How Outlander Finally Won Us Over 

Home » Television » How Outlander Finally Won Us Over

Tom groaned at the opening strains of “Skye Boat Song” and the dreamy, Hallmark-Channel romantic imagery that accompanied it for

‘s opening credits. “It’s very ‘

tells the story of Claire Randall, a veteran combat nurse from World War II. In 1946 while traveling the Scottish Highlands for a second honeymoon with her bookish, intellectual husband Frank, Claire suddenly finds herself cast backwards through time, landing in the Scotland of 1743, where she must first navigate her survival and then navigate the political unrest of the Jacobite rebellions while figuring out a way to get back to her husband before succumbing to her growing feelings for 18th Century studboy Jamie Fraser.

Lorenzo had watched the first several episodes of the show (and loved them) but couldn’t get Tom on board. It happens sometimes. We can’t be joined at the hip on everything and besides, when you’re a couple who does what we do for a living, sometimes it’s a good idea to part ways and go find your own things to enjoy without making it part of your working life. And because we’re joined at the hip on so many things in our lives, we have a tendency to make fun of those things the other one gets excited about. Lorenzo didn’t speak to Tom for days after he jokingly referred to the Turner Classic Movies channel – which is on constantly when Lorenzo’s near a TV – as “old people TV” just to get a rise out of him. And you don’t want to be near Tom when Lorenzo starts making fun of some of his nerdier passions. But there’s always truth in teasing and Tom’s “lady” jibe came back to haunt him after he’d sat through a few episodes because it revealed his own prejudices.

Because yes, this show is VERY “lady,” in the sense that there’s an audience in mind and the show has no compunctions about bypassing every other potential viewer and appealing straight to its most ardent demographic; that Venn Diagram where nerd girls and romance-genre lovers overlap. If it was “just” a bodice-ripper of a historical romance, the show’s overt demo-pitching wouldn’t be so noteworthy because of course a romance show would be pitched to a female audience. But when your story is as much about time travel, mysticism and 18th Century Scottish warlords, then the lady-pitching becomes a bit more interesting.

Stylistically, there’s very little to distinguish this show from, say

or any other male-dominated and oriented adventure stories with historical and fantasy undertones. There are brutal swordfights, stunning castles and strongholds, scenery that would make a landscape artist weep, and treacherous political maneuvering at every turn. Except for one major aspect: It isn’t a story told through male eyes or by a male voice or to a male audience. It’s very much a story seen through a woman’s eyes and told – literally – in a woman’s voice. Tom, like so many guys with nerdy passions and a love for a good fantasy tale, found it difficult to recalibrate his settings for a story like this; a story with a brave, strong, moral, clever, stubborn and bold protagonist – who must learn to get used to corsetry and control her lust for the hot men in kilts surrounding her.

Because while the story on the surface is indistinguishable from so many costumed adventure tales, it’s the little things the show chooses to focus on that make it so interestingly feminine in tone. It’s not just that Claire is a woman who enjoys men (and by that we don’t mean she’s loose or wanton; just that she clearly enjoys sex); it’s that the story values things like cleverness and wit in its heroine over physical strength; it’s the way she’s positioned immediately as a nurturer and healer (and how she uses that to her advantage), rather than a warrior or politician; or the ways in which clothing is highlighted more notably (entire episodes look like knitwear catalogues at times) or the tools she’ll use – like gossip among female characters – that a male protagonist not only wouldn’t think of, but wouldn’t have at his disposal. It’s this combination of fashion, gossip, nurturing and a sharp-tongued, clever lead that makes the story so, in Tom’s word, “lady,” because it gleefully and deliberately plays with the very tools and tropes that have traditionally defined femininity in western culture for so long.

But it’s not fair to saddle it with “This is a show for THE GALS” praise either. Tom’s “lady” teasing was off-base, because the flip side of the character is that she embodies so many classic hero traits, including the negative ones. Claire is clever, but not so clever she sails through the story. She’s also occasionally infuriating and stubborn, not to mention reckless and too self-assured for her own good in a world like this. She also has a tendency to enjoy getting drunk, which is both endearing (Because who wouldn’t get drunk in that situation?) and also maddening given the surroundings and potential danger she’s in. The point is, she’s not just a classic heroine, she’s a classic hero, period. Which isn’t to take anything away from the distinctly female way her heroism is expressed, nor is it meant to imply that male heroism is the more pure or desirable form. We simply mean that we see no difference between Claire Beauchamp Randall and dozens if not hundreds of male counterparts in similar types of stories, from Jon Snow to Han Solo. She’s fiercely moral, brave, clever, strong, lusty and funny.

