Jump to content
Athena

The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, fishpan said:

I kind of think that is how things are headed. 

So instead of them sticking completely to what they had in the books about the hanging they may have use that.  Have Roger being caught between Murtagh's regulators and Jamie's obligations to Tryon due to Jamie dismissing Roger because he doesn't think Roger is cut out for the 18th century.

As for having Richard Rankin croak his way through the rest of the show, its possible.  Look at Christian Bale and half the cast of Supernatural - how long have those guys been croaking through roles?

I haven't seen Supernatural or Christian Bale (don't watch much really) but clearly long term croaking is an option then. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, fishpan said:

As for the differences between Roger in the book and show - suppose they actually want to show us him growing into a badass who can cope in the 18th century while being the one hit with the biggest culture clash out of Claire, Bree and him.  I say that seeing how a lot of Claire's foibles at first could be dismissed by the Mackenzies' due to the' fact she is a woman and English then because she is Jamie's wife.  Bree gets a pass with her parents because she is their child.  Roger should experience something different.  It is in shown in part in the books as Jocasta telling him that she's leaving River Run to Jemmy instead of Bree as he is basically penniless and no-one can really vouch for him, (something no one complains to Claire about once she is married to Jamie considering everyone else has designs on Lallybroch).  But Roger is a Scot, living with Scots and he can't really fight, shoot, farm, butcher meat or basically do a lot of the tasks that men in that time, men like Jamie and even Fergus would have done since a young age. 

This is something I can see the show making more of than the books do, where it's a lot of subtext that's certainly there but isn't so much of a story in its own right.  It's one of the more interesting twists on gender roles in this series for me that first Claire and then Bree have an easier time with time travel than Roger does and I think says quite a bit about changing expectations of those gender roles.  Claire is Claire and then she's enough of a fish out of water in Highland culture that a lot of what she doesn't know can easily be excused away or overlooked because she's Jamie's wife.  Bree, with the relatively short exception of her traveling to find her parents where bad things do happen to her, almost always has relatives to smooth her path and cover for any difficulties she might be having.  And if they get it wrong, they're just women anyway. 

Roger comes over alone.  He has no known family ties they can explain, and he's a modern academic thrust into a world that largely values brute strength and skill and know-how in any man who doesn't have the means to be an academic.  This season's speed read of an ending skips the late book exchange of Jamie acknowledging that Roger doesn't have much to offer in that department, but that he's strong and willing and that's a start.  The whole next book covers Jamie's growing acceptance of Roger and Roger fighting to learn those skills and find his own place in their world.  I'm guessing we'll be getting some grown-up variations of the Jamie and Willie go a huntin' scenes from this season where Jamie is first bemused at what Roger as a man from 200 years later doesn't know before patiently setting about rectifying that so he doesn't get himself killed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

It's one of the more interesting twists on gender roles in this series for me that first Claire and then Bree have an easier time with time travel than Roger does and I think says quite a bit about changing expectations of those gender roles. 

Yes I really agree and you put it so much better than I can. 

Part of me hopes that the show does explore that aspect because it could be an interesting side aspect because Roger does face a completely different set of issues than Claire and Bree faced, with less reason for people not to cause him harm - he doesn't have someone from that time to act as a buffer sololy on his behalf as Jamie would put Claire and Bree before Roger and Roger, unlike Claire doesn't have a real practical skill to trade to get in people's good graces apart from his singing which he loses because of how he interacts with people innocently.  

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I'm guessing we'll be getting some grown-up variations of the Jamie and Willie go a huntin' scenes from this season where Jamie is first bemused at what Roger as a man from 200 years later doesn't know before patiently setting about rectifying that so he doesn't get himself killed.

Yet as Jamie is Bree's father and Roger has sort of already brushed off the tactics Jamie usually uses when dealing with younger or more inexperienced men it is possible the show may take it slow in that regard.  Remember when Roger replied 'What?'in the show to Jamie going on about Bree not needing a coward.  Sort of a 20th century response to an 18th century male goad.  Plus in the books Jamie does mention that Roger has the baggage of being descended from Dougal and Gellis, which may also cloud their dealings in the show.

