When a movie or a TV series happens to be adapted from a book, it’s very likely that it won’t meet the bookfans' expectations. It’s almost inevitable. There’s even meme and funny cartoons about it: if we’ve loved a book, we’ve the whole story in our mind, we’ve pictured the characters in our brain, and no adaptation – no matter how faithful and well-made – will compare to it.
But of course – there are exceptions. Outlander is an exception. It’s so well crafted, the actors are so good and well cast, the costumes so magnificent, and Scotland is so… beautifully Scotland, that – you know. You wouldn’t be here otherwise. So let's all agree that this post is not against Outlander, nor Starz or Ron Moore or anybody. It's a (loving) reflection. Biologically, adaptation means “a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment”. At a cinematic/television level, the first structure is the book and the changed environment is the audiovisual, of course. To a fan of a particular author, watching a TV series or a movie based on his/her favorite book is a little bit odi et amo (“I love and I hate”). We love to be able to see on screen what we’ve read about (often… more than once), but we’re also worried (or, rather, terrified) by the possibility of being disappointed. For Diana Gabaldon's millions of fans it’s the same. Generally speaking, Season 1 won our hearts. We didn’t care about changes; if we did, we liked them; and if we didn’t, it wasn’t so important. Season 2 had some quite significant book-to-TV changes, and fans started to complain. Season 3 had a lot of changes, some of them were nearly sacrilegious (!) to Gabaldon’s purists, some others were welcomed even by long-lasting fans. There’s a vast range between “stick to the book or I’ll quit watching!” and “the book is the book, the series is the series, I’m able to enjoy both”. Each of us can choose where to stand. Some people won’t appreciate any change. Others will accept whatever’s coming with an open mind. In the middle there’s… us: people who surely enjoy the series, but sometimes try to figure out what’s the point of this or that change. If it really was necessary, if it’s distorting the story or not – or if it’s maybe even improving it. In a previous post there's a “decalogue” about different kinds of change in the adaptation process, kinds of change that have a rational reason, a purpose - or at least, may have this. We’re now entering the disturbing area of the eleventh kind of change: screenwriters’ free will. It seems there’s basically two subsets here. The first one is when TV authors fight against (the dreaded) boredom. The second one is when they add details, storylines, deviations from the original... sometime thinking they know the characters better than the author (which is, and always will be, Diana Gabaldon of course).
1) Fighting against tedium. TV writers often fear the story's peaceful and uneventful passages. They’re always looking for action; and if there’s no action, at least there should be a wee bit of conflict. Or drama. Or whatever’s able to make the viewers hold their breath. It’s as if they think the audience’s a ten-year-old boy, not able to bear twenty minutes without a fight or a twist or a tragedy. Would we ever say that Diana Gabaldon’s pen and the whole Outlander saga lack for action? We wouldn’t, of course. Well, sometime it's not enough for the TV writers. So the change may: 1.a) Add conflict. This has happened, for example, in Season 1 between Jenny and Jamie in the two episodes set in Lallybroch. In book 1 the Fraser siblings have a huge argument when they first meet after four years apart: a big misunderstanding needs to be clarified. But from the moment Jamie understands that Jenny is married to his friend Ian, there’s no more bitterness or resentment between them. Claire and Jamie’s stay in Lallybroch, even if short, is really peaceful. The TV writers have managed to add several point of contention: they wanted the stay to be less quiet. So they've added the squabble over the master bedroom, and the storyline about how to save Rabbie McNab from his abusive father. Another example: in book 2 and 3 we discover the strong and loving bond between Claire and her daughter Brianna; of course Bree gets mad when she finds out the truth about her father, but before and after that trying time she loves and respects her mother. The adaptation has made this relationship tougher and more complicated. TV-Brianna nearly dislikes Claire, she speaks about her with little respect (see point 2.b). The audience must wait until episodes 4 and 5 of Season 3 to finally see mother and daughter close to each other. 1.b) Add action. Outlander’s so full of action that usually the problem is the other way around: to cut off action scenes! But Ron Moore’s team has managed to add some action here and there. Virtually all the 13th episode of Season 1, The Watch (written by Toni Graphia), is concocted by the TV authors with a lot of the action – even Ian senior killing a man! – that clearly couldn't come from the book (for in the book... The Watch barely exists).
