Movies and television series are often adapted from books. It makes sense, of course: if you're a filmmaker and you happen to read a really good story, with an impressive plot and charming characters, why shouldn’t you try to bring it to screen? Obviously no film (or series) will follow the book page-by-page. It wouldn’t be possible. That's why we call it “adaptation”. The more the adaptation manages to remain faithful to the original story, though, the better it usually is – especially for those fans who knew the book before. There are going to be book-to-tv changes. Always. It’s inevitable. But not all changes are alike. There are different kinds of change, and it's worth learning to recognize the ten (plus one) main reasons underlying each and every change. With a rider: no, it’s almost never a matter of time. Adaptation is about choices: if you cut out something it's not because you haven't the time for it - more likely, you do it because you want to put something else in its place. So it’s a choice. Right or wrong, the audience will tell you. And while we're at it, here's another premise. Of course, the books are the books and the series is the series. And they're both amazing. And they both have good moments, amazing passages, and less convincing parts. It's part of the game to talk about it, too. Let’s get on with this particular decalogue, then.
1) The change fixes a mistake. It's quite common: if there’s an inconsistency or an oversight in the book (it happens even to the best!), it can’t be kept in the adaptation, do we all agree on that? Sure we do. So this type of change is always good. In Outlander, the main example of this kind of change lies in the beginning date of the story. In the book it’s the end of April, 1945: a mistake, for WW2 was not over yet at that time in Europe. Ron Moore and his team have wisely decided not to use the alternate version of Outlander book 1 (the UK version, previously known as Cross Stitch), in which the starting time has been postponed to April 1946, which entails a great number of problems linked to the internal coherence of the timeline, age of characters etc. The fairest compromise often lies somewhere in the middle: so episode 1 of Outlander’s season 1 is set at the end of October, 1945. Perfect choice. 2) The change depends on external hurdles that can’t be overcome. Typically: budget, technical problems, legal restrictions. Even if we don’t like this change, it just couldn’t be otherwise. Here are some examples. Claire fighting against a wolf at the end of book 1: technical problems due to the use of animals on set, insurance issues, etc. So the scene has been cut out in the tv adaptation. The pirate attack in book 3: bringing on screen another ship would have been an additional cost. Probably – but we’re not sure about it – even the choice of making Geneva Dunsany four years older (twenty-one instead of seventeen) and Young Ian two years older (sloppily: he was born in 1752 both in book and series, but in episode 6 – which is set at the end of December,1766 – during a dialogue with Claire the tv authors make him unrealistically claim to be sixteen... Come on, let's do the math here!) in season 3 depended on legal restrictions: it apparently is illegal to show on UK tv a minor having sex, even if the actor playing the character is an adult. (The theory’s based on rumors and has not been verified, so it may be inaccurate). 3) The change develops a minor character. In this case, the screenwriters want to add something to a character. They want him/her to be more significant. They want to give him/her more space. Is this good or not? Difficult to say, for we’re entering a wild land: the land of opinions. In Outlander we have some huge examples of this kind of change. Murtagh’s character has been immensely developed in the passage from book to screen (to the detriment of Old Alec’s character, actually). In book 1, particularly, Murtagh is no more than a background character. Most of the audience loves the way Ron Moore and his team re-wrote Murtagh, giving him a more important role. To the point that, in season 3, the adaptation does something unheard of: Murtagh’s saved from his own death. In Voyager he dies on Culloden Moor. In the series he survives, spends a few years with Jamie in Ardsmuir prison, and we’ll find him again in season 4. Even if the change is not unanimously approved, it has been generally very well received. Angus & Rupert barely know each other in the book: their friendship and gags are wholly created by screenwriters, the purpose being to give some comic relief to the story. Diana Gabaldon herself has blessed this change. Another example of a character that the Outlander series has deeply developed is Frank Randall. In book 1 he disappears at the end of chapter 2, around page 50. There’s nothing else about him and clearly it couldn’t be otherwise, for the book’s written from Claire’s point of view. So once she’s jumped into the past, she doesn’t know anything about him anymore. To emphasize the drama Claire’s living at first, having been torn away from her life and her century and her (first) husband, the tv series shows us Frank, with an original storyline: what he does, how he feels. Is this change positive? Yes. What happens with Frank in season 3 it is not so positive, though (we’ll talk about that later). 4) The change alters the personality and/or the behavior of a character in order to avert a controversy. This happens when the tv authors have issues about something the character is, or represents, or does: usually the concern is about the tv audience’s potential (bad) reaction. Outlander’s three main examples of this kind of change curiously are all in season 3: Geneva’s first sexual experience; Jamie’s kiss to Lord John; and Mr. Willoughby.