If anything Murtagh maybe more sympathetic to Roger than Jamie, if they don't just use him in just the regulator plot.  He too came to North Carolina alone, has spent time as an indentured servant (so sort of like Roger with the Mohawk), had to build his own reputation after that, didn't have really a family until he bumped back into Jamie (who has never been without his family in North Carolina) and in a lot of ways Murtagh has spent more time with Bree than Jamie has.  He's the grandpa that Bree never had and possible a better mentor for Roger than Jamie at first as he navigates all the issues he would face.

Edited by fishpan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/9/2019 at 11:36 AM, RyeNeat said:

I found this forum seeking like minds about a massive character development divergence between the books and shows. Yet I haven’t really seen it mentioned here. Has anyone noticed that book and show Roger are completely different and that almost every edit/change the writers make from book Roger leads in a single direction?  He’s no longer strong, capable, masculine, or daring.

On one of the episode threads, I know I addressed some of these notions that Roger appears weak and incapable. I don't agree. 

Just the idea that he risked going through the stones to follow Bree showed that he had gumption and daring. In the book, we know that he had problems going through them "cleanly," unlike Claire and Bree. However, he tries more than once. Furthermore, he stands up to Steven Bonnet on the Gloriana, despite the fact Bonnet could've easily killed him, with no interference from his men, managing to save Morag and her child.  When he does fall back into Bonnet's clutches, he is threatened and likely would be overpowered if he refused to complete his "contract". Later, when he ends up sold to the Mohawk, he manages to escape during the journey, despite being in pretty bad shape. His hesitation in going through the stones, further illustrates the commitment he feels to Bree and his desire to see her safe in her own time. But for me, one of the bravest things he did was not only escaping the Mohawk *again* but deciding to return to help a fellow captive, knowing the odds were going to be completely against him. For a man who is ill-equipped for the 18th century, he manages to navigate the past, stay alive, and even risk himself for others. No, he's not a Highland warrior, but even some of the men from the 18th century who spend more time in America's colonial towns and cities at dining tables, ballrooms, and plays would have similar trouble keeping their head above water in similar situations.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Nidratime said:

On one of the episode threads, I know I addressed some of these notions that Roger appears weak and incapable. I don't agree. 

Just the idea that he risked going through the stones to follow Bree showed that he had gumption and daring. In the book, we know that he had problems going through them "cleanly," unlike Claire and Bree. However, he tries more than once. Furthermore, he stands up to Steven Bonnet on the Gloriana, despite the fact Bonnet could've easily killed him, with no interference from his men, managing to save Morag and her child.  When he does fall back into Bonnet's clutches, he is threatened and likely would be overpowered if he refused to complete his "contract". Later, when he ends up sold to the Mohawk, he manages to escape during the journey, despite being in pretty bad shape. His hesitation in going through the stones, further illustrates the commitment he feels to Bree and his desire to see her safe in her own time. But for me, one of the bravest things he did was not only escaping the Mohawk *again* but deciding to return to help a fellow captive, knowing the odds were going to be completely against him. For a man who is ill-equipped for the 18th century, he manages to navigate the past, stay alive, and even risk himself for others. No, he's not a Highland warrior, but even some of the men from the 18th century who spend more time in America's colonial towns and cities at dining tables, ballrooms, and plays would have similar trouble keeping their head above water in similar situations.

You're giving him a break because you know Roger from the books.  But the fact that so many non-book readers think that Roger is weak and helpless means that the show has failed in its portrayal of him.  Roger is extremely unpopular out there in the world.  If the only Roger I knew was from the show I wouldn't be all that impressed with him, either.  Yeah, he makes a couple of brave decisions but overall, he really does seem kinda pathetic.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, toolazy said:

 Yeah, he makes a couple of brave decisions but overall, he really does seem kinda pathetic.  

I don't find him pathetic, I actually find Roger the most relatable time travelling character in the show actually because he isn't so sodding perfect and he cops it from his own and other mistakes.  

