I wanted to jump in and say how much I am enjoying this conversation between Sigrid (@sigrid28), Yvonne (@disqus_8hiMKlmXrD) Suha (@disqus_CEk3wYhdbv) and Joss. Such terrific discussion and you’ve all echoed my thoughts precisely. I plowed through Season 1, culminating in much despair with the last 4 episodes in particular. Why I’m hanging in there for Season 2 and likely to be doubly disappointed (if that’s even possible!) is anyone’s guess. More than anything I’m staying for Sam Heughan’s portrayal of Jamie. Despite continued dissolution of his character, Heughan manages to do great things with the little he’s got. I can’t take my eyes off him, he’s a wonderful actor.
That said, I think RDM suffers from Napoleon Complex and has to have control of everything, right down to the thinning out of as much of James Fraser as he can possibly get away with.
I hope one day in my lifetime (maybe not) that the BBC will give Outlander a try.
sigrid28
March 6, 2016 @ 11:18 pm
Butting in here, Traci M: Did you see BBC’s “The Last Kingdom,” which was renewed for a second season of ten episodes? That is a series based on novels that didn’t disappoint the fans of the books, anyway.
Traci M
March 8, 2016 @ 6:48 pm
I tried the first couple of episodes Sigrid, and have to say I wasn’t grabbed by them. Then again, I haven’t read the books either, even though I am a fan of Bernard Cornwell’s work in his Sharpe Series. I was hoping for more characterization in The Last Kingdom but maybe I just didn’t give it enough time. Perhaps I’ll give it another try.
sigrid28
March 8, 2016 @ 8:49 pm
With “The Last Kingdom,” I got hooked on the difficult lift, plot-wise, of combining both a captivity narrative and a conspiracy to commit regicide. Soon, the thing grew on me, because it was so elegantly put together. I do think character development suffered while all this was going on. Most of the others who liked it well knew the characters from the books, so they probably filled in where necessary. The comment threads were fun and edifying, what with all the history buffs and dyed-in-the-wool fans following along. I had the same experience you did (not being able to get into it) with “Vikings,” until I took Joss’s tip above and binged on Season 3, just before Season 4 began several weeks ago. Now I’m a convert, especially when it comes to the comment threads. Those fans are berserkers!
Jessabean
January 16, 2016 @ 6:24 am
You make a great point … but I have to think of my health. :)
Ron also seems to think that all watching is good watching … even when it’s hate-watching. I don’t want to feed that monster. :D
To your point about post=production, Ron has the final cut and he cuts according to his vision and his version.
I have to wonder sometimes about Sam Heughan. He must have thought he was getting so many more lines that that. Or, thinking, “that’s not how I remember that scene.”
One of my theories about Ron is that he doesn’t understand or feel inclined to do justice by alpha male type characters because those guys beat him up in high school. Joss Whedon has talked about this and how he struggled with and overcame it. Ron just doesn’t know what to do with alpha male characters in any of his shows.
Apollo!! OOF. That was so disappointing.
Suha
January 17, 2016 @ 4:03 pm
Such fascinating points you make here! It’s one thing in trying to give your audience something Starz would deem an unexpected version of the classic – and beaten to death – love triangle (in regards to Black Sails Season 2) it’s an entirely different prospect trying to adapt a somewhat similar triangle formula in a story that doesn’t require nor benefit from it.
Diana Gabaldon has an incredible knack for not dumbing down her story. She holds her readers as intelligent and mature enough to appreciate the depth of content she provides. The watering down of some of the more intricate elements RDM tends to do, while playing up the conflict between the 2 male leads, is something that threatens to overshadow what the core truly is. RDM and Co. have essentially taken away the audiences’ chance to prove they can rise up to the challenge of not only understanding Diana’s complex story but appreciating it wholly for what it is.
As you say though, we shall have to wait and see how it all plays out in the end.
sigrid28
January 22, 2016 @ 6:22 pm
Rereading Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” in anticipation of a new adaptation of the novel, I thought of another reason for Ron Moore’s failure to adapt Diana Gabaldon’s novels faithfully. He appears not to find the subject of marriage as interesting as other topics that he fancies. That is why Moore devotes Episodes 6, 15, and 16 to Black Jack and his perversions as well as dedicating other episodes to plotlines that are not in the novel, such as the Duke of Sandringham’s duel (Episode 10), the Watch (Episode 13), and a pseudo-Western (Episode 14). Gabaldon’s novels may hint at some of this, but her novels have at their core the story of a successful marriage, the marriage between Claire and Jamie, set against the background of the Scottish Rebellion of 1746 and later the American Revolution.