Book-Geneva’s first time is quite controversial because she changes her mind at the very last second, and she asks Jamie to stop while he’s already (beginning to get) inside her. But no, he doesn’t stop. It is not a rape: Diana Gabaldon makes it quite clear. After the shock, Geneva asks for more sex (and more. And more). She tells Jamie she loves him. Was it actually possible to bring such a divisive scene to screen? Let’s face it: no. So tv-Jamie is sweeter, more measured, and unhurried – and tv-Geneva gains a much more enjoyable first time. The second example is the farewell kiss book-Jamie gives to Lord John in Helwater, just before going back to Scotland (and leaving his secret son Willie under LJ’s care). The tv series has turned that kiss into a handshake. A cowardly choice, most likely based on the assumption that the tv audience would have been shocked by the gesture and would have doubted Jamie’s heterosexuality and manhood. But the kiss Diana Gabaldon described in Voyager is so light, modest, and significant, that it is really a shame to have it cut out. The third example is the whole Mr. Willoughby character. In Voyager he’s funny, but (or maybe because) a caricature: drunkard, fetishist, irritating. But he’s Chinese, and any tv adaptation must pay close attention to political correctness, in order not to offend any segment of the public. So tv-Willoughby has been turned into a polished, kind, soulful character: his storyline even had a romantic happy ending with Margaret Campbell, the seer. 5) The change aims to make the timeline glide better. This happens when the plot is particularly elaborate and complicated, and the screenwriters fear that the tv audience won’t be able to follow it. We often find this kind of change in the second half of Outlander season 2, in the episodes set during the Jacobite rebellion: Jamie’s visit to his grandfather Fraser takes place earlier, in the series, compared to the book; Colum MacKenzie’s death happens later. The sequence of events is clearer to the audience, this way. Sometimes changing the timing of a scene can be dangerous, though. One of season 3's most disputed changes is Jamie's revelation about his son Willie. In Voyager Jamie hides Willie's existence from Claire for more or less five months; Claire finds out the truth from Lord John (and shortly after from Jamie himself) in Jamaica. The tv authors have decided to make Jamie more sincere, making him tell Claire about Willie immediately in the reunion episode (A. Malcolm, written by Matthew B. Roberts). This change is quite unmotivated, actually: see point 11. 6) The change aims to make the story more realistic. In Outlander, Jamie’s reaction after having been raped (end of season 1 and beginning of season 2) is a fine example of this kind of change. At the end of Outlander book 1 and the beginning of book 2 (Dragonfly in Amber) we follow the first weeks of Jamie’s life after the rape. While he’s recovering from the wounds, he quickly finds intimacy again with Claire, and they have a lot of great sex in her first weeks of pregnancy. The tv adaptation has decided to give Jamie much more severe PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder, which prevents him having sex with his wife. So tv-Jamie doesn’t touch Claire sexually from the night of the rape/rescue to almost the end of their French period. This has been a very divisive change: a lot of book readers do not appreciate the lack of intimacy between the two main characters. It is a sensible change, though, for a rape survivor usually needs some time to regain his balance, and to be able to make love again with his/her partner. (Even if in this way we've unfortunately lost the beautiful and super sexy scene in the abbey's thermal spring). Jamie's crippled hand is another detail the tv series did manage more realistically: after having been hammered and pierced by a nail, it takes some time for the hand to heal. Book 2 almost forgets the issue, and from the very first pages (a few weeks after Wentworth!) Jamie acts as if his hand no longer hurts, while the tv adaptation gives the leather brace Jamie's always wearing on it a discreet but constant visibility. 7) The change cuts a redundancy, to avoid giving the audience the sensation of something already seen (and therefore boring). This is the case in both the beating scenes of book/season 3. Episode 8 (First wife, with Jamie and Claire coming back to Lallybroch with Young Ian after the print shop fire) was filmed before episode 4. At that time, at the end of episode 4’s script there was the Ardsmuir flogging scene, with Lord John ordering Jamie to have sixty lashes. It’s a dreadful scene in the book, and would have been appalling on screen. So Ron Moore and his team decided to erase from episode 8 Lallybroch's beating scene, with Jamie punishing Ian and then asking him to “return the favor”: they thought two beating scenes in the space of four episodes would have been too much. But then, when it came time to film episode 4, the script had changed, and the Ardsmuir flogging scene had been cut out. It was too late to restore it in episode 8, which was already in postproduction. That’s why there's no whipping in season 3. 