Droughtlander, I Missed Ya!

I am looking forward to Droughtlander.

  1.  I am looking forward to Droughtlander because the idea of having almost unfettered contact points (via Twitter and Instagram) to the actors, writers, producers and production team is so astonishing, and then using that access weekly to vilify them, to bitch at them, to complain to them, to tell them they are wrong just floors me.
  2. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because the writers are artists in their own right… not transcriptionists. They are ADAPTING an overwhelmingly bulky story into another medium and they have every right to add their own flavor. I know I couldn’t do it better, and you couldn’t either.
  3. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because I tire of hearing “that wasn’t in the book, stick to the books, the author knows best” AND “Murtagh shouldn’t die; he should marry Jocasta;”  “I miss the antics of Rupert and Angus;” “OMG, why do they skip all the conversation and only have action–I don’t care about battles,” AND “why is it all just talking, so boring!”  Diametrically opposed, bros. (Pro tip–They are NOT writing it for YOU; your giving a Hamilton to STARZ five months a year is not a contractual obligation they make the show YOU want.)
  4. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because now that another season can be viewed AS A WHOLE, I think that upon rewatching, maybe people will view those things that didn’t make sense in the short-term (57-minute story) and were derided as a waste of screen time will be seen as prescient and well-crafted; now that the ‘tale is told.’
  5. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because the constant “I hope the writers wake up and write what I want to see from the books, or they will lose viewers” is OLD. They are professional story-tellers. They are not writing purposefully bad episodes and sneaking them past multiple layers of editor$ and director$ and producer$ to magically appear on your TV, awaiting your pronouncement it was done wrong. They just aren’t, ok?
  6. I’m looking forward to a respite from the constant bickering over something having happened on page 754 but showing up in episode 4 instead episode 10.
  7.  I am looking forward to a year where there isn’t a weekly “this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, I hate this episode, I hate this season, I hate this actor” and yet!  Here I am watching it (at midnight!) so that I can bitch and whine and whine and bitch.
  8. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because I will not have to comment for a year– “It was one 2 minute scene of a  57 minute episode of a 684 minute season of a 1000 page book of a ~ 9000 page series of 10 novels that haven’t been finished yet!”
  9. I will not have to hear about “that one book quote that touched my heart so deeply, that made me swoon and that I tell everyone they should read the book for, was not represented properly, at the right time, by the wrong person or not at all” (I knew going in “my” favorite scene this season wouldn’t make the cut… But I can still go back and read the scene and laugh!)
  10.  I am looking forward to Droughtlander because yes, I hate Sam’s wig and I mostly hate it because they have done just everything else visual perfectly, and I truly can’t see what the reason for his look is. I will hold out hope that in season 5 he finally wears his hair like EVERY OTHER MALE IN THE SHOW over the age of 15–good guy, bad guy and whether it suits them.
  11. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because I am of the generation that had to remember not to make plans on Thursday nights if I  wanted to watch 22 episodes of a half-hour sitcom that I learned about when the TV Guide showed up. I got to watch the reruns over the summer one more time, and then it disappeared from my world. I can watch season 1-4 on an endless loop 24/7 till the new season. (and I just may!)
  12. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because during Droughtlander, I’m going to go to Scotland! This spring a trip to Ireland, Scotland and Wales is being planned– with friends I have made VIA Outlander! What a special way to spend some of my Droughtlander!   

    10698621_10205421072830219_4101314330111693137_n

    My first Droughtlander meme.

  13. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because it means that Diana Gabaldon’s next book is getting closer to publication, and hopefully there wont be things for people to complain about in that! (she’s the SOURCE!)
  14. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because we will all be together in the misery that is Droughtlander, and misery loves company, and we on these fan pages will eventually tire of bitching, and find things to talk about and we will forge new layers of friendship while suffering, together.
  15. I am looking forward to Droughtlander so we don’t have to discuss whether time given to beauty shots– the vistas and locations that Diana WRITES pages and pages about–is wasted time. (It’s not. It’s a VISUAL medium.)  TV an aural medium, and the risky choices of music ALSO tell a story; a story of time travelers, and of how multi-layered our lives and our story and the history of this country is and how often, we only see the bits we want to see. These are also things expressed in paragraphs and pages of the book.
  16. And you know what? I agree we don’t NEED to see another instance of Claire playing doctor, eating up those precious minutes of screen time… but the thing is, Dr. Claire Is ALL OVER THE BOOKS. *(if Diana WRITES another eyeball-oriented medical situation in BEES, however,  I’m  gonna throw the  book! <VBG>)
  17. I am looking forward to Droughtlander because it could have been a feature length movie instead, and if you think they changed things for episodic TV…. Ron and Co have been amazing. As my husband said when I was fretting about the books being ruined, back at the beginning, “Trust Ron. He is a world builder.”
  18. I am looking forward to Droughtlander, because this too shall pass.