I found that “War and Peace” was also the story of successful marriage, two of them, set against the background of the Napoleonic wars that swept Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In Part 1 of the Epilogue to “War and Peace,” Tolstoy brings to life two different yet successful marriages: the ones between Pierre and Natasha and between Nickolai and Maria. I should add that Tolstoy’s refreshing take on marriage and family life in “War and Peace” is painted with such a broad brush that it could apply to same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals. Like Gabaldon, Tolstoy brings these ideal marriages so much to life that the reader yearns for such a miraculous experience, such a brave intimacy.
Suha
January 23, 2016 @ 7:45 pm
You’ve brought up a brilliant point about marriage that many fans – including myself – have been thoroughly vocal about. The way Diana portrays Claire and Jamie’s marriage dynamic is an essential part to her story. What these two characters sacrifice for each other, the lengths to which they go to preserve what they manage to recover after their separation, is not the type of relationship RDM is accustomed to seeing portrayed on screen.
And even though they have their internal issues, these are outweighed by what brings them together as one. They only ever come out of those heartbreaks unified and stronger. The things that truly threaten them are the external forces around them. Other than those forces, Claire and Jamie are committed wholly to one another and nothing comes between that bond. There are no attractions/pulls elsewhere that ever makes them wander.
What the show really needs to represent is that strength of partnership far more than just the constant bickering for 50mins topped off by a 2min makeup at the end formula that dominates tv couples. The audience has to feel that depth of unity and bond, see them be One, see them have light, quiet moments, in amongst the angsty ones, so that when they are ripped away from each other, the impact is that more devastating.
I felt that depth perhaps twice and not so much from the writing, but from the performances. When Claire’s made to leave Jamie in Wentworth, Caitriona Balfe’s performance was simply beyond measure, and when she has the confrontation with him at the Abbey – again immeasurable performances by both.
RDM needs too strive to give the audience something they’ve hardly seen before – a unified couple fighting the world around them, together. The source material already provides them with their fair share of heartache without having to add strife where there never was to begin with.
sigrid28
January 24, 2016 @ 3:12 pm
Again so well said. If you want to read Tolstoy’s take on what constitutes a good marriage, the account in Part 1 of the Epilogue to “War and Peace” is not very long–about sixty pages (1351-1411). I was rereading the novel in anticipation of BBC’s new adaptation (they did one forty years ago) appearing on cable in the U.S (the first episode appeared January 18). Since you posted the response above I happened to read in my tattered Signet paperback (circa 1970) the introduction by John Bayley (1968):
“I stress the coincidence of Tolstoy’s first happily married years with the writing of ‘War and Peace’ because marriage is the novel’s ultimate theme, its climax, its apotheosis. ‘Marriedness’ is happiness; and to be happy is to be right, justified by life and at peace with it. (‘Mir’ in Russian, means ‘community’ as well as ‘peace’). The book ends with marriage, but not in the sense that many novels of the period did. It is not a device for concluding the work, but, in a curious sense, the justification for it. It is the equivalent, in the sphere of peace, for the Russian victory over Napoleon in the sphere of war. There are more happy marriages in ‘War and Peace’ than in any other novel, and though this may seem a naïve way of characterizing one of the great triumphs of Tolstoy’s enterprise, it has point. For in how many novels is the actuality of a happy marriage analyzed and celebrated as Tolstoy analyzes and celebrates it?”
This comment does put in perspective the high level of achievement in Gabaldon’s depiction of marriage in her novels (and by the way, Tolstoy’s development in his novel has also been called “organic”). I think Moore willfully misrepresented this subject in order to please Starz by attracting adolescent boys and men to his adaptation, a feat he accomplishes by reducing Gabaldon’s first two novels to epic narratives focused on the conflict between Fraser and Black Jack Randall.
To understand fully how Starz selects the adolescent boy and male audience, all one has to do is watch the premiere of Season 3 of “Black Sails.” Like “Game of Thrones” and “The Bastard Executioner,” we see a main character pooping and wiping himself (at least he isn’t yet so entitled as to insist on being wiped by a homosexual servant as the lord of the manor is in “The Bastard Executioner”). Moore makes sure we see Fraser and Murtagh pissing against the castle wall for the same reason. Check scatological humor.
Moore emphasizes Fraser’s immaturity: his outlaw status puts him in a state of prolonged adolescence with nothing to do except “reeve cattle.” Now we know why. As in “Peter Pan,” “Black Sails” pirates are men reduced to a life of forced adolescence by the lack of gainful employment–as are the aristocrats in this series that is set, like “Outlander,” in the early part of the eighteenth century.
