Diana Galbaldon's Outlander

[Primula Baggins]

A mix of both. I read the books for the first time with none of those filters on, but this time around (having learned a little), I can see that someone who'd been through sexual abuse might be upset by some aspects.

The violence is pretty standard. Most of the sex is happy and positive and completely enjoyable. Some (that's blended with violence and domination) is not. And some of the violence is blended with sex (a rather sick person is involved). If you aren't likely to be troubled personally by that, it won't be an issue. It wasn't for me, though I count myself lucky that it wasn't.

I don't mean to put too much emphasis on this. The books are not literature. The show isn't cinema. I guess in a way I'm being pre-defensive: I think the TV shows and books are good, as what they are, and can be enjoyed that way. In fact I think they're pretty darn good. I just don't have the issues that might get in the way, so I'm reluctant to say, hey, go see/read this; you'll love it. Because (depending on who you are and what you've been through), you might not.

[Impenitent]

I had to do it.

[Primula Baggins]

"How He Saved Himself for Marriage." There's half a novel in that alone.

He's a fine-looking lad, he is.

[Inanna]

Ha ha. That's great.

Did you make that Impish?

[Impenitent]

No, no, that's not my work.

[Inanna]

So it's like a real cover?

[Impenitent]

I'm pretty sure it was created by someone as a spoof.

I've seen similar treatments for Darcy and Elizabeth.

[Maria]

We've started watching Outlander this week. I've avoided reading the books first, because I hate being disappointed . It always works better for me to do movie/TV first, then the books. We are halfway through the first season now, and I'm wondering what you all think about the books vs the TV series?

Is it a good portrayal of the books? Can I go ahead and start reading (listening to) them? Or should I wait until the TV series is finished?

It's kind of weird... I'm listening to "The Way of Kings" again, and I can't help thinking the guy who plays Jamie in Outlander would make an excellent Adolin Kholin.... No other faces are popping into my mind for characters in that book, except this one.

[Impenitent]

It's not on Oz TV, and I haven't made the effort of seeking it on the internet because I have this sneaking suspicion that the screen adaptation would disappoint me. (For instance, the actor depicting Jamie on the spoof cover I attached above does not parallel the image in my head. That always bothers me.)

[Maria]

My mom tells me they are following the books very closely.
I'm not sure I want to spend an audible credit on a story I've already seen, though.

[Primula Baggins]

They're following the books in the sense that what's on the screen is also in the books. But there's a lot more in the books that there isn't room for in the adaptation. So hearing the book wouldn't be hearing the same story; there would be a lot of new material and events, and I found most of it quite interesting. Gabaldon seems to delight in obscure historical detail and information about people's daily lives, so she has Claire notice and comment on a lot of it. They skip that in the show, for obvious reasons.

I will say that on-screen Jamie supplanted my mental Book Jamie pretty fast and entirely painlessly. The character is the same.

[Inanna]

Man, I wish I had Starz....

[Maria]

Is this historical fantasy or alternate history? I'm hoping for alternate history where she gets to change things, but am expecting the unhappy following of actual history.

When they spoke of after the failure of the Jacobite rebellion and how the British outlawed wearing tartan and speaking Gaelic-- it reminded me of how in about a decade, the British will be forcibly evicting all the Acadian colonists in Nova Scotia and scattering them in order to minimize the chances of them getting together again and trying to go home. A deliberate attempt to wipe out a culture. Again.

I find history depressing, for the most part.

That's probably why I'm hoping for an alternate history tale.

[Inanna]

It's historical fantasy, Maria. But bloody good.

[Frelga]

The emphasis on bloody?

[Primula Baggins]

In parts, yes.

I'm kind of hoping it turns out that Claire is her own many-times-great grandmother (and therefore married to her own many-times-great grandfather). . . . That would be one for the books.

[Maria]

Speaking of bloody, did anyone else notice the wound getting sewed up on the opening credits? I've never seen a whip stitch used for closing wounds before. It's almost always single stitches nowadays. I wonder if that is accurate? And when modern single sutures were implemented?

(I'm not even sure that was actually a whip stitch- online googling for hand sewing terminology was inconclusive!) It's what I call a whip stitch, though!

I was disappointed to see that the producers of the series chickened out as far as the female armpit hair issue goes. The main character has smooth, hairless armpits months after she'd dropped back in time. Really? How's she going to do that? With a straight razor? Well, I guess it is possible.

She also has a smallpox vaccination scar, which is perfectly OK. I haven't spotted one on any of the 1743 actors yet- and that would be anachronistic, as the smallpox vaccine is invented in 1798. Or maybe Claire will get that started early? How could she resist? She'd have to know about the cowpox/ smallpox link!

edit: If she is her own descendant, being married to her multi-great grandfather wouldn't be a large degree of relationship. Number of ancestors per generation as you go back multiply really fast. Obviously.

edit 2: I looked into my own family tree, and roughly 200 years ago I had 32 great great grandparents. Some branches are into the great great great grandparent range in that time frame- so 64 ancestors at that level.

[Frelga]

She also has a smallpox vaccination scar, which is perfectly OK. I haven't spotted one on any of the 1743 actors yet- and that would be anachronistic, as the smallpox vaccine is invented in 1798. Or maybe Claire will get that started early? How could she resist? She'd have to know about the cowpox/ smallpox link!

I like that thought. There really isn't THAT much most of us could bring to the past in terms of technology, but it would be possible to reverse engineer smallpox vaccination.

[Maria]

I edited my last post above about numbers of ancestors, in case anyone missed it. By my estimate, one would have between one 32nd and one 64th genetic consanguinity with an ancestor 200 years back. Not significant, really.

Of more immediate concern is can they kill Captain Randall? I just got through volume one, season one, and he is in definite danger of being offed in the next episode. If he dies, then unless he's already fathered Frank's ancestor, then the whole sequence of events which led Claire back in time will be negated. And she can't be there now.

Paradox!

But, then magic is involved. That works around a great deal of time travel difficulty.

[Impenitent]

I love knowing the answers.