The sense of history does tend to get a little fanciful, though. Obviously, one wouldn’t watch a show like this (with time travel at its core) and expect it to be a studious documentation of the period – and for the most part, the show does all right with its Scottish setting and history. But Claire is able to do and say things that no woman in that time and place would’ve gotten away with doing. Mere days after landing in 1743 wearing a dress from 1946, she’s perfectly dressed in period clothing and navigating the court of Laird Colum McKenzie (even though it took her a minute to even figure out who was sitting on the Throne of England at this time), while generally sticking her nose into local politics and family matters, and sticking her foot in her mouth at practically every turn. In fact, Tom’s initial assessment to Lorenzo was thus: “Any version of this story where she isn’t beaten, raped and/or burned as a witch within hours of landing in 1743 is a little hard to swallow.” The “good” news, if you can call it that, is that after the first few fanciful episodes, the show does a better job of highlighting the constant danger she’s in, significantly raising the stakes for her while slowly turning her into a more conventional adventure hero (i.e., one who learns how to fight).

And we’d be remiss in this review if we didn’t point out the gold mine that is Caitriona Balfe in the lead role. That may have been the biggest surprise of all; that this largely unknown former model could give such a nuanced, soulful, heartfelt performance. Like so many adventure tales, the story only works insofar as the lead hero actor is able to sell it to the audience, and Balfe gives us a Claire that’s not only sympathetic and admirable, but someone anyone would want to get to know. She’s smart and wry, bold and funny, empathetic and stubborn. Sam Heughan as Jamie is, bless his heart, exactly what he’s supposed to be in this story – the distaff version of the traditional “girlfriend” character. Sure, he rescues Claire on more than one occasion, but Heughan wisely plays Jamie as Claire’s second. This is her story, not his. Herstory not history.

Once Tom figure that out – that it’s a good thing to see an adventure tale, with all the trappings of one, but seen through an unconventional character’s eyes and pitched to a nerdy, adventure-seeking audience of which (for once) he’s not a member – he couldn’t get enough of the story. Would that other nerd dudes could make that leap. Not that the show needs the audience. It’s doing quite well pitching to the women in viewing land, but it would do the nerd world some good to recalibrate its settings in order to enjoy a show like this. Yes, it’s romantic and dreamy and unapologetically lustful toward men (not that we have a problem with that), but it’s also one hell of a cracking tale told in as beautiful and meticulous a manner as the very best shows on TV right now.

Besides, it might do the male nerds some good to get away from the endless whore-slapping sex scenes of Game of Thrones and let Claire Beauchamp Randall remind them how a lady likes it.

EDITED TO ADD: This is not the place to discuss the books, only the first eight episodes of the first season of the TV show. If you’d like to discuss the books, we have a lovely Books forum and we’d love to see an Outlander discussion get underway there.

The first 8 episodes of Outlander are available OnDemand and the second half of the season debuts this Saturday on Starz at 9 pm, eastern.

For more discussion on your favorite shows, check out our

Well said! If you are like me and not the type of woman who likse romance tales, this is right up your alley. A female lead who is doing “thangs”.

It’s not just women either. In the early 90’s when the first two or three books were out I was working in a bookstore and I was shocked to have fifty something males come up and ask for these books. They couldn’t find them because they were shelved in “Romance” then until it was changed to “Fiction” after the author protested. It was my first hint there was a male audience for this series. Now one of my male co-workers who ardently watches Game Of Thrones, Blacklist etc. but who “couldn’t get into” Agent Carter tells everyone how wonderful “Outlander” is. Every guy I know who has watched it loves it, particularly fans of Game Of Thrones, Rome, Spartacus etc.

My 76-year-old huntin’ fishin’ ex-military dad LOVES the series. Because it’s basically historical adventure with a strong female lead.

My 83-year-old Dad is currently re-reading it (in very large print) on his Kindle. His wife told me that when she gave it to him to read, back in the 90’s, he turned to her after the first mind-blowing spirit-connecting love-making and said “this is the best description of what happens between man and woman that I have ever read.” Helped me understand why my Dad attracts intelligent, strong women.