In the first episode of “Black Sails” Season 3, a new major character, Blackbeard, a historical figure in the series, has left his wife because he got tired of her. Now most of the women in “Black Sails” are prostitutes. Check women portrayed principally as sexual playthings in Starz’s “Black Sails” (and also its upcoming “The Girlfriend Experience”). When Moore decides to reduce Claire to hand-wringing and fails to restore the marriage at the end of Episode 16 of “Outlander,” it reduces her agency as well. Certainly, she has far less stature than she does at the end of Gabaldon’s “Outlander.”
Wealth is also diminished to adolescent proportions in “Black Sails.” Once the pirates steal the Spanish gold, they can think of nothing better to do than sit on it (literally in one scene) or use it to fund such adolescent pleasures as gaming and hiring prostitutes. Now we see why Moore went overboard in developing Gabaldon’s material about Dougal raising bags of gold and the brothers fighting about it.
Finally there is the reminder that in adolescence all males are growing out of a period of latent (or sometimes not latent) homosexuality. We understand how Moore and Behr give that full reign in their version of “Outlander.” “Black Sails” underwent its male homosexual encounter in Season 2. In Season 3, so far, “Black Sails” seeks to please its target audience with long, loving shots of men firing their weapons (pistols, cannons, etc.) or sweating as they go about their manly pirate tasks, spouting Boy Scout platitudes and swearing, holding each other captive, etc. You get the picture.
So my conclusion is that Starz and Moore willfully reduced the “Outlander” novels to the same thing we see in “Black Sails” (and in the upcoming “The Girlfriend Experience”), because adolescent boys and men are the target audience of most programming on television and feature film these days. OK for adolescent boys and men to be richly entertained. But Moore and Starz do not get to claim that they have done otherwise and are seeking to attract a niche audience of women–or minorities.
Joss
February 4, 2016 @ 9:46 am
Definitly too late for the party, but have you read the most recent interview with Diana Gabaldon? The one where she talks about the changes made in STARZ adaptation of “Dragonfly in Amber”, and how she intervened with the show runner’s plans for the last two episodes of season 1. I read it and didn’t know whether to laugh loudly or cringe. If one thought there were some elements of “homoerotic fanfiction” in season one, that was nothing in comparison to what they intended to do.
sigrid28
February 4, 2016 @ 9:45 pm
Thanks for the heads-up. I did read one recent interview, a phone interview with a news outlet in Scotland: Is that the one you are talking about? My reading of it was that she was experiencing a bit of buyer’s remorse since she gave her imprimatur to Moore’s revisions of her work in a Radio Times’s interview she gave on October 29th. She does not hold the rights to her content, and that is the problem. Everyone knows that, and everyone knows what Moore did with Season 1, chapter and verse. So I do not understand Moore’s impulse to hide behind her skirts for the mess he has made of her novel.
Since the publication of the above piece by CarterMatt and this comment thread, I have noticed a little push-back in the media around the idea that Season 2 is set in stone already and cannot be fixed. It goes like this: The final script has been written! The final script has been filmed (well, part of it anyway)! A coffee-table book about the making of Seasons 1 and 2 of “Outlander” will go on sale for $67.50 in October! Pre-order now for only $50! Starz’s publicists seem to think that book readers have no understanding of the nuanced revisions possible during post-production. To which I say, give me a break.
Ronald Moore will do as he likes with Season 2, which is his prerogative. I am just going about my daily tasks, watching television serializations of historical fiction and other programs, reading and writing, sharpening my critical skills, and waiting patiently to see what Ronald Moore and Starz decide to make of “Dragonfly in Amber.” It is always harder to praise a work of art than it is to tear it apart, so I hope to have to work very hard beginning April 4th, when Season 2 is set to begin.
Joss
February 5, 2016 @ 8:36 am
I wasn’t aware of this interview, I mean Diana’s answer to a fan’s question, which Yvonne quoted above. Sorry for not being precise, that was not an interview but something she posted on
CompuServe boards regarding Randall and Jamie in episode 15.
sigrid28
February 5, 2016 @ 11:33 am
Oh dear. I hadn’t seen that. Count me horrified but not surprised to hear about this little gem of homoerotic fan fiction. More proof in my eyes that Moore and Starz view adolescent boys and men as their target audience.
Joss
February 5, 2016 @ 2:20 pm
To be fair, I think neither adolescent boys nor men would like to see this particular bit of storytelling unfolding on screen – I don’t think ANYONE out there would like to watch something like that LOL it’s both histerically funny and disturbing at the same time. Can you imagine the actors being actually forced to act this out in front of camera?