I found Outlander in 2003 because I went to the library and always looked for the thickest book I could find. I stayed for the life of these characters and for the show.

I show up to work every day because I have to go there; I don’t want to go to work, but they pay me. I cannot imagine spending my midnights every Saturday doing something that I know is going to piss me off. Unless I was being paid, I can’t imagine spending so much of my time watching and then going onto fan pages and complaining.  If I knew I was going to getso aggravated by what I saw on a TV show, I’d stop watching or wait for the DVD and a snow day binge. If I constantly came away from the show disappointed and let down, I would stop giving it my psychic energy.

I have stopped reading books that everyone raves about because I tried and tried and couldn’t find joy in them. I close them and put them away. Same with TV shows. (Mrs. Maisel?) Sometimes, it is just a bad fit. I don’t have to watch the TV show –I’m not being paid.  I don’t have to be in any group-I’m not doing paid. I have left groups because I do not like the vibe. Nobody is forcing me to stay in a group.

But I can not understand anyone doing that to themselves. Getting worked up to the point of trolling the cast and crew on Twitter, feeling they have the right and obligation to make sure they are as loud and rude about their displeasure to everyone who will listen.

There is a really simple solution:

Turn off the TV and open up the book again;  it’s gonna be a LONG DROUGHTLANDER!

(if you would like to add to my piggy bank for this wonderful, once in a lifetime trip to Scotland, Ireland and Wales, please consider purchasing one of my photos! Follow this hyperlink and please, pass it on!)20170503-dandy

Context Matters. Let us talk Outlander, shall we?

Are there differences between the reality of a fictional book world and the reality of a fictional television drama and the reality of reality?

There was much noise about “this isn’t the way that happened in the book”  and “how could her belt disappear” starting in episode 1 of OUTLANDER, but in truth, it is all made up. If you are able to buy the notion that Claire traveled through standing stones, back 202 years and immediately ran into her husband’s ancestor, who just happened to be in the same location at that moment, and who is the spitting image of him despite there being, what, 1/16 of the gene pool from Black Jack Randall, why can’t you accept a belt disappearing? (Continuity accidents on set, people. It’s a fictional belt, in any event.)

The costume designer has explained the how and why of Claire having more clothes than you think she should. Why do you deserve a reason, anyway? (Time. It helps to indicate passage of time. When you change Claire’s clothing you are inferring a different day. And the housekeeper, Mrs. Fitz, runs a tight ship and was able to find any number of outfits to borrow–six mix and match, “Granimal” type deals in Castle Leoch.)

But it wasn’t in the book, you continue to lament!

You love Frick and Frack Tweedle,  aka Angus and Rupert, and yet they are not anything like they are in the books, where they are scary, dour and large. They are comic relief  on the show, and yet, you have come to love The Tweedles.  You who know their fates are asking that those be changed, because we love them so much. Why can you accept the Tweedle’s place in the adaptation, embrace them (the typical TV trope of numskull neighbors), but you can’t handle that TV Jamie is  maybe a wee bit more romantic than book Jamie, who bought a ring instead of having one made, or is an inch shorter on screen than in real fictional life?

None of this actually happened!

It is ALL PRETEND. Some of it is book pretend and some of it is TV pretend, but none of it is documentary.  None of it is actual history. (Well, within reason. Some events did actually occur, although Jamie and Claire were probably not there. And, yes, as they do have a certain Forrest Gump way of being in the right place at the right time, they do run into actual historical people, albeit in a fictional way.)