And who is hands-down the most educated, capable person there.

This is one of the things that I think is less clear (at least so far) in the show than it was in the books. Claire is the best educated person in the group only in the sense that she’s from the future and had a rather unusual life by the standards of her time. The MacKenzies and the Frasers are educated people for their time, Jamie especially.

I agree. One of my favorite little threads in the books was how surprised the English (Claire included) were to find out that Jamie spoke however many languages and was highly educated (if very superstitious).

Exactly. Jamie is sort of the equivalent of a person today who has an advanced degree, but still believes in “woo”. There are plenty of people like that. It’s just not immediately obvious how smart and educated Jamie is because his age and personality tend to cause people to underestimate him, plus he’s down-playing it because of his precarious situation, both with the English and within the clan.

I agree with that. Jamie had skills that were just as valuable. There was never a contest between them at all, never needed to be.

You’re not the first reviewers I’ve read to make the ‘why hasn’t she been rapeburned? She’s talking at menfolk’ criticism of the show, and I definitely get where you’re coming from. Far too often the past is whitewashed as this genteel Shire where everyone said thou a lot and was respectful, which is flatly inaccurate. But too often the corrective to that story – that the past was a nonstop parade of woman-beating and cutting up beggars for fun – becomes just as inaccurate with respect to the actual historical records.

Yes, Claire would have been seen as running around the woods in her underwear, but she also is well-nourished, has all her teeth, and is obviously educated. In 1740s Scotland, those characteristics would have marked her out as a gentlewoman and merited cautious but decent treatment, which is exactly what she receives. These people aren’t contemporaries of Jutes and Saxons, they’re contemporaries of Jane Austen. And she was plenty saucy.

She has way too many dresses, sure, and who knows where she’s getting conditioner, but this isn’t Westeros. (And I like Westeros!) Thinking of the past as relentlessly grim is another way of infantilizing it, just like thinking of it as simple and sunny is.

I like this show a lot, but by no means do I think it’s perfect or beyond criticism. (The voiceover drives me batty.) But this particular criticism is one I tend to push back on.

The thing is, there’s no historical precedence for how someone like Claire would be treated, because no one ever traveled through time before. But there’s no denying she landed in a highly charged political atmosphere with a constant threat of violence and immediately started exhibiting highly unusual traits and behavior for a woman of the time. Like we said, as the season progresses it does a better job of showing how much constant danger Claire is in, but in the first few episodes, we found the reaction to her to be a bit fanciful.

The thing that is true to the books, but not the way humans are, is that Claire fails to internalize so many of the rules for the culture she is now living in. Claire’s forthrightness gets her into so much trouble, but it’s just who she is. I both like and dislike it about her. She just can’t help herself.

She’s almost raped twice in her first 10 minutes back-in-time in the books. The show obviously played that down.

It seems to me like she is always about to be raped on the TV show.

I do remember her first few weeks being grittier and lonelier in book 1 than the show portrayed. Also that aside from his being clearly the one she was most experienced/comfortable with, she wasn’t that aligned with Jamie before she had to marry him.

Two things I wish the show had done differently, because the extreme romance overtones aren’t necessary to enjoy the story at first.

That’s the exact opposite of what the book people say in the forum where I post. They think Jamie has been shortchanged for the benefit of too much Frank (I don’t agree) and that viewers won’t understand Claire’s choices in the rest of the show.

So much yes. “Why is Frank still here? Why is she talking about Frank?”. I did not understand that choice.

I think it may be because the actor who plays Frank/Randall is doing such a good job. But I was surprised that there is more Frank on the Tv show too.

I think the Frank flashbacks, and the episode 8 B-Story, helps to show Claire’s conflict in a way that the book doesn’t — otherwise to show this type of conflict there would be too much monologue. Ron Moore has done a great job with this, in my opinion.

I think we’re going to find out more about Frank in a future book and he’s not going to be all chocolates and roses. i think he is going to be leading a dark life on the side.

As I admitted elsewhere, my memory is not the best and large parts of the book are just gone from my brain. That said, both the portrayal of Frank and the balance between Frank and Jamie felt quite different in the show vs what I remember from the books. It’s hard to explain why without being spoilery for the show.