As I said, I have my issues with this adaptation, but I would never suspect they were capable to write something so utterly dumb.
sigrid28
February 5, 2016 @ 2:58 pm
But they DID suggest it, Joss, unless you think Gabaldon is just making this up, about restraining them from enacting such a proposal on the part of BJR. You can get a flavor for what homoerotic story-telling aimed at adolescent boys and men looks like in a Starz product by watching the first episode of Season 3 of Starz’s “Black Sails,” which is not an adaptation. I’m not asserting that adolescent men and boys actually like these particular series, but I do know what superhero graphic novels and feature films look like, not to mention many of the video games aimed at this demographic. Like I say in my post above, OK that adolescent boys and men should be richly entertained. But Starz just cannot claim this is niche programming intended to attract women and minorities. Moore cannot claim that either. Nor is it a faithful adaptation of Gabaldon’s novel.
Joss
February 5, 2016 @ 5:58 pm
I mean that I had not suspected them to be capable of writing something so utterly dumb before Diana’s posted this on CompuServe. Sorry, it’s not my native language so I don’t always put my thoughts as clearly as I would like it ;-)
There are things that are “out of character” and things that are completly out of the blue, and Randall spouting romantic proposals surely is the latter IMO This episode was written by author who has not read the books, so maybe it explains it a bit, but only a little bit.
sigrid28
February 5, 2016 @ 6:20 pm
I am not bilingual, so I have tremendous admiration for anyone who is. I hope my frustration with Moore’s adaptation written by people who haven’t read the books (!) hasn’t bled into my replies to you. If so, sorry.
Joss
February 5, 2016 @ 8:45 pm
Not at all, everything is fine :-)
Yvonne
February 6, 2016 @ 2:11 pm
Episode 15 was written by Ira, and episode 16 was started by Ron until he got stuck and called in Ira to co-write, so says Ron in podcast 16 (Ron could not “crack” the scenes with Jamie and Jack). I imagine this elopement idea would have been in episode 15, so Ira alone. As many times as I’ve read the writing “was a collaborative effort” and that multiple writers are in the writer’s room, including the writers for eps before and after the ep in question, I’ve got to think that multiple writers had input to a possible drafted script of this romantic love declaration / elopement idea before Diana Gabaldon saw a script ? Surely at least one of them knew this was wrong. Or did Ira or Ron simply ask Diana first. I read where Diana claimed she wrote then handed them a drafted script of what happened inside WW. Which she claims they discarded, yet were left with the impression that there was nothing they could do that went too far. I’ve also read that Diana says her view of BJR is different from Ira’s view.
Yvonne
February 5, 2016 @ 4:15 am
Joss, I think I know what you refer to, was that an interview, or her Feb. 2 CompuServe answer to a question posed by a member. I paste her partial answer here because I don’t think I can link to it.
Gabadon (partial comment):
“It’s probably OK to mention it briefly _ex post facto_; Ron discusses similar things on his podcasts. It was the segue between Jack saving Jamie from the gallows and…er…getting down to business in the dungeon. Delicate social problem, I mean; you don’t–if you’re a refined and intelligent sadist–just walk in and start slapping your victim around. You want conversation.
Any way, the first take on that was that Jack would come in, profess his love (as in romantic love) for Jamie and urge him to elope with Jack; they’d flee Britain and live as lovers on the Continent. Jamie’s rejection would then ignite the rough stuff.
I, um, had issues with that. But they did listen, and what they came up with worked (in Tobias’s and Sam’s hands) brilliantly.”
Joss
February 5, 2016 @ 8:38 am
Yes, I mean CompuServe stuff! Thank you. Lovely, isn’t it? ;-)
sigrid28
January 17, 2016 @ 4:22 pm
The great server in the sky–or maybe I myself–sent my Tolstoy reply to the wrong person. You deserved something more closely related to your post above. It is below.