With Claire, well she just happened to know all the healing plants in the world before she fell through the stones and lucks out by having Dougal, a man with major influence, save her ass from Jack Randall and is completely incapable of getting herself to Inverness.  What would have happened to her if she hadn't been a nurse with a sideline in herbology?

Gellis is nuttier than a homicidal fruitloop.  But she prepared and knew what skills she would need to survive and knows she has to get in the bed of a well connected man.

Bree lucks out when she goes through by encountering Loaghaire and then is ferried and given money to travel by Ian who just takes her word who she is.  If Jenny had been there in the show, well can she her going mental about who, what, where and when considering I can't mind in the show that Jamie and Claire telling her that Bree existed.

Roger, sure he isn't as handy as Jamie and Murtagh but has the sense about when to push things unlike Ottertooth.  Who thought he would just come back and the Mohawk would just do as they were told.  But out of the two which is still alive - Roger.  In the end Ottertooth came back and didn't save his people, but Roger he had the sense to not only get himself passage by himself but kept himself, Morag and wee Jemmy were alive. 

Because what else did you expect Roger to do?  Take the ship?  Claire can't save slaves in the face of a mob, but we expect Roger to take on a whole ship? Hell even Jamie couldn't take a ship by himself and found himself confined when Clarie got pressganged.   Or do you want him to take on a Mohawk village who are probably guarding him more over his actions with the pyre?  He had one good arm and a water bucket not a 50 calibre machine gun.

Because in the end we see Roger in a bad way - which is what most likely would happen to people with little to no money and no connections and little to no skills that would be marketable in that time zone. 

So what he seems depressed when Claire and Jamie find him.  He's not long after witnessing the horrific deaths of 2 people which he faciliated, he caused a baby to become an orphan.  So what do you expect from him - to brush off what would probably be the first time he witnessed violent deaths?  Especially when he was involved.  Claire is allowed to have PTSD, Jamie is allowed to break at the hand of Jack Randall so isn't Roger allowed to have something similar after he helps burn someone alive?

We do see him stand up to Jamie, even though he is in no fit state to do much when Jamie is being a testosterone filled bully.  Hell Jamie in parts was being as bad as both his uncles in that scene and guess what it backfired - Roger didn't tuck in his tail and do what he was told and in the end he didn't piss off either.  Also we see Claire and Jamie in the show abandon Roger in the middle of nowhere with a busted arm and them having little real knowledge if he has the skills to survive considering he is a history lecturer in Oxford from 200 years in the future.  That's nice isn't it.

No-one comes out clean in that situation and Roger may come off pathetic to you because you don't want Jamie to look bad because when you unpack things Jamie's actions with Roger cost Bree her shot on going backbecause if Jamie hadn't beaten Roger then Roger and Bree would have had met at Fraser's Ridge and decided if they were to be together and even if they hadn't they had time to get Bree back to the 20th century.  But Jamie beat a man half to death without the man in question knowing why and kept quiet about it.  Jamie cost Bree her shot at going home and when he found out his mistake he slut shamed her infront of her mother those actions are on Jamie, not because Roger not being a manly 18th century man.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, fishpan said:

-one comes out clean in that situation and Roger may come off pathetic to you because you don't want Jamie to look bad because when you unpack things Jamie's actions with Roger cost Bree her shot on going backbecause if Jamie hadn't beaten Roger then Roger and Bree would have had met at Fraser's Ridge and decided if they were to be together and even if they hadn't they had time to get Bree back to the 20th century.  But Jamie beat a man half to death without the man in question knowing why and kept quiet about it.  Jamie cost Bree her shot at going home and when he found out his mistake he slut shamed her infront of her mother those actions are on Jamie, not because Roger not being a manly 18th century man.

Um, no.  My feelings about Roger's portrayal have nothing to do with Jamie.  This isn't a zero sum game - there is plenty of blame to go around during the Great Misunderstanding and Jamie deserves all that he gets.  Honestly, this wasn't really a good look for any of them, not even Claire.  

