Outlander
discussion
Do you think the TV Series is influencing the way you interpret the book
That's a great question, Shawn!I read the book first and I went into the TV series with a pretty firm grasp on how I felt about the characters. Sometimes they hit the mark, sometimes they don't. There are many new scenes that have added a new layer to the story. The biggest change for me is the way I viewed Frank and Claire's relationship. In the book, it seemed strained and awkward, as a result of their separation. In the TV series, I've developed a more sympathetic heart towards Frank. We're seeing what he went through in Claire's absence, which was not a part of the book. It gave more value to their marriage (IMHO) and made Frank a bigger player in the story.
I struggled with the violence and brutality of the first book. It's just not my thing, but I was invested in the characters by that time and had to know how they prevailed. Those scenes translated to TV were even more disturbing. I couldn't watch the flogging scene and the last episode (view spoiler) was so awful that I barely got through it. Is it enough to change my opinion on the book, or make me stop watching? No. I'll take the good with the bad...and the good FAR outweighs the bad. Again...IMHO. : )
I recall hearing the director say they don't want to re-write or change the story, but honor it. I would imagine that Diane Gabaldon is having the time of her life working with the show. I think I've mentioned this before, but no matter how satisfied an author might be with the finished product, over time little improvements come to mind, or different approaches and twists of emotion. Our character's voices speak to us in our mind and tell us how they might have done things another way. DG is being given the opportunity to make subtle clarifications and embellishments to enhance the story we know. I think that's pretty neat after twenty-three years.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "That's a great question, Shawn!I read the book first and I went into the TV series with a pretty firm grasp on how I felt about the characters. Sometimes they hit the mark, sometimes they don't..."
So far I have stuck to my guns and not watched the show. However, my sister is a HUGE fan and has been encouraging me to watch. I may give in ... haven't decided, yet.
I, really, dislike Frank, but I will add; I didn't completely dislike him in this book ... my dislike for him grew as the series progressed. Watching the series may change my mind about him. I feel he came off rather self-absorbed (for varied reasons, but the adoption issue to name one).
I loved your thoughts on the matter and look forward to reading what others have to write.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "That's a great question, Shawn!I read the book first and I went into the TV series with a pretty firm grasp on how I felt about the characters. Sometimes they hit the mark, sometimes they don't..."
I read the first book a few days before the first episode came out. I struggled with the violence in both the show and the book.
It's interesting that you feel more sympathetic towards Frank. That seems to be the intent of the director. I think it's a false characterization and I really don't like Frank, especially in the midseason finale.
He was actually unmemorable (is that even a word? :-))to me in the first book. And I really didn't like him during Claire's recount of their marriage in DIA.
Shawn, why won't you watch the show.
Shawn wrote: "I, really, dislike Frank, but I will add; I didn't completely dislike him in this book ... my dislike for him grew as the series progressed."I totally agree with your thoughts on that. I was indifferent in the first book, too. My thoughts on DIA and Voyager: (view spoiler)
I can understand being hesitant about watching the show, too. It hasn't really clouded the images of the characters in my mind. They're close, but not quite. Jamie is much larger in my mind, Claire far shorter and more delicate. I think the actors are doing a great job, but I prefer the world I see in my head. There is too much detail, too much emotion and intimate thought to translate to screen. I'll always, always picked the book over TV.
Kyra wrote: "Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "That's a great question, Shawn!I read the book first and I went into the TV series with a pretty firm grasp on how I felt about the characters. Sometimes they hit th..." Shawn, why won't you watch the show
There are several reasons, the primary being much the same as Becky described ... I love these characters I have imagined and I, really, don't want to alter that. I've seen the advertisements and they are not "my" Jamie and Claire.
With that said ... I will watch eventually, I just want to read the final book before I do. I know that will be a bit =o ... but there is always online, dvd's etc...
Kyra wrote: "It's interesting that you feel more sympathetic towards Frank. That seems to be the intent of the director. I think it's a false characterization and I really don't like Frank, especially in the midseason finale."I also wondered if they weren't trying to "up the intensity" on the love triangle twist with the last scene at the stones. That whole angle is so overdone in romance that it doesn't really work for me. Especially since I don't believe Frank was ever Claire's soul mate.