She wears her two wedding rings throughout her life. For that and future storylines to have any weight, Frank has to be a strong, solid presence, and the struggle should be real. I get all the TEAM JAMIE and MOAR SEXYTIME and the show is clearly giving people what they want, but … come on now. Gabaldon did better work than that. Claire’s character (and the show, incidentally) are a lot sillier if everything’s just an excuse to hit the sack with the hot Scot.

But I hope not — I want more from this particular softcore. It’s Starz, so we’re prob out of luck, but still. Reducing it all to the fantasy romance will shortchange the show’s potential to be as epic as the books.

So the current portrayal bothers me too, but for opposite reasons than your forum

I absolutely adore the show. It’s not following the book along exactly the way it is written, but I mostly see it as extra story line. It’s also nice to not always know exactly what is coming next. Having read Outlander, at least 4 times thus far, my recollection is that book Jamie and Claire had a much better relationship prior to their wedding than show Jamie and Claire had. They were actually friends, and Claire was attracted to Jamie much sooner in the book than on the show. They hung out at Leoch more, they spent time talking by the fire at night while they are out collecting the rent, Claire actually told Jamie that he should punch the tree to get out his anger at Dougal. She was his confidant, and he was her protector. We had a group rewatch earlier, of episode 5, Rent, and that was one thing I commented on, it makes me sad that the show only people don’t get to see the bond that they developed prior to the wedding. She wasn’t ready to get married but they were buds. As far as the wedding night, there wasn’t too much talking going on in the book, they got down to business much sooner. If I recall correctly, almost everything they discussed during the wedding night, was all stuff that they had already discussed beforehand. The producers are definitely making Frank a more likable character than he is in the first book, I am thinking that it makes for a more realistic struggle for Claire in regards to future episodes. They gave Tobias a 5 year contract, so they might as well use him for what he is worth. He is doing a fabulous job, it’s almost scary how good he is.

No, in the book there was actually a lot MORE talking on the Wedding Night.

True, but also there’s that whole part of the book where she realises she has the permission to cheat that she denied herself during the war.

still, she was never looking to “cheat”. Her two husbands are a running theme and internal conflict for her throughout the series.

Agreed. I think it was because she grew up “outside society” with her uncle and so is by nature a nonconformist (which we see more of in later books, namely the next two).

That was probably Gabaldon’s best idea – to have Claire not just an Army nurse but have grown up out in the field with her archaeologist uncle. It makes it much more reasonable that she would adapt to not having all the modern conveniences.

That was some seriously savvy story plotting.

Seriously on the adaptation. And now, having so many more conveniences than were available in 1942, imagine how much harder a decision that would be.

The thing is that Claire is not only far ahead of her time in the past, she is also in her own period someone who doesn’t fit in. She would fit better in our time.

Part of it, I think, is that the Mackenzies (at least the ones in charge) are portrayed as having some

(and I really mean that as relatively) progressive attitudes, and Claire has been under their protection for all but a few hours in show time. I won’t spoil anything specific here, other than to say that it’s not so great for her outside their direct sphere of influence.

How far have you guys gotten? Are you done with the first half of the first season?

Also, in the later books (and as I understand it, episodes of the show) there are plenty of times when the fact that Claire is a woman, and her “tart” opinions (an adjective the author really loves) DO put her in real genuine peril.

TLo said that later episodes show that danger–there’s the priest, for example amongst many other points. I’m an eighteenth-century specialist and doubt I would have fit so easily in to life at Leoch the way Claire did.

I love how in the show she’s gotten a sprinkling of information about the period from her husband, Frank, but not anything like an actual historian would have. She has just enough knowledge to keep her safe and get her in trouble in turns.

Yes, thank you for bringing up these points. Also, while some of the Highlanders acted like barbarians, the characters she most often encounters (Jamie, Dougal, Collum) are landed gentry and educated men. And the Highland women were a bit more sassy than, say, their English counterparts. In fact, there is an incident between Jamie and Claire coming up (THE Incident), featured in episode 9, that has been contested by historians because Gabaldon used an “it was appropriate for the period” reason as one of her arguments. They countered that, while the behavior might be accurate for certain communities of the period, it was not accurate for Scotland. Basically, they explained that that was NOT how a decent man was allowed to treat his wife and that it would have been frowned upon by the community as “backward.” (And it also seems out of character for Jamie, but that’s a personal opinion).

Sorry to be so cagey, but I don’t want to give away any spoilers for the newbies!