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Um, no.  My feelings about Roger's portrayal have nothing to do with Jamie.  This isn't a zero sum game - there is plenty of blame to go around during the Great Misunderstanding and Jamie deserves all that he gets.  Honestly, this wasn't really a good look for any of them, not even Claire.  

Really? Nothing to do with Jamie?

I've seen a lot of people go on about Roger being pathetic.  He's a character who we are seeing growing and changing in a sort of relatable way. So we will see how he goes and no he's never going to be the Indiana Jones of Inverness but has the potential to learn with bumps and scraps.  But who is his comparable in the show - Jamie.  

Jamie is so wonderful in ways that you kind of feel that Jamie's mistakes are also the fault of the other side, in this case Roger has his part in the Great Misunderstanding because in the show he didn't open his mouth and protest his innocence to a crime he didn't know had happened.  His actions at the Mohawk village, well Roger is injured in the gauntlet which is just 'pathetic' as Jamie and party go to rescue him.  And he is sitting in the hut when Claire and Jamie comes for him - well he's injured, isn't fluent in the language and he's just basically killed 2 people.  Escape, logistically isn't going to happen at that point. 

Roger doesn't jump and go straight back to Bree.  He has been hit with a shower of anvils and Jamie acting like a bullying ass.  Even if he was completely together, pride and distrust in the face of Jamie may have caused Roger to not want to head back with Jamie and Claire.  But it is easier to say Roger is simply weak than say Roger is emotionally done at that point and Jamie isn't helping the situation in any way shape or form by channeling Dougal and Colum.

Also that doesn't change the fact that Claire and Jamie left an injured man in a dangerous environment,.  Now I've seen folk go on about Roger not choosing to go back straight away and that is weak - but really Claire and Jamie didn't have to leave the guy in the woods.  Although we did see Roger make it to River Run on his own.  A place he doesn't know if Bree will still be and where he has never been before.  Also ready to face Jamie again but more able to deal with the bull headed Fraser, which in a lot of ways does take skill, especially considering for a lot of that ride Roger would have been one handed and he's riding a bloody big horse and not driving his wee Morris Minor.

He isn't perfect but he's doing okay considering he's a 20th century man in an environment he never expected to find himself.

Edited by fishpan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, fishpan said:

Really? Nothing to do with Jamie?

Really.  Why is that so hard to believe?  I should know how I feel about the characters and I think Jamie acts like an ass on multiple occasions during these... events. I'm not one of the people that buys into that King of Men schtick.  

I'm sorry that I (and countless others) disagree with you (and countless others) on how Roger's character comes off in the show but there it is.  We're just going to have to agree to disagree. No one is going to change anyone's mind.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Nidratime said:

On one of the episode threads, I know I addressed some of these notions that Roger appears weak and incapable. I don't agree. 

Just the idea that he risked going through the stones to follow Bree showed that he had gumption and daring. In the book, we know that he had problems going through them "cleanly," unlike Claire and Bree. However, he tries more than once. Furthermore, he stands up to Steven Bonnet on the Gloriana, despite the fact Bonnet could've easily killed him, with no interference from his men, managing to save Morag and her child.  When he does fall back into Bonnet's clutches, he is threatened and likely would be overpowered if he refused to complete his "contract". Later, when he ends up sold to the Mohawk, he manages to escape during the journey, despite being in pretty bad shape. His hesitation in going through the stones, further illustrates the commitment he feels to Bree and his desire to see her safe in her own time. But for me, one of the bravest things he did was not only escaping the Mohawk *again* but deciding to return to help a fellow captive, knowing the odds were going to be completely against him. For a man who is ill-equipped for the 18th century, he manages to navigate the past, stay alive, and even risk himself for others. No, he's not a Highland warrior, but even some of the men from the 18th century who spend more time in America's colonial towns and cities at dining tables, ballrooms, and plays would have similar trouble keeping their head above water in similar situations.

So much this. And it's not just that he went back but that he had the fortitude to hasten the priest's death. Were I in that situation, that's what I would want to do, but I'm not sure I would be able to go through with it. And I can imagine that he was roundly rewarded by his captors.