We really didn't get to learn about Frank in the first book, other than he was in the RAF and a dedicated historian. I agree with your assessment of his personality. He was flat and boring. I really thought the author wrote him that way and purposely included the argument the night of the storm (after he saw the ghost) to pave the way for Jamie.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Shawn wrote: "I, really, dislike Frank, but I will add; I didn't completely dislike him in this book ... my dislike for him grew as the series progressed."I totally agree with your thoughts on th..."
No question, it was very human behavior and I wouldn't want the story changed in any way ... I like the way DG wrote this character ... whether intended or not, she had me yelling at the book (using words I won't repeat here =/); if an author can draw that out of me ... well, you can be sure I will read that book again, without changing a thing.
I feel that a book is a book and a movie is a movie. An adaptation of a book to movie always brings about different thoughts on what the characters were possibly going through. Since there is so much internal monologue going on with Clair's thoughts, I would thing it would be hard to portray her thoughts in a film without narrating the whole thing. I love the different slants that they put on the story for that reason. I especially loved how they showed Frank trying to find Claire at the stones and how they hear each other for just a moment. That brought such a different element to the story rather than just her going to the stones and getting caught by the English. You get to understand Frank a bit better even if we all know Jamie is the love of her life. I suppose in a way it does make me think a little differently of the characters but in no way does it take anything away from the originality of the book itself. If anything it just adds some extra flare to an epic love story!
My hope for the future of the TV series is that they won't deviate too far from the story. A little embellishment here and there is interesting, but if they change things too much, it'll have a cascading effect, forcing even more changes down the road. I don't want to see that happen.
No, not at all my impressions of Outlander and it's characters were from reading all the books and knowing where Diana Gabaldon took us. She took us on this fantastic adventure and the characters are and always will be hers. She is the one with the fantastic mind, the medium that distributes what she created is just that a medium. The TV show may try to own her works but they never will in my opinion. Diana still reigns!
So far the way the show has been is the way I imagined the characters. There are some differences facial/body wise but their personalities match very well. I am definitely among the minority of people who saw Frank other than flat and boring lol. I always thought he was amusing and I thought his and Claire's relationship was cute.
I find the show spot on and am very happy with it.
I actually think they're trying to show more clearly how DG meant for us to see the characters. It's nice to know she's a consultant. Ron said that when they add scenes they ask her how the character would act and DG has said they haven't added anything that couldn't have been in the book.
gertt wrote: "Shawn wrote: "Though I have not watched the TV Series, I have seen many threads that reference the series, while discussing the book. I am curious if you think the series is influencing the way yo..."Oh, me too, Gertt, I will choose a book everytime!
I didn't read the book until after I saw a couple of episodes of the show. If I like the show, I usually like the book more.As to whether the movie colors your interpretation of the books, I think it must when they follow the book closely. Just the way discussing it with other readers gives you another perspective.
But after a short time, the director/writers decide to diverge from the book, and then you have to look at them as separate works.
I read the books so long ago that I don't think anything can change my impressions about them. That said, I do enjoy the series, but of course I do so with a lot of observation of the things that don't match up with the book. Frank is one of those things, definitely. He was rather a stuffy man in the book, and seems to have much more dimension in the series, and I do think that is to play up the drama for the series. I have always thought that in the book, the contrast between Frank, as this sort of uptight bookish sort of stuffed shirt, and Jamie, as a larger-than-life Highlander, was intentional on the part of the author so that the reader does not have any doubt as to who Claire's soul mate is. The series seems to want to cast doubt in that area, like someone else mentioned about a "love triangle", I guess to play up the drama.
Moonlight wrote: "I didn't read the book until after I saw a couple of episodes of the show. If I like the show, I usually like the book more.As to whether the movie colors your interpretation of the books, I thi..."
I have read that Moore has every intention of keeping with the books. We are some radical fans of these books; I don't think that would go over well. =)
Moore's wife is a HUGE fan and he's been threatened with sleeping on the couch/in the doghouse if he screws it up
gertt wrote: "Lesley wrote: "I have always thought that in the book, the contrast between Frank, as this sort of uptight bookish sort of stuffed shirt, and Jamie, as a larger-than-life Highlander, was intentiona..."Oh, I like this. These are good points.