I tend to scoff at criticisms that speak to “appropriate to the period” because the whole series (of which I’m a longtime and avid fan) is about freaking TIME TRAVEL, for heaven’s sake. It’s fiction, and a flight of fancy, in every way. That said, Gabaldon’s attention to detail in the books is astonishing.

Donna, your comment reminds me of a theory that I presented a while back on a forum, it was questioning who planted the little blue flowers that drew Claire to the stones to begin with. The books state that they are not indigenous to the area in which they were found. So I was trying to determine if it was Claire or Jamie, or perhaps someone else who planted them, to peak future Claire’s botanical curiosity to get her to the stones that night. One person replied to me that it was totally unrealistic to think that those flowers would have remained in the same spot for 200 years. My reply was yes, and that would be the only thing that is unrealistic about the Outlander Series.

The thing is that Gabaldon takes really great care to be as historically accurate as possible. If you set yourself a bar that high, the fans will point out to you if you miss it.

Yeah, I’m with you. People who are nervous for the return tend to fixate on the finale at the prison, but the scene next episode is the deal-breaker for me. I didn’t understand how Gabaldon could expect me to care for or root for Jamie after that and I’m less than sanguine the showrunners will be able to pull it off.

I’ve read a fan’s review of the episode and said it was handled really well, and that there was more fallout in the relationship than there was in the book.

I saw ep 9 at Paley AnnaleighBelle and I agree that it was handled with a bit of humor and Claire gave as good as she got. With no Claire narration, we didn’t get the “beat her half to death” which even Diana said was an over exaggeration on Claire’s part. Claire also didn’t forgive him as quickly. It wasn’t until they got back to Leoch.

I’ve read all the books multiple times, including re-reading them all beginning last Spring and ending in the fall with the latest book. The episode you’re referring to never really offended me as much as it did others because it was clearly explained why what happened was going to happen and that her actions brought harm to the group as a whole. It wasn’t just that she “disobeyed” a request, per se, it was that she had no idea what she was doing or facing and refused to trust someone who did, resulting in a dangerous situation. Put in that light, it made sense to me. And she made her point back after the fact very clearly as well. (hope that wasn’t too spoilerish!)

I never read the second book mainly because I just couldn’t deal with that “issue” and it colored everything after it in book 1. I loved the first section of episodes but am hesitant to watch this second section because of it.

I get what you are mean, but there is something which happens in the second book which kind of makes up for it.

Yeah, I am very curious how they will handle that scene. It is easily one of the most problematic in the books.

Actually, she lands several decades before and a world away culturally from when and where Jane Austen was born.

Just a quick side note from someone with curly hair much like Claire’s – Conditioner is a need, yes, but given that she’d likely not be bathing more than once every two weeks or something, her hair looks pretty spot on. The dirtier and sweatier my hair is, the curlier and more defined and lovely it gets. It defies nowadays logic, but it’d make sense too that in a culture where a fair number of girls are born with curls, they’d have ways to treat them so they’re not breaking off all over.

Sorry, but Jane Austen was born in 1775 and died in 1817. I wouldn’t call them contemporaries.

The voice over follows the style in which DG wrote the book, Ron is staying true to her style. Also, if he screws it up, Terry will likely divorce him

Yeah, I agree with you. Plus, the fabric of the clothes Claire wears when she is found is of very high quality fabric, not simple wool, which is another way to mark her out as someone of a certain stand. That’s how people were judged back then. Not by what they told, but by the quality of their clothing, their speech patterns and the level of education.

It is rare that a beloved – BELOVED – book can be turned into a story for screen well. This is one of those rare times when it has been done spectacularly.

For those of us who waited over a decade to see our Claire coming out of Caitriona Balfe is truly satisfying. She is nailing it, in every sense of the word.

I am having a hard time finding any redeeming qualities in Frank, nothing about him would be calling me back, but I felt the same when I read the books, as well. And Jamie is hot in a way that Sam Heughan just is not. It’s pretty magical to see what some scruff and kilt can do for a fella.

It is a great show, and as I am not a GOT watcher, or any of the other period/fantasy shows, so I am tired of the formula.

YES. THIS. He’s a goober in real life, but you put a flintlock pistol in his hand and someone else’s words in his mouth and you want to throw your panties at him.

I like it when I catch him quietly incorporating Book Jamie elements in his performance.