I'm of two minds about how Show Roger comes off. I can't unread the books, so I can't honestly say I wouldn't have the same reaction as many/most of the nonbook readers. I do think Roger is more realistically portrayed than the other characters, who rival Wile E. Coyote for bouncing back from adversity. I can't let myself think too much about the saga of Jamie, who survived two (2!) whippings in close succession that would have killed most people, if not on the spot than from the inevitable infection; came back from the physical and psychological abuse he suffered at the hands of Jack Randall; overcame hideous injuries at Culloden, including a lengthy ride to Lallybroch in a rickety cart (IIRC);  spent years in a cave; endured I forget how many years in a prison under wretched conditions--I don't care how great the weekly meals with LJ were, he would have been riddled with lice and suffering from malnutrition from the rat cuisine. It beggers belief. I think he also had some sort of near-death experience on the ship to America. And he still looks great (pace to those who can't get past the wig)!

Roger looks and acts like someone who has been beaten within an inch of his life and walked 700 miles at the end of a rope, all the while not being entirely sure that his beloved wasn't partially responsible. I do think he suffers as a realistically represented character dropped into a show peopled with preternatural survivors, not excluding Stephen Bonnet, the Forest Gump of the eighteenth century.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I had a thought that may be moot, because if it happened we wouldn’t have much a plot line.....

Why did no one suggest a newly pregnant Bree go back through the stones alone, while Claire & Co go searching for Roger. If they found Roger alive they could rescue him and send him home (to be with Bree or not, his choice). If Roger had died on the journey etc Bree would still be back in the 20th century. A far better place to be a single mother. 

Was this never suggested because Diana wanted her characters in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/10/2019 at 4:20 AM, fishpan said:

Sorry girl you know something caused a rift between your parents and they moved to a new continent afterwards and you find a newspaper clipping stating your mother disappeared for three years, with no sight or sound of her to and then was found wandering in the middle of nowhere dressed like Laura Doon and wittering on about a battle from 200 years ago, 6 months before you were born.   Well you thinking you are the result of a grand whirlwind affair should not be your first thought.  Thinking your mother may have been held hostage and raped for three years by a mad man who brainwashed her and your parents trying their best afterwards may have been your first.  I know 1968 was pre Patty Hearst but Bree was a college student.

Yes I understood Bree being upset and confused when finding the article, but she was an adult woman (not a kid). Knowing your parents were married, your Mom disappeared for three years and showed back up pregnant by another man, AND her husband not only took her back but loved you and raised as his own- world wind affair isn’t where my mind would go either; I would think something traumatic like a kidnapping or rape happened to her. She was lost for THREE YEARS. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I had a thought that may be mute, because if it happened we wouldn’t have much a plot line.....

Why did no one suggest a newly pregnant Bree go back through the stones alone, while Claire & Co go searching for Roger. If they found Roger alive they could rescue him and send him home (to be with Bree or not, his choice). If Roger had died on the journey etc Bree would still be back in the 20th century. A far better place to be a single mother. 

Was this never suggested because Diana wanted her characters in the past?

I think you mean “moot.” But to answer your question-that’s not the story Gabaldon wanted to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I think you mean “moot.” But to answer your question-that’s not the story Gabaldon wanted to tell.

I did. Dang auto correct- I will amend. 

Youre right. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I had a thought that may be moot, because if it happened we wouldn’t have much a plot line.....

Why did no one suggest a newly pregnant Bree go back through the stones alone, while Claire & Co go searching for Roger. If they found Roger alive they could rescue him and send him home (to be with Bree or not, his choice). If Roger had died on the journey etc Bree would still be back in the 20th century. A far better place to be a single mother. 

Was this never suggested because Diana wanted her characters in the past?