I think for me, because of Frank's MI6 past, I didn't find him bookish. I thought that he "could" be bookish. But that was just one of the many aspects of his personality.
i saw him more as a cameleon...you know - blends into the background - you don't want to stand out when doing intel/spy work
Mrsbooks wrote: "I think for me, because of Frank's MI6 past, I didn't find him bookish. I thought that he "could" be bookish. But that was just one of the many aspects of his personality."I totally forgot about Franks spy past!!!
gertt wrote: "Plus Frank was a pilot during the war...which took a lot of courage.Frank seemed bookish, but then he was a Professor, and he was researching his family history...which if you've ever done this, ..."
Frank was a pilot? Where did it state that? For some reason, I got the impression that Frank didn't do a whole lot in the war. He was mostly felt guilty about putting other people on the front line.
As for his researching his history, they were supposed to be on their second honeymoon to reconnect after so many years apart. It seems all he did was research his genealogy.
Alisha wrote: "I feel that a book is a book and a movie is a movie. An adaptation of a book to movie always brings about different thoughts on what the characters were possibly going through. Since there is so ..."I've seen shows or movies and then read a subsequent book. It never fails, I find myself picturing the actor. Sookie Stackhouse, by example, after I saw True Blood, I then started seeing Sookie as Anna Paquin, not to mention after the first season the show went off the rails.
Kyra wrote: "...they were supposed to be on their second honeymoon to reconnect after so many years apart. It seems all he did was research his genealogy."Did you happen to catch the tension coming from Claire at one point in the Reverend's study? Frank and the Reverend had just finished discussing BJR and were moving on to another topic. I sensed a tad bit of resentment from Claire, like he was so absorbed in the genealogy that she felt dismissed. It muddied their intimacy for me. I was wondering if others read that much into it.
I don't recall the book saying exactly what Frank did in the RAF, but I've often thought parts of his job were very hush hush and involved interrogation. I do recall him discussing one of the "friendlier" interrogation techniques when he was at the pub with Claire.
Shawn wrote: "I've seen shows or movies and then read a subsequent book. It never fails, I find myself picturing the actor."I totally agree and heaven forbid if they really miss the mark. I have a hard time with series audiobooks for the same reason. It takes just the right narrator, or else I'm too distracted by a voice that doesn't match my first impression.
I've only read the first book and I read it after watching the first two episodes or so. Because I watched the show first the characters I pictured in my mind while reading the book were the actors of the show. When I watch the show I find it a bit difficult to like Frank after watching all of the Jack Randall scenes. It was easier to like (or forget about him, since he wasn't mentioned a lot in the first book) Frank in the book.
Nanda wrote: "I've only read the first book and I read it after watching the first two episodes or so. Because I watched the show first the characters I pictured in my mind while reading the book were the actors..."I've mentioned in other threads .. I really never liked Frank .. In the first book I was more indifferent, but as the series progressed, I grew to really not like him.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Kyra wrote: "...they were supposed to be on their second honeymoon to reconnect after so many years apart. It seems all he did was research his genealogy."Did you happen to catch the tension comi..."
Yes, I think she might have been bored with all the genealogy talk. That's all they seemed to have showed them doing.
Kyra wrote: "It's interesting that you feel more sympathetic towards Frank. That seems to be the intent of the director. I think it's a false characterization and I really don't like Frank, especially in the midseason finale."I don't think it's a false characterization and I don't think Ron is going the wrong way with Frank. Quite the reverse, in fact. I like Frank and feel sorry for him. He was a good man and his biggest flaw is that he isn't Jamie Fraser, who was an extraordinary man in any age. Frank was a man of his time. I think it's important to remember that Outlander was Diana's first novel and she never expected it to get published. I think Frank was underwritten in the first book and that the TV show is doing a fine job of correcting that oversight. Claire really did love Frank---he must have been worthy of that love, so it's important for the viewers to see that and feel her conflict between her two men and appreciate the difficulty of her choice.