Moreover, they have added the plot about the duel in the park; the Duke of Sandrigham’s storyline in Season 1; in Season 2, the clansman’s training in preparation of joining the Jacobite’s army, as well as Claire’s flashback of the accident during WW2; in Season 3, the Jonahs storyline during the ocean voyage... 1.c) Add drama. An eloquent example is Jenny’s delivery in Lallybroch, in Season 1. In the book it’s a safe, untroubled childbirth: the midwife is there, Claire of course lends a hand but nobody’s in danger of dying - at least, not more than during any childbirth in the 18th century. Ian and Jamie are downstairs, getting drunk in front of the fireplace. The TV adaptation spices up things: the fetus is in breech presentation, the midwife is busy somewhere else, the men are gone with the Watch on a dangerous expedition, Claire must face the complicated birth on her own. Drama mode on! 1.d) Sex up scenes. Not between Claire and Jamie, of course: there’s sexual tension enough in every moment, when they’re in the same frame. However, screenwriters have a soft spot for spicy dialogues. That’s why in Season 3 they’ve added the scene in the tavern, with Fergus telling Young Ian about the first time he had sex – not with just one woman, but with two at once. A few episodes later, they’ve added a couple of scenes with Marsali trying to have sex with Fergus on the ship, and hurrying up the priest during the marriage because she can’t “wait to bed” Fergus. It’s funny, but frankly... a little bit contrived. On the other hand, there’s a couple of really interesting changes of this kind: the sex scene between Claire and Frank at Castle Leoch, in episode 1 of Season 1. That wasn’t in the book, no: but it was absolutely terrific. And what happened with Geillis' character in Season 3. In Voyager she's gained so much weight she's hardly recognizable. The adaptation, on the contrary, has brought on screen an extra-sexy Geillis, thin and beautiful as she was twenty-three years before. Therefore, the seduction of Young Ian goes a totally different way... 2) Adding to the original author's story. Screenwriters are writers, basically. They write scripts for a living: and even when they work on an adaptation from a book, still they're writers, and they can use their creativity to do it – they're entitled to. Nevertheless, when a screenwriter starts to think he/she knows the characters better than their own author, a lot of things could happen... 2.a) A specific part of the story is fabricated, to show something that's just mentioned, or implied but not developed in the book. Let's take three examples, starting from the first half of the 14th episode of Season 1: The Search (written by Matthew B. Roberts). Probably the least popular episode ever (it's right up there with Créme de menthe, episode 7 of Season 3, though). The screenwriters have decided to show us Claire and Murtagh wandering around in search of Jamie. Barely a couple of pages in Outlander book 1, half an episode in the series. Was it really necessary? Probably not. (This episode is the very proof that what's in or out with an adaptation is almost never a matter of time, actually). But at least it was consistent and coherent with the book's mood. The second example is that in book 2 (Dragonfly in Amber) Geillis – which is still Gillian, in fact – and Brianna do not meet. Brianna just sees her passing through the stones in Craigh na Dun (the very event which convinces Brianna that what Claire's telling her about timetraveling is the truth). In the TV adaptation, though, Gillian-Geillis meets both Brianna and Roger twice, she speaks with them. This detail doesn’t affect the story in any way; it might upset book purists, but it’s just a trick the TV writers have used in order to give more substance to Geillis’ character, that would have otherwise been nearly invisible in Season 2. The third and more controversial example is the Randalls' relationship in Season 3. The TV authors had some material: flashbacks of Claire's life with Frank in their eighteen years together in Boston, not just from Voyager, but also scattered in the following books. But they've chosen to ignore this material, and to write the script replacing all the Claire and Frank scenes with other scenes. Was it necessary? Probably yes, to support the "parallel lives" storyline. But surely it wasn't consistent and coherent with the book's mood (see point 2.b).
Speaking about parts of the story that are not developed in the book but that come to life in the TV series, Outlander's producer Matthew B. Roberts recently declared in a interview a rather odd thing about adapting to screen the beginning of book 3 and particularly the battle of Culloden: "We produced [the battle scene] over nine or ten days and we knew we couldn't do a whole battle, we had to structure it in a way that we could do it in little vignettes with hundreds of extras and crew out in a field". Seems like he's apologizing for cuts, isn't it? But there's no cuts regarding Culloden's adaptation. Maybe Roberts was distracted, and forgot that Diana Gabaldon doesn't tell the battle of Culloden in Voyager... The book starts a few hours later, and Jamie has a total blackout about it – his memory of the battle seems to be blank. So basically all we've seen in (the beautiful and poignant) episode 1 was fabricated by the screenwriters – it was an addition. 