Yvonne
January 14, 2016 @ 6:24 pm
Beautifully stated, and I love it when you “go overboard.” I love your take on Gabaldon’s Jamie vs Ron’s Jamie, and agree with all of it. And some may think that the conflict between BJR and Jamie will disappear once BJR is dead, and some may think that this “triangle” (ugh) involving Frank will disappear once he is dead, but this can only happen if Ron chooses it to be so. After all, flashbacks from later books can be used or twisted and even manufactured to keep these themes continuing forever. As for OL awards so far, OL received no “critical” noms or awards, ie SAG, emmy, CCA, but rather, fan based awards where fans can vote repeatedly. Yes, they did receive the 3 globes noms, but we know how globes work, and Ron did his part when he threw the lavish party for the HFPA at his Scotland home last August.
sigrid28
January 14, 2016 @ 11:19 pm
With you 100% on HGPA’s weakness for all the inducements the industry lavishes upon its many impecunious and easily impressed constituents during award season. I see your point as well re: the likelihood of Ron and Ira’s favorite actor, Tobias Menzies, popping his head up like a gopher on the prairie, whether as BJR or Frank, throughout their adaptation. In truth, he does the same in the novels, but there this aggravation is overshadowed by Gabaldon’s emphasis on Claire and Jamie as her central characters. I’m just happy to be rid of the bane of Father Bain and Moore’s over-blown treatment with respect to him. Talk about paying homage to favorite sons! I can’t decide whether RM is convinced by old Hollywood friends like Ira into giving rein to these self-indulgences or whether he honestly under-estimates both Diana Gabaldon’s novels and the sophistication of the huge audience that I think is out there, pining for the kind of historical fiction that goes beyond costume drama. What do you think?
Suha
January 15, 2016 @ 6:53 pm
A little late to the party, but just wanted to jump in and say, this is a very poignant discussion you guys have been having. A objectively critical analysis into the pros and cons of adaptation.
I feel like RDM hasn’t grasped the true essence of the story and/or has read thoroughly through the series. His underestimation of both Gabladon’s work and the intelligent depth of her characters AND readership/viewership is at times glaringly obvious.
Without going too deeply into it (because then I’ll be flirting with rant territory) but his interpretation of the Frank and Laoghaire characters, for instance, has been rather off-base from day one. As a book reader who’s seen a fair share of adaptations based on the series I’ve read, as much as RDM wants to say he’s staying true to the books, there is a very high-level threat of the Ripple Effect happening here. Where one seemingly small change can reverberate negatively throughout the series.
There is an intertwining nature to Gabaldon’s books, that carry echoes throughout. Something that may seem inconsequential in one book, turns out to be very poignant in another. It isn’t just a sci-fi story nor a historical drama/romance. There’s a mysticism, a magic about it. To cut out one element or another, would be akin to amputating a limb. All of it makes the story what it is. To take liberties in changing these connections essentially breaks up the beauty of the story.
However, the ESSENCE of the story must remain unchangeable, there’s no question, no doubt as to what it is and it must be safely kept at all times as true and untainted as possible (which it hasn’t been thus far, but there’s time to fix it yet) and that essence is the relationship between Claire and Jamie.
sigrid28
January 15, 2016 @ 10:39 pm
It’s never too late to jump in, Suha. There is still time for Moore and Co. to avoid making the same mistakes in Season 2 (and beyond) that undermined the success of his adaptation in Season 1, otherwise I wouldn’t bother. A multitude of errors can be corrected or concealed in the post-production process if the will is there to fix them. If Moore does not fix them, then we’ll know who to blame.
As you point out, it is no small thing for Moore to have overlooked the nature of unity within Gabaldon’s “Outlander” novels, novellas, and the Lord John books. I was noticing that in one of her novels Brianna, raised in Boston, cites at length passages from Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass,” the booklength, mystical, repetitious, unself-conscious meditation that Ezra Pound first identified as a touch-stone of modernism: He said, “All modern literature (or was that American poetry?) is an argument with Walt Whitman.”
It’s a good example of what I mean when I say that some sprawling works of literature strive for completion rather than perfection. I think that is one of the main characteristics of Gabaldon’s creations that Ronald Moore has not grasped—or perhaps that he thinks his audience is incapable of grasping. He’s unwilling to trust the audience to keep track of the kind of detail to which you refer in your post.
Another way of saying this, which you bring up, is that Moore fails to recognize that the structure of the novels is organic. I would say Gabaldon’s work is organized like a fractal (I love this Wikipedia definition of the term): “A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. It is also known as expanding symmetry or evolving symmetry.” Put that way, it’s hard for me to see why Moore would find this structure so intimidating and cling to the worn-out television formula that, at least in my opinion, ruined Season 1.
Outlander Kat
January 11, 2016 @ 11:43 pm
Thanks Matt :) The Clan has been feeling bad for the Cast and Crew; but they should look on the positive and on to next year for Emmys, Globes and all the awards the show deserves. *HappyFace *ThumbsUp
Joanne O'Brien
January 11, 2016 @ 11:27 pm
It is fine. They all have amazing talent and in their careers ahead of them they won’t be overlooked for long.
Lone Star
January 11, 2016 @ 10:42 pm
Excellent observations!