If you've ever had a chance to read Diana's comments about Frank, I think you'd see that she sees Frank as a good man and a tragic figure. I think a lot of Frank's behavior in later years is due to frustration and disillusion over Claire's emotional unavailablity. I pity him.
If you want to read Diana's take on Frank, check out her words here:
http://forums.compuserve.com/n/docs/d...
Sharon wrote: "Kyra wrote: "It's interesting that you feel more sympathetic towards Frank. That seems to be the intent of the director. I think it's a false characterization and I really don't like Frank, especia..."I read that and was confused. I haven't gone back to check but it seems her comments are saying Frank never cheated on Claire when she came back. But, I thought I remembered in DIA(?)Claire saying how his "girlfriends" approached her or sent her letters. This email response seems to be a contradiction to what was actually written about Frank in the book.
And I will stand by my opinion that it's a false characterization because the show is adding scenes of what Frank might have been doing when that wasn't in the book. He could have left after a couple of weeks and went back to Oxford.
At any rate, I still like the show and can't wait for it to resume.
Kyra wrote: "I thought I remembered in DIA(?)Claire saying how his "girlfriends" approached her or sent her letters."You're right about that, Kyra. We are given far more indicators about Frank's fidelity in Voyager.
DG writes very human characters, complete with realistic flaws in their behavior. By not 'fleshing out' Frank much in the first book, she's given him an air of mystery. The TV series grabbed that and ran with it.
I find the new scenes interesting and they do make me think. As I've mentioned before (somewhere on GR's), I thought Frank suffered greatly in Claire's absence. We don't see that at all in the first book, so I didn't give it much thought initially.
I guess my point is this: Frank was a decent guy in the beginning and stood by Claire, but he must've carried a load of resentment over being second best. That fact makes it easy to imagine him being unfaithful. That and in Voyager:
(view spoiler)
gertt wrote: "Claire is telling the story and Claire believes that Frank is cheating on her, but there is no proof that he is...no lipstick on his collar, no lingering p..."I think it could go either way. It'd be easier for me to accept his fidelity if he fought harder to prove himself innocent, or at the very least denied the accusation.
I've read all the books, and am now re-reading them from the beginning (funny how much you forget over the years). The casting is brilliant and, at first, the casting of Jamie was problematic for me. However, each and every actor has become the character and is filling their respective shoes magnificently. I am so happy and surprised with how well the TV series is following the book with just a little diversion (more about Frank which is a very good thing). Please watch the show... just for the cinematography alone! EXCELLENT BOOKS AND EXCELLENT TV series. Diana has to be thrilled!
gertt wrote: "But, Claire never accused him.She said herself, she never addressed his infidelity. Because she had no proof?"
I think jilted mistresses on her doorstep is proof enough. In my opinion she didn't bring the issue to a head before that night because of Brianna's relationship with Frank. A mother will put up with a lot of bad behavior if it means their child is happy.
Also, Frank's response was telling: (view spoiler)Another thought: Perhaps he was trying to get Claire's attention, to force a reaction that would prove she still loved him enough to fight for him. Definitely a lot going on there.
Oh my goodness... THANK YOU SHARON! That thread was awesome. That's how I see Frank and I just don't understand how others don't see him the same way??Anyways there are a few things Diana says which I thought were interesting...
1. Frank was handsome. Have you noticed how many people are upset at how good looking Tobias the actor is? Nowhere in the book is it said that Frank wasn't. People think because he's bookish and interested in history that he must not be handsome? That's kinda really rude... and stereotypical lol. People will often say that Frank is supposed to look like a professor. Well what is a professor supposed to look like? I didn't know that to apply for the position you had to have certain unflattering features.
2. Upon coming back, Claire admits her love for Frank but she loves Jamie more. Duh.
3. Frank is in love with Claire through their whole marriage. Duh again lol.
4. When Frank asks Claire if she was ever tempted to stray during their war separation. As Diana mentions that's a really normal question to ask. I hadn't thought of it that way. I honestly thought he was probably asking if she had strayed because he had too. Not that I thought he was looking for something to ease his conscience, or for something to throw back at her later. But I thought he was actually just being really understanding if she had because he understood (because he had). But really, if you've been separated from your mate for that many years in those kinds of conditions, it's a normal question to ask. Good point.
