<p>Not yet - will start the book this weekend most likely. Or, after the show break :)</p>
<p>Maybe because I have read all 8 books, I am finding the series really is going incredibly slowly. Claire and Jamie meeting and marrying is like the preface to the entire story. I feel like they need to pick up the pace pretty soon as almost nothing has happened.</p>
<p>DG does spend a lot of time on the sex, so I guess that is accurate LOLâŠI donât want to spoil it for anyone who hasnât read but wonder if they will show the, um, other stuff that is to come in such detail. </p>
<p>I agree: although I am enjoying it, it has moved very slowly.</p>
<p>Argh!! Tonightâs episode just makes me want to scream. It was very good (even though they added all the stuff about Frank running up the hill to Craig na Dun and hearing Claire ----that did not happen in the book, right? It was a nifty dramatic device, I suppose. But goodness, this is a terrible place to stop!</p>
<p>terrible good (as in it will reel the viewers back in ) or terrible bad?</p>
<p>Just based on how much time was left before the hiatus and also based on the previews for tonightâs show, I figured it might end thereâŠdarn it.</p>
<p>I am NOT a fan of what has been done with the series, and that really disappoints me. My first contact with the books was just over 23 years ago before Outlander was released to the general public, so theyâve been a part of my life just a bit longer than my daughter has! I know ever word in them and have read the series, well, I canât even begin to say how many times over the years.
While I love Sam as Jamie, the show is ruined for me by the casting of Catriona Balfe as Claire, and the myriad of small, unnecessary errors in the script writing (seriously, they couldnât have gotten Ellenâs pearls right? Really?!) and the constant need to add or rearrange things such as tonightâs bits with Frank, the whole âmissing personsâ thing, the fact that Claire wasnât there when little Roger was (She needs to say how much heâs âgrownâ when she meets him as an adult!), and the whole Frank/Claire running-at-the-stones-which-didnât-happen thing. The pacing has been glacial, with the first two episodes as exposition, so now we are left hanging and Iâm wondering how long the second âhalfâ on the season will be if everything in this book is to be accomplished.
Love the costumes, the sets though⊠I donât think thatâs going to be enough for me.</p>
<p>I donât mind a bit of dramatic license and would not expect a screenplay to hew exactly to every detail in the book. However as I recall once Claire and Jamie got together, she left Frank in the dust pretty quickly. Frank was a solid man but she was never deeply in love with him. There was none of this angst, guilt and ârunning at the stones.â </p>
<p>That was a good scene but now theyâve departed drastically from the spirit of the book. The Black Jack business is invented from whole cloth although I canât object too much as at least they are trying to advance the plot! Agree the pace is glacial, there is only so much mileage to be had from closeups of the loversâ hands. Letâs get on with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. She didnât ârun at the stonesâ but she deliberately defied Jamie and made a concerted effort to get back to the stones to go home to Frank. She just got caught by the Redcoats before she could get there. SPOILER: </p>
<p>at a later point in the book she gets yet another chance at the stones, and there was MUCH âangst and guilt.â I think youâve just forgotten that for some reason.</p>
<p>As far as letting the casting of Claire completely ruin the series for you, I think thatâs an unfortunate choice youâve made as I think she has done a good job, sheâs just not exactly the same physical type.</p>
<p>I donât see how on the one hand people can complain about how the show doesnât stick 100% to the book at the same time the show runs âslow.â The book is over 800 pages-there is a LOT happening in it. In order to go quickly, theyâd have to leave even more details out, which Iâm sure would upset the purists.</p>
<p>What I do agree with is puzzlement at small changes from the book which could just as easily been left in as they were written. </p>
<p>I made a error and canât go back in to edit. Outlander was over 600 pages (US Hardback). I have a paperback that was over 800 pages. At any rate, it is a long novel.</p>
<p>As for all the time spent on Frank, Diana Gabaldon has said she loves that plot device. Because the book was written completely from Claireâs perspective, she couldnât do that.</p>
<p>I think DG accepts better than any of the fans of her book that there would be changes made from her original work. Because she is a âconsultantâ on the show, she is privy to the rationale of many of them, so maybe that is why she seems more at peace with them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean by this? What material about Black Jack (vs. Frank) has been âinvented from whole clothâ?</p>