The sole reason I can see that Jamie had a handmade ring on the TV show was because they needed to find something for the Tweedle’s to do that created a wonderful soft comic moment, that fell into the rhythm of the flashback storytelling of The Wedding.  It’s the symbolism of the the ring that is important, not it’s design, composition or origin. A ring made from the key to his home (?—Not verified, but strong indicators are that it’s a key to Lallybroch) indicates an acceptance and willingness to fully embrace Claire. She is part of WE now. And, we have to learn to TRUST RON. There will be pieces that move around (or get lost) for a better telling in episodic TV.

You are not going to go back and read the book and discover it’s now a key. The book you love isn’t changed. Can I insert here that that concept –of electronic books, especially history books, being changed to suit what the ruling class wants you to know is a continuing fantasy/horror/dystopian nightmare of mine?

How do we KNOW Frank didn’t do what he does on the show? Didn’t search, didn’t love so deeply, didn’t mourn? How do we know that Diana hasn’t told Ron what DID happen? Diana knows what happened/happens/will happen, even if we don’t.  There is so much that could happen off screen—

None of the costuming is accurate, historically, because even if the wool was spun by hand in a room lit by candles on a treadle spinner, the sheep the wool came from wasn’t even born in 1743, so it’s totally inaccurate. I am not interested in coming off like a sycophant, but really there are so few things that actually bother me about the show. I am looking at the big picture.

It IS a ripping good yarn, as show runner Ronald D. Moore points out, and it deviates almost immediately from formula because Diana Gabaldon WASN’T writing it for publication, but to learn how to write a novel. Or so we HAVE to believe, because Herself SAYS so, and were you there to disprove it? Ok, a bit of “aw shucks” about the retelling of such a happy accident; how much is what she wants the story to be?  Or better yet, why do we question it? It is the story of OUTLANDER’S birth. It was a practice novel, and, the hero and heroine marry early in the novel. Already not a romance by the numbers. And, 8000 or so pages in, they are still in love, and are grandparents. Much more than an epic love affair, OUTLANDER begins a multi-generational sweeping historical fiction series of novels.

In Diana’s ORIGINAL story, OUTLANDER, the first of 8 books, Frank is a cipher. By WRITTEN IN MY OWN HEARTS BLOOD, he is a very different man, and one who, in my humble opinion, is a more sympathetic character. Whether Diana had always intended for him to be more complex, or whether he showed up and wouldn’t leave, he is much more than one note.  He is actually a note on the show that a lot of folks don’t want to accept, because they are all about ALL Jamie/Claire, all the time. A lot of those readers are not particularly interested in the history, the tapestry she weaves, the other characters stories. How many times I have read people say, get on with it, stop writing about battles, about Willie, about Bree, about… well, about anything that isn’t 100% Jamie/Claire-centric. Those readers are totally missing what this is all about. I hope that viewers will embrace the fullness of the story.

We have had to wait over 20 years for this to become a TV show. And we were then given only eight episodes of magic.  And some complain about that, too. Then some complain that we have to wait too long for part two.

So, one more itty bitty thing. We are Diana Gabaldon fans. 10698621_10205421072830219_4101314330111693137_nApril 4, 2015? Jamie can perch on a windowsill that long. We’ve got this.

#Droughtlander ends Saturday

(Spoilers from this point if you haven’t read the book-and my comments are from the books depiction, as I haven’t seen the episode yet)

And now, some will complain about something else entirely. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the carrying on of ‘The Reckoning,’ 1.9 begin.

As fiction, THIS IS the way things were, in THIS world, whether or not it’s historically accurate or not acceptable today. Jamie and the men were put into amazing bodily peril by Claire not truly understanding the danger she was walking into. A woman of the 20th century believes in a civility and world order that is vastly different than where she ended up. 

In order for his men to continue following Jamie, for him to be able to lead, he has to make SURE Claire understands, and he points out that her punishment is mild compared to what one of the men might receive. The punishment is measured, but not in anger or fury. It is to show that he is in charge, that he takes the protection of his people seriously, that there is justice and that there are consequences to actions. This is incredibly different from the modern husband smacking his wife around and bloodying her nose because she didn’t bring his beer fast enough or because dinner was not hot enough.