Anyways, I really appreciate reading that. It cemented some original thoughts and definitely gave me some new things to think about. Thank you!
Kyra wrote: "Sharon wrote: "Kyra wrote: "It's interesting that you feel more sympathetic towards Frank. That seems to be the intent of the director. I think it's a false characterization and I really don't like..."I totally see your point. I honestly thought that Frank had been unfaithful in the later years of their marriage as well. But Diana technically covered that in her letter and left it open, saying there is no actual proof, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Diana says "He may well be seeking companionship, sympathy, and ego-reinforcement from other women (he ain't gettin' a lot of those things at home-but note that he isn't leaving, either), but it's at least possible that he isn't crossing the line into actual physical infidelity."
His "Girlfriends" (who yes do, approach Claire asking her to let him go) might actually be fitting in that paragraph above. He doesn't need to be sleeping with them for them to want him. It's interesting because I've never thought about this either.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Kyra wrote: "I thought I remembered in DIA(?)Claire saying how his "girlfriends" approached her or sent her letters."You're right about that, Kyra. We are given far more indicators about Frank'..."
No Frank doesn't deny it. But if you read further into that scene, the last scene they ever talk together. Frank basically admits he was doing what he was doing to make Claire jealous, to get her to react, to show some feeling towards him, etc (not in those words).
So technically speaking, this could still fit into the paragraph that Diana wrote when she said...
"He may well be seeking companionship, sympathy, and ego-reinforcement from other women (he ain't gettin' a lot of those things at home-but note that he isn't leaving, either), but it's at least possible that he isn't crossing the line into actual physical infidelity."
I always thought he had cheated in the later years of their marriage. Now I have a new perspective to look at things and it's kinda neat.
I think that like you all have mentioned, I really didn't like Frank from the books. But the show has me feeling a bit more for him and his point of view. I mean that in the book I don't recall much about him and in the show he was really devastated when he lost her! So I guess it is changing a bit of how I interpret the story. I think that maybe having men involved they may have given Diana a different perspective on his side? I have to say that I did have a slightly different idea of how Claire (I thought of her as more curvy) and Jamie would look(redder hair) when I first listened to the book, but now I think of the actors in the roles and that is fine with me. I marvel at how perfectly the other characters in the show match how I saw them in my mind! I think casting did a wonderful job. I love both the series and the show! I agree that the photography and landscapes in the show are worth watching it even if the story wasn't so good. I mean I love the "feel" of living back then you get from seeing how things looked. I admit I tended to see things all sunny and bright because that is what it is like where I live.
Becky ♡The Bookworm♡ wrote: "Also, Frank's response was telling: "I shouldn't have thought you minded. It's not as though you ever made a move to stop me."
Another thought: Perhaps he was trying to get Claire's attent..."
Yes, I thought that he was just always wanting her to love him more and know that she was glad to be back with him. I know that you can love 2 people. My first husband was killed by a drunk driver and I still love him. Now if he showed up alive again, I would be happy to see him but the love of my life for the last 37 years-my current husband--would have nothing to worry about. I think that Frank did love Claire as much as Jamie did and that theme of loving more than one person is just another great part of the story to Diana's credit!
I am soooo glad I asked this question!!! You all have made some amazing comments on your interpretation.I've never been a fan of Frank's, and I am starting to see him in a new light with the information shared here, thanks.
I'm even considering watching the show ... I was sitting pretty solid in my position not to ... but everyone seems to think it hasn't swayed you much, if any (except with regard to Frank).
This is why I LOVE Goodreads!!
gertt wrote: "Kyra wrote: "I read and was confused..."Claire is telling the story and Claire believes that Frank is cheating on her, but there is no proof that he is...no lipstick on his collar, no lingering p..."
I really think in the book it was clear he was cheating on her.
Jeanine wrote: "gertt wrote: "Kyra wrote: "I read and was confused..."Claire is telling the story and Claire believes that Frank is cheating on her, but there is no proof that he is...no lipstick on his collar, ..."