"Because plot". You might as well ask why Bree and Roger didn't travel together to Fraser's Ridge when they met up, tell Jamie and Claire about the fire, then go and find some gemstones to travel back with if J&C didn't have any.  More plot from having them bicker and be separated leading to rape-and-paternity-drama and The Misunderstanding (I don't object to the bicker - Roger had it coming - but what it led to...ugh.  Gabaldon does a massive swerve from the first couple of books into full-on melodrama).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yes I understood Bree being upset and confused when finding the article, but she was an adult woman (not a kid). Knowing your parents were married, your Mom disappeared for three years and showed back up pregnant by another man, AND her husband not only took her back but loved you and raised as his own- world wind affair isn’t where my mind would go either; I would think something traumatic like a kidnapping or rape happened to her. She was lost for THREE YEARS

Exactly!

I know that when Claire turned up in the 1948 it was a time when something like that was harder to imagine or voice, but considering the nature of her disappearance, her state, her story and more importantly her dress to have no-one say that kidnapping and being held hostage by a complete nut job was not a possibility?  If they had played it that they don't want to voice it and stick to the idea that Claire ran off with someone because it down plays their guilt about not looking hard enough for her fine in the face of that possibility then fine but it was never even really worked through in 1948, unless I missed swathes of story.

But then when Bree finds out in 1968 and not to have her even consider something like that when her mother starts going on about time travel in the face of the other facts?  Just because Bree was upset, is very strange.  As having Bree take a breath, listening and then entertaining that Claire may have been held against her will and then suffered Stockholm syndrome makes a lot of sense, especially in the face of the time travel story and how Bree said Claire lived in another world and why her parents marriage was the way it was.  It's a lot better than Bree going on about Claire having delusions.

Now, I know they were playing the idea that Roger was pulling the idea at that point that Jamie and time travel was a story that Claire 'believed' but come out, say it at some point and not have the only way the idea is played with is a sketch of Jamie on a police notice board in 1945 is kind of silly.  We aren't idiots, its a show with violence and we are still watching so we can take that until they saw Gellis went through the stones that those around Claire (outside Mrs Graham) could have believed that that a possible logical explanation wasn't time travel but a mad Scot out on the moors outside Inverness who was living a life like something akin to the 18th century version of the hills have eyes. 

Edited by fishpan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, pootlus said:

  Gabaldon does a massive swerve from the first couple of books into full-on melodrama).

This is so true.  I can't tell you how my eyebrows rose to the ceiling when that pirate ship hove into view in Voyager.  That book started so well and then suddenly it all went completely bonkers.

TV series followed in much the same way.  The last time I really enjoyed Outlander as much as in season one was episode 304, after those first four episodes the quality just plummeted (for me anyway).  I did quite like 308 but that's it really.  I do still watch but I just crave getting back to the standards of the first season.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I had a thought that may be moot, because if it happened we wouldn’t have much a plot line.....

Why did no one suggest a newly pregnant Bree go back through the stones alone, while Claire & Co go searching for Roger. If they found Roger alive they could rescue him and send him home (to be with Bree or not, his choice). If Roger had died on the journey etc Bree would still be back in the 20th century. A far better place to be a single mother. 

Was this never suggested because Diana wanted her characters in the past?

Are you talking about the book or the show? Because in the book, they discussed that very thing but ruled it out because of timing.  They didn't know yet about the stones in America so Bree would have had to sail back to Scotland, find her way to the stones and go through. Ships don't sail in winter.  By the time she got a ship and got over to Scotland, she would either be cutting it super close or it would be too late, I don't exactly remember. 

So it's not like DG completely glossed over the possibility.  The idea was considered and then rejected. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, toolazy said:

Are you talking about the book or the show? Because in the book, they discussed that very thing but ruled it out because of timing.  They didn't know yet about the stones in America so Bree would have had to sail back to Scotland, find her way to the stones and go through. Ships don't sail in winter.  By the time she got a ship and got over to Scotland, she would either be cutting it super close or it would be too late, I don't exactly remember. 

So it's not like DG completely glossed over the possibility.  The idea was considered and then rejected. 

Thank you! You’re right. Duh-Ships don’t sail in the winter and Bree would’ve been extremely close to her due date trying to make that journey. 