2.b) The relationship between two characters is altered. Sometimes the TV writers choose to alter a relationship. We’re not talking here about minor changes, we’re talking about a long-lasting distortion that changes the balance between the characters for good, or at least for a long time, altering the feelings they feel for each other in an unmistakable way. This is what happens, in Season 2, with Claire and Fergus: the TV adaptation makes Claire more maternal and loving, when book-Claire keeps her distance; she will start to feel some kind of warm feelings toward him just from book 4 on, in Fraser's Ridge. It also happens in the Season 2 finale, when the series shows us a 19-year-old Brianna talking with Roger about her relationship with her mother: contrary to the book, this relationship seems hard and adversarial (see point 1.a). But the most striking example is the Randalls' relationship in Season 3, most of all in episode 3 (written by Matthew B. Roberts). The screenwriters offer to the audience a totally distorted image of this marriage: they turn it into a cold, rancourous, sexless relationship. Claire and Frank are apart but still living together. They no longer have sex, nor do anything together (not even a movie! Not even the dinner to celebrate Claire's degree!). They have an agreement that allows them to see other people, discreetly. That's nearly the opposite of what happens in the books, where Claire's life with Frank is fulfilling, decent, and they have strong feelings for each other (she's even jealous!). It's certainly not the perfect match – but a real marriage, with Frank backing and respecting her (yes, even if he's probably cheated on her now and again). TV-Frank is resentful and bitter, though, and TV-Claire incredibly agrees not to have sex for 18 years (and we bookfans all know how important sex is to book-Claire...). The two characters have been completely turned around by this change, and not for the better, no – to the point that it frankly makes no sense anymore for Claire to continue to wear the two rings. In the books she keeps wearing the golden ring, too, to honor the memory of her life with Frank, because she had loved him: they had had a decent marriage. But in the TV adaptation this marriage has been distorted to such a degree that it's quite senseless for TV-Claire to persist with the two rings habit. It's not surprising, then, that many non-book readers would wonder why on earth should Claire continue to wear Frank's ring! 2.c) A main character is belittled by making him/her screw up things. Yes, even book-Claire and book-Jamie happen to behave stupidly. Of course they do. But some of the additions are just... too much. Jamie acting like a blowhard in Lallybroch, in Season 1? Claire insisting on performing brain surgery on a criminal that just tried to rape and kill her, in Season 3, barely twenty-four hours after the reunion with the love of her life? Jamie planning a doomed-to-failure mutiny on the ship to Jamaica, again in Season 3? Jamie and Claire are not so stupid. 2.d) A character does something completely “out of character”. Episode 7 of Season 3 is quite archetypical from this point of view. It's almost like the TV writers (the episode is written by Karen Campbell) not only didn’t read the books, but didn’t even watch Season 1 and 2, and didn’t understand who Claire and Jamie really are. Jamie willing to live with Claire, his worshipped wife, in a brothel? Seriously? Claire jeopardizing Jamie (see point 2.c) and herself just to use her surgical skills? Claire reproaching Jamie not having experience as a father, because he wasn't there to raise Brianna? And what about Claire telling Jamie that she’s not so sure of her choice, just before Young Ian’s kidnapping at the end of episode 3.8 (written by Joy Blake)? Regretting her way back to Jamie? Sorry, no way. But probably the most significant change of this category is Jamie marrying Laoghaire, in Season 3, even if he knows of her involvement in Claire's trial for witchcraft. In the books he's completely unaware; and when Claire tells him what happened he swears he would never have married her, had he known the truth. But in episode 8 of Season 2 (written by Anne Kenney) the screenwriters decided to show unmistakably that Jamie knows exactly what happened between his wife and Laoghaire. That's why the marriage with Laoghaire, in the TV adaptation, sounds hopelessly wrong – and in this case, not just to bookfans. (For the record, as any LJ saga fan knows there's no chance in the world that Hal Grey could have been duped by a pretty twenty-year-old girl, and that a few drinks would have been enough to let him reveal a secret like that of Jamie's escape after Culloden as it happens in episode 3.4. No. The whole episode, written by Toni Graphia, is good. Probably the best of Season 3, together with episode 1, The battle joined. But that little detail is scarcely credible). 2.e) Change the very essence of a character. Frank has been completely distorted in Season 3. His adulterous relationship with a long-term mistress (which doesn’t exist in the book), probably intented to show his need of love and care, has the opposite effect of making him mean, craven, selfish. Book-Frank is not a saint – but he's confident, charming, sure of himself; he's kind, in his own way – not the pathetic, lame, vindictive version of Frank we've got in Season 3. What a bad adaptation for such an interesting character! If there are sometimes difficulties in agreeing with some of the changes, actually, it could be for the simple reason that they basically seem gratuitous to the audience. There are, however, a lot of arbitrary changes that can be valued and appreciated. Like this: 3) when the change aims to focus on a particular situation / issue / condition / injustice of a certain period. This is the case with Brianna’s birth. In book 3 (Voyager) Claire’s pregnancy and labor are difficult, but she doesn’t fight with an obnoxious gynecologist, she’s not bullied by the nurses, she’s not drugged against her will, and she’s completely awake during Brianna’s birth. TV writers wanted to give to the audience a taste of what happened in those decades to women in labour, though – in hospitals and private clinics. They wanted to lift the veil on the use of twilight sleep. So they’ve modified the circumstances of Claire’s delivery, at the end of the first episode of Season 3 (written by Ron Moore). There was no need to, but the change does work. © insideoutlander [English version proofread by Kath at www.gofoolproof.com] More articles in English? Please press here!