I have to agree that it is likely .. but the others aren't wrong if you read DG's information on the subject ... see link in Sharon's Post #34 ... DG states that there is no real proof other than implications. He may have been flirting around with the idea and he may have, even, done the deed ... but there isn't anything in her writings that gives concrete proof ... even with the bit about the women talking to Claire .. He, still, never admits it.
I'm glad you guys enjoyed the compuserve link. :) I am loving the TV series, but I am trying very hard to take it on its own merits and not constantly compare it to the book. As Diana has stated repeatedly, it is an adaptation. Some things just don't translate to the screen though they play well in the book. Some things must be cut due to the difficulty in making the scene work or because they don't suit the pacing of the show or simply because we have only 16 episodes to play with. I think they have done a great job of retaining the spirit of the book while creating a dramatic episodic show. The production values are stunning---the sets, costumes, lighting, photography---and the performances are riveting. I think Tobias Menzies (Frank/BJR) will be a serious contender for "best performance" awards in the spring because his dual role is totally believable as two different men, but ALL of the actors are fabulous. It isn't the book. It cannot BE the book. But it is sort of like getting a special edition of the book. And we will always HAVE the book! :P
Sharon wrote: "I'm glad you guys enjoyed the compuserve link. :) I am loving the TV series, but I am trying very hard to take it on its own merits and not constantly compare it to the book. As Diana has stated ..."
I agree you can't compare the two. Otherwise, you will be constantly upset. I am curious how they are going to play out that spanking scene on the show when it wasn't brought up in the last episode.
gertt wrote: "Is it possible they came to ask Claire to give Frank up because Frank wouldn't have an affair with them? That he told them their relationship couldn't go any further because of Claire?..."
Yes, it's possible, but not likely. DG uses "mistresses" to reference these women in the book, not "girlfriends." I also believe a spouse can cheat without having sex. There's emotional adultery and physical adultery. At the very least, Frank was guilty of seeking comfort from these women.
This isn't the first time Claire mentions Frank's other women. He was obviously "involved" with someone when she returned. Claire saw her at a party when she was still pregnant with Bree. Frank had obviously broke it off.
I really don't blame the guy. He must've been terribly lonely.
Sharon wrote: "I think Tobias Menzies (Frank/BJR) will be a serious contender for "best performance" awards in the spring because his dual role is totally believable as two different men, but ALL of the actors are fabulous."Absolutely! I think Tobias Menzies is fabulous, too!
I did think that he had affairs but now I need to reread because I don't recall. But even without being in love with Jamie, I know that the time it takes to get a medical degree is very demanding. I don't think Frank would have left Claire because he couldn't have children and he loved Briana from birth. I do love Goodreads! Sure there are lots of opinions but I enjoy most of them and they all make you think. Always a good thing!
Joyce wrote: "I don't think Frank would have left Claire because he couldn't have children and he loved Briana from birth."I think Bree was the main thing holding the marriage together. Claire and Frank never really recovered what they had in the beginning and it slowly ate away at the foundation of their relationship. They didn't have years and years of uninterrupted marital bliss before Claire was pulled back through time. They married, were promptly separated by the war for five years, then when they are reunited, Claire vanishes for three years. It's really sad when you think about it.
They both made tremendous sacrifices on Bree's behalf, both because they loved her and at one time loved each other. Claire didn't want to add to Frank's pain. Frank didn't want to lose the only daughter he would ever have. It's an interesting dynamic to the relationship.
Kyra wrote: "I am curious how they are going to play out that spanking scene on the show when it wasn't brought up in the last episode. "Well, the spanking scene takes place after Jamie rescues her from BJR, as punishment for leaving the safe spot where he left her, so it will likely appear in one of the next 2 episodes....in April. (arrgh. APRIL!)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Outlander (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Written in My Own Heart's Blood (other topics)Outlander (other topics)
I have heard great things about Moore and how he is being true to the story. However, he nor the actors are Diana Gabaldon, and their interpretation of the story and characters may be somewhat different and some of the threads seem to support this thought.
So ... what do you think?