I did recall that in the show we didn’t yet know about the stones in mainland colonies (Claire knew about the ones in Jamaica but same scenario). 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Thank you! You’re right. Duh-Ships don’t sail in the winter and Bree would’ve been extremely close to her due date trying to make that journey. 

I did recall that in the show we didn’t yet know about the stones in mainland colonies (Claire knew about the ones in Jamaica but same scenario). 

Yes, I think they also discussed Jamaica, too.  In their place, I would be really leery of going through unfamiliar portals.  Were they stones or was it a pool of water in a cave? I speed-read through that part of the book because it's both creepy and maddening. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 4:47 PM, fishpan said:

Roger doesn't jump and go straight back to Bree.  He has been hit with a shower of anvils and Jamie acting like a bullying ass.  Even if he was completely together, pride and distrust in the face of Jamie may have caused Roger to not want to head back with Jamie and Claire.  But it is easier to say Roger is simply weak than say Roger is emotionally done at that point and Jamie isn't helping the situation in any way shape or form by channeling Dougal and Colum.

Also that doesn't change the fact that Claire and Jamie left an injured man in a dangerous environment,.  Now I've seen folk go on about Roger not choosing to go back straight away and that is weak - but really Claire and Jamie didn't have to leave the guy in the woods.  Although we did see Roger make it to River Run on his own.  A place he doesn't know if Bree will still be and where he has never been before.  Also ready to face Jamie again but more able to deal with the bull headed Fraser, which in a lot of ways does take skill, especially considering for a lot of that ride Roger would have been one handed and he's riding a bloody big horse and not driving his wee Morris Minor.

He isn't perfect but he's doing okay considering he's a 20th century man in an environment he never expected to find himself.

I agree with so much of what you said.  I think why Roger didn't immediately go to River Run with Jamie and Claire is one of the things that most fans misunderstood, and that drives me bonkers!  So many people have criticized Roger for taking so long to decide and ask why he could ride along side Jamie and Claire while he thought about things.

I think most people are forgetting that Roger isn't trying to decide whether or not he can still love Bree or raise a child that isn't his.  He's wondering if he can accept living in the 18th century indefinitely and possible forever.  River Run is in one direction, and the stones that Roger found are in a completely different direction.  If Roger starts traveling with Jamie and Claire, he'll be going away from the stones.  While Jamie was being a bit of a baby/bully when speaking to Roger, he wasn't entirely wrong (and Claire said it better).  If Roger isn't prepared to be a husband to Bree and a father to Jemmy and live in the 18th Century, it's better that he go now rather than get Bree's hopes up by going to River Run, only to break her heart again and leave.  They made it clear that Roger needs to not come to River Run unless he had decided to stay.  If he isn't ready to turn his back on the stones (possibly forever), he needs to wait until he is.

I do disagree that Roger is responsible for the 2 deaths.  That situation was already in motion, and I don't think Roger did anything to influence the outcome.  Maybe by fueling the fire the girlfriend found it easier to join the priest on the fire, but I suspect she would have done that at some point.  If I remember correctly from the book (and it's been awhile), Roger had nothing to do with that story other than be an ear for the priest while he was in the hut.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2019 at 4:33 PM, Scarlett45 said:

Thank you! You’re right. Duh-Ships don’t sail in the winter and Bree would’ve been extremely close to her due date trying to make that journey. 

I did recall that in the show we didn’t yet know about the stones in mainland colonies (Claire knew about the ones in Jamaica but same scenario). 

It seems to me they did spend more time discussing this in the book.  Maybe they didn't want to spend too much time on it in the show.  I remember Claire being very urgent at first.  "Bree, you have to go back NOW!"  And I remember thinking, "Um, she literally just arrived on the Ridge!"  But I didn't realize that Claire was concerned that a baby might not make it through the stones.  (Probably just one of the many, many, many details I missed while reading the first time.)

Share this post


Link to post

Side note: I’m glad the show so far has corrected the Diana Gabaldon misconception that 90% of British soldiers are corporals. That’s been a relief. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×