<p>^ Itâs been 10 years since I read the first book (which no doubt explains some of the things I am forgetting), but I think these early encounters with Black Jack (not counting the one just after she came through the stones) are invented, arenât they? I have no recollection of him interrogating her separately at the fort, let alone physically attacking her there and inciting soldiers to do so as well.</p>
<p>The choice of the Claire actress hasnât ruined the series for me (I donât think itâs great casting but sheâs doing a decent job). I think you are responding to another poster there Nrdsb4. I didnât complain that the show doesnât stick 100% to the book, screenplays never do. But I do think the pace needs to be picked up if they want to keep viewers. Even fans of the book want to cover more than 20 pages in an hour, at least I do :)</p>
<p>NRDSB4 said:
[quoteerrible good (as in it will reel the viewers back in ) or terrible bad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Terrible âgoodâ as in I cannot believe they make us wait from there. </p>
<p>I really feel badly for book fans who have their proverbial knickers in a knot over casting/scrpt/whatever and thus are not enjoying this series. There is no way each and every fan of the book could be satisfied casting-wise----but I am enjoying this cast a lot and find as I continue reading these books that I am more and more beginning to âseeâ this Jamie and this Claire in my mindâs eye. And that is not a bad thing! </p>
<p>It has been so long since I read the first books that I no longer remember a lot of the details - the wonder of aging 
So I can just sit back and enjoy what is presented without many expectations. I remember I enjoyed the story and as some events occur I remember them from the book, but I am enjoying this version of it too. </p>
<p>@snowdog
</p>
<p>Itâs true that Claire didnât meet with the Red Coats and encounter Black Jack at the dinner where BJR describes the flogging of Jamie, but the interrogation at Fort William was fairly book accurate. She was pulled out of the river by red coats after nearly drowning while trying to make her way to the stones. Jamie coming through the window to save just in the nick of time is also in the book. Time for a re-read? We do have six months to killâŠlol</p>
<p>I agree with you @churchmusismom, about feeling bad for the readers who arenât enjoying the series as an adaptation of the stories so many of us have loved for many years. I was on the edge of my seat when Frank and Claire were on either side (time wise) of the stones, and almost wanted to see her go back to him. Thank goodness that wasnât the cliff hanger. And what a visual of her shawl on the ground beside the stone in 1743 but long gone by 1945. My brain was telling me that the red coats were going to grab her just before she passed through, but I still had that thrill of wondering âwhat if they donâtâ and âshe doesâ. </p>
<p>I was impressed at how they provided a point of reference date for us by the news of Pattonâs death, Dec 21, 1945, which coincides with the time of winter solstice, leaving the stones wide open for Claire to potentially time travel. </p>
<p>I have absolutely enjoyed every moment of this episode and the whole series to date. I love the smoldering momentum, very much matching the books in my mind. I havenât found it slow at all, but we I do understand that we all have different expectations and temperaments, etc, so I donât want to discount those who feel differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Captain Black Jack did indeed interrogate her at the fort, and he did in fact hit her. He did not, however, incite the other soldier to kick her. This exchange is what inspires Dougalâs idea of Claire marrying Jamie in order to be protected from further encounters with Black Jack.</p>
<p>From the novel:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Nrdsb4 Iâm feeling like I also need to do a between season re-read nowâŠlol (that would be after 3 readings and 2 times listening on audio, but it has been a couple of years at least). I remember the last interrogation with BJR and Claire with the attempted rape and Jamie coming through the window. But after reading your post, Iâm reminded that that there had to be some sort of second contact between BJR and Claire, and that meeting prompted Dougal to suggest the marriage between Claire and Jamie. Iâm completely at a loss as to how it came about though. It seems to me that it was also at Fort William. </p>
<p>Touche Nrdsb4, it looks like time for a reread. I donât own copies of the early books, will have to get myself to the library.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah ha, now I understand. It seemed like a random detail to figure that radio news so prominently, I couldnât understand quite why. That explains it!</p>
<p>^^^^I remember now that Captain Black Jack was staying at an inn in Brockton, a couple of days from Fort William. He ârequestedâ that Dougal bring Claire to him there for an interview. Dougal had no idea that he would dare hurt Claire, so he complied.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes I was and did a poor job of making that clear. I forgot to quote the post to which I was responding.</p>