The larger point is—he sees Claire as an EIGHTEENTH CENTURY woman who is being willfully disobedient, who should know the consequences of her actions and yet still puts them all in danger, all for a nebulous bit of wandering around. He has no clue she was trying to go forward in time, to get back to Frank. For all we know, he could think she has turned on them and actually is a double agent.  Jamie has one piece of information withheld from him that would make it all different. If Jamie were aware that Claire was from a different time, she would explain her thoughts about strapping, and he would explain his reasoning to her. But because he has no reason to think she wasn’t from his time, he would think she would know, expect, assume the consequences of her actions.

He doesn’t know any better than to use corporal punishment, not because of a big moral failing on his part, but simply because that’s how it was then.  A wife was property. Legally, a husband could punish his wife for disobedience.  Or, a father could have his daughter beaten for disobedience. Just a few episodes (chapters) back, the community at large was willing to allow a teenaged girl to be beaten in front of them in the Great Hall for disobedience. (How many of us who know the future wish Jamie had just let Rupert have at Laoghaire?) And remember, too, that Colum Mackenzie was the law. There are no Edinburgh policemen to enforce law. Just the laird.

Also, keep in mind that Claire is an unreliable narrator; in the book, she often says one thing and then does the polar opposite. Who is Claire telling this story to, and what editing, embellishment, or changes does Claire make as she recounts what had occurred? (And the bigger unanswered question—WHEN is she telling this story??)

This is one episode—But this is the very, very beginning of an 8000 page love story. It’s brutal, it’s bloody, it’s real (fictional real).  Jamie becomes a man among men through his experiences. He learns from Claire. He becomes a better, more rounded, and definitely a more modern man, because of Claire.

Of course, your mileage may vary. If you have had intimate experience with abuse or with sexual assault, it may be a difficult thing to let go by. It isn’t glorifying these things, but it isn’t shying away from them, either. It can be jarring. It ISN’T real, though. Except in it’s own world, it is a work of fiction. 

There is this website called StoryWonk. The couple who run it are dedicated to the idea of “story.” They have done an episode by episode podcast, and at hiatus started a seminar for the book.Listen to Scott and the Sassenachs seminar for Outlander. It’s a 17 episode podcast that takes apart the story chapter by chapter, and gives great insight into the story—the structure of it; the good the bad, and ugly. It is like taking a college literature class devoted to one book.  It draws your eyes to the incredible story telling as well as the deeper meanings that can be found implied in the text. I’ve read the book more than a half dozen times, and yet this seminar has drawn my attention to any number of things in a new way. Fascinating stuff, by very interesting people.

*I welcome discussion about this topic. Because I know it is very, very subjective and delicate, I ask that you respond with the same civility that you would if we were standing face to face.

Adaptations— A primer

ADAPT: to change your behavior so that it is easier to live in a particular place or situation

: to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose

: to change (a movie, book, play, etc.) so that it can be presented in another form

So, this book I love is becoming a TV series tonight (not a movie, not a mini-series, but a full on, 16 episode first season series!) I have had the pleasure of reading the books for over a decade,  seeing the first episode during the last week, and conversing via social media for  the past year with author, costumer and actors…. and you know what?

THEY are right and you may be wrong.

Outlander, the first of at last count an eight big-book series, (with a number of smaller works that go along with them) written by Diana Gabaldon, premieres as a TV show on Starz tonight.  The things that are IMPORTANT will be there. Possibly in a different order. (Patience, young grasshopper!) I have faith in this, because Ron D. Moore tells us his job as show runner is to not mess up his wife Terry’s favorite book.

The things that CAN be done will be done, and things that are important will stay. And if they aren’t still there, well maybe we are the ones who have created something in our heads that isn’t there. Seriously.

   

10559752_10152584443924246_6176897968434202756_n<—-Important bit. Included. (The text actually is NOT from the first episode, but the LOOK, so he can tell Claire this much later in the books, had to be in the first episode. )

As Ansel Adams said, There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.

I would think that this is at least as true in the written word. When those words are then translated by hundreds of hard working actors, directors, screenwriters, costumers and set designers, the number of voices and visions might possibly deafen.

Each of us brings to any work of art, indeed, to any aspect of life, the sum total of all of our experiences. Either in the creating of said work, or in the consuming of it. That we have all had different life experiences doesn’t seem odd, and accordingly, our reading of words on a page must be influenced by different things. 

That doesn’t mean that any interpretation on screen is WRONG. It just may be different than what YOU brought to the reading of it and what you took from it.