8) The change cuts out a detail that would be too difficult for the actors (or the make-up department) to reproduce for too long. Movies, and even more so tv series, are long-term efforts: it's always better to make the main actors feel comfortable, trying to reduce as much as possible discomfort and troublesome situations. That's why tv-Jamie is not left-handed as in the book. The actor playing Jamie, Sam Heughan, is right-handed: it would have been crazy to ask him to act (with all that sword fighting, besides!) pretending his dominant hand was the left and not the right one. That's also why tv-Claire has blue eyes, instead of yellow-brown eyes. It would have been too stressful for Caitriona Balfe, the actress playing Claire, to wear contacts every day, nine months per year. 9) The change increases the suspense about something. Sometime a book lays cards on the table, making the reader outright aware of something crucial about the plot: it can be anything, from an uncertain paternity to a character’s destiny. But who says it wouldn't be more effective to keep the secret a little longer? In Outlander this occurs at the beginning of book/season 2. The first 80 pages of book 2 (Dragonfly in Amber) are set in 1968: it becomes immediately clear to the readers what has happened to Claire – that she’s come back to the 20th century from the past and she’s spent the twenty following years in Boston, raising Jamie Fraser’s daughter as Frank Randall’s daughter, and becoming a surgeon. This was a big jump – maybe too far? So in the tv adaptation the beginning of season 2 (episode 1, written by Ron Moore) just shows Claire coming back to 1948. There’s no Brianna, no Roger, no “Doctor Claire Randall”. The tv audience just discovers the bare minimum: that Claire broke away from Jamie and jumped into her century again, pregnant; that she’s about to become Frank’s wife again, and that they're moving to Boston to start a new life. This is a very good choice: it keeps a subtle trace of hope – maybe Claire will try to go back to Jamie at a certain point? – at least for non-book readers.
10) The change consists of adding a character that doesn’t exist in the book. Screenwriters use this kind of change very carefully: the additional character is almost always a minor one. The choice of creating ex novo a character is not something that can be taken lightly: it is often based on the strong feeling of a specific lack in the storytelling; so the additional character's got to add something to the fluidity or understandability of the story, or both. Outlander has at least three additional characters. Season 1 has Willie, a young member of clan MacKenzie. He represents the young and naive “apprentice-clansman”, unskilled but loyal. A nice character – nobody has ever complained about him. The second additional character in season 1 is Tarran McQuarry, who has quite a short life. He shows up in episode 13 and then appears briefly – just before being hanged – in episode 15. This character was essential to hold together the whole of episode 13, which is almost entirely concocted by the screenwriters (in Outlander book 1 there’s barely half a page about The Watch). This is the “safer” way to use this kind of change: the additional character may please the public, or leave it indifferent, but it will hardly create disgruntlement .
And then, in season 3, we meet... Sandy. Sandy is a very divisive choice, for she's the typical example of the most invasive addition. In the tv adaptation she’s Frank Randall's official mistress (for more or less 8 years!); Claire and even Brianna happen to cross her, and Frank plans to divorce from Claire to wed her just before his accident. This is a huge shift from the book. We’ll talk about this when we’ll reach point # 11. Let’s just say, for now, that introducing characters like this one is always a risk, because they unbalance the whole story, and the new balance may work for non-book readers, but usually lets the long-standing fans down. Now's your turn to play the game, pigeonholing every change you've noticed in one of the categories of this ten-point-list. And... if you happen to be a screenwriter (especially an Outlander screenwriter...), you should make sure the change you want to introduce always falls in one of these 10 categories. Otherwise, you'll make – at your own risk – the eleventh kind of change. A change that usually pleases nobody... 11) The change has no rational reason, except the screenwriters’ free will. Ah! This is the most complex kind of change. We’d better have a whole post for it: you’ll find it here. © insideoutlander [English version proofread by Kath at www.gofoolproof.com] More article in English? Please press here!