After a year of having the supreme honor of hovering about the edges of this creative endeavor—following Twitter and Facebook conversations with writers and costumers and actors alike, I have to say that I think they’ve got it in hand. Trust them.

In the 8,000+ pages where he lives, the character Jamie has commented a number of times on his wife Claire’s substantial bottom.  That doesn’t actually mean that Claire’s rear aspect is overly large; indeed it could be read, as I did, as simple pillow-talk and playful behavior between Jamie and Claire. It also has absolutely no importance to the plot. For example, said plump ass never gets stuck in a doorway, blocking access for some thief in the night, which then causes a different outcome. If the big booty in question was required for the story, I’d be sorry to see them not get it right. (If you read the actual physical description of Claire, she is supposed to be about 130 lbs., and shorter than the actress portraying her. Diana Gabaldon put the height issue to bed quickly by suggesting that the only option was to find a less perfect actress or cut Cait’s feet off…)  Perhaps Jamie is simply a fan of Sir Mix-a-Lot?

As it is, I have to say that the ass, as shown, is a lovely round thing and how dare we as viewers denigrate an actor who is willing to bare all for the story? (Odd, isn’t it, to be admiring my ‘friend’ Cait’s backside, huh? I can’t imagine how I will be feeling when I get to see my other ‘friend’ Sam’s ass;– we have been assured he has a fine one, by the author Herself!)

Similarly, Claire’s eye color, a great device in storytelling, didn’t actually accomplish anything other than being a way of description. At no point does the heroine get caught because someone noticed her odd eye color and realized she was skulking about where she didn’t belong, thereby changing the story. Diana writes long books. Gorgeous, evocative description is obviously a part. And the camera is now going to create for us proof of how wonderfully deep and complex Claire may be, Caitrona Balfe’s eye color and butt size be damned.outlander-sam-heughan-caitriona-balfe-tobias-menzies However, Claire-hair WILL stay, and I think that a fine thing and a character of it’s own.

 

8,000 pages, give or take depending on your reading device, and the story isn’t finished. We, the long-time readers, can not continue to nit-pick every utterance or camera angle or choice made while ADAPTING the written word for the visual medium of TV. We are talking about taking one type of art and turning it into another type of art.10382772_10203709921660693_259376560995244149_n

There have to be changes. The medium requires it—We have to be adaptable as well.

It is entirely possible some scene that to you is incredibly important, because of what you brought to the reading of it, may be cut. It is going to happen. What we have to be thankful for is that the over all shape of the story stays. That the intent and love of the story remains intact. We can hope that many more people fall in love with these characters and that that the entire cast and crew remains committed to making a quality product.

We need to adapt because there are 25 million readers who have 25 million life stories, 25 million visions of Jamie, or of the size of Lallybroch or the size of Murtagh in relation to Dougal, or who think Tobias Menzies doesn’t have Frank’s smile.

That for all these years, YOU have considered Jamie Fraser to be the size of Hercules with a Ronald Mc Donald wig on his head in no way makes the color red they came up with for his hair incorrect. If his hair isn’t long enough for your vision, then adjust your vision. This is the character, Jamie Fraser, played by the actor, Sam Heughan.

Filming is almost finished for the first season, so stop complaining, will you? Jamie will be imbued with Sam as much as Sam will be imbued with Jamie.  (By the numbers, Sam is an inch shorter and a few pounds shy of the actual book description, your fantasy man notwithstanding.)

But we’ve already had that Conversation , haven’t we?      Ad infinitum.

There have been some absolutely wonderful reviews of Outlander so far….  Here is Rotten Tomatoes, which catalogs reviews.

Yes, books are different than TV and movies, and usually, the book is better.  And that will probably be the case, overall, here. But I am watching this as a companion to the books, not as a replacement. I can keep in my book world the images I have created and STILL enjoy the visual ADAPTATION immensely.

PS. Yes, young Roger IS in the manse. We just don’t SEE him in the first episode. Did you SEE how big that house is? He’s a tiny boy asleep on a chair, for goodness sake!  Dinna fash, aye?

COMMENTS welcome!!!!

pps, and I am editing as I re-read…..sorry about spelling errors! Dang Auto-correct strikes again!

Interesting reading about the costuming.

A nice review, episode 106, about Adaptation.