Jamie is soooo charming and I appreciate that the actor tries to bring that in despite all of the efforts to be epic and Terribly Serious. Book Jamie: Claire goes out in her shift for food on their wedding night. he tires to stop her, but then laughs his ass off when she gets cat called. Show Jamie: Claire goes out in her shift for food on their wedding night. Claire gets cat called. Jamie is upset and threatening.

I miss the elan of Book Jamie, but, god bless him. Heughan is trying. I sometimes wish I hadn’t read the books so that I wouldn’t have Book Reader Voice constantly interrupting.

“Show Jamie: Claire goes out in her shift for food on their wedding night. Claire gets cat called. Jamie is upset and threatening.”

Well, he starts to laugh, but then he sees how upset she is and goes into protection mode. And he isn’t threatening so much as giving as good as he gets with the chaffing.

I actually love him in real life, but he’s definitely not Jamie.

I thought it was hilarious that this strapping Scottish hunk, played by a 34-year-old actor, is a virgin. I could have bought it maybe if he were supposed to be 18. (I can buy time travel, but not a hot mid-thirties virgin guy.)

You could see why in the episode where he’s sleeping outside Claire’s door. Jamie is actually kind of a prude – or a sexually honorable man, however you want to look at it. He wouldn’t seduce a woman to whom he was not prepared to marry.

Jamie had actually just turned 23 in the first book, and Sam has a very young look about him, I do think his baby face makes him passable for 23. The character’s father instilled dignity, honor, and respect for women in him. He is a true gentleman. Before we meet him in Outlander, he had a life that made it difficult for relations, had he even considered it. Not sure if all the back story will come out in the show, so I won’t spoil anything.

Wait, the guy is 34? I would have never guessed it. I was so glad that they found an actor who looked definitely a little bit younger than Claire, because that’s one of the most endearing points in the book, that she is actually the experienced one.

I am a book reader, too, and so happy to see the series, but I think they are missing some of the essential joy of the story. One has to believe that Claire would give up the 20th century – hot baths and all – for Jamie and I don’t think they have managed to do that yet. I do think Heughan is hitting it out of the park, or doing his best to against some of the writing. I am not as sold on Balfe as on him.

I think it’s much too soon in the story telling (the show) to introduce that kind of give up hot baths love yet.

Besides, where we left off, she hasn’t gotten to that point at all. It’s been a little while since I read Outlander, but I dont think she definitively makes that decision for a while yet.

The problem is that they’ve only got what, 5 or 6 more episodes to get there (because the back half of the season is 9 episodes and a lot of stuff happens after that)? This is one of the problems of doing one season per book. The books are doorstops. The first one is like 650 pages long. I understand why they have to stick to 1 season/book, but that means that a lot is going to get left behind.

I didn’t realize they’d committed themselves in such a way. These books are fucking huge, to try to condense it into a single season, is a shame. (it’s been years since I’ve read any of them, and with my swiss cheese memory, it’s nice to be somewhat forgetful as to what is coming.)

The economics of TV are such that I understand why they had to go 1:1, books to seasons, but it is tricky. The books are huge and dense. It’s been ages since I read Outlander and like you my memory is swiss cheese so a lot of it is just gone. However, I seem to recall that there are major plot points that ultimately rest or turn on fairly small things from earlier in the story. I don’t envy them trying to keep the balance right. Especially because some of the plot points are sort of horrible and if they’re not set up correctly it’s a problem.

Frankly, some of the later books could use the paring down to fit into a single season. Herself has a bit of an editing problem (as in, she doesn’t do it).

One common and very unfortunate side effect of success in publishing is that a huge reduction on editing. Given that we’re talking about an author whose first book was well over 600 pages and needed at least one more pass through edit, I imagine that 6 books later it would be areal problem. The thing is, she’s achieved the kind of fan-ish devotion that means that very few people will care.

Full discloser: I didn’t like any of the books after volume 4 and didn’t bother with the last one. I think she lost her way there. But that won’t prevent me from enjoying the show, especially since I think it could correct some of the problems of those books.

and yet for years….people wanted to take Outlander and make it into a 2 hour movie! STARZ went with almost 16 hours for the series and could probably do much more. I try to remind people – this is an ADAPTATION – it won’t follow the books perfectly. They simply don’t have the time. However, I’m finding the series filling in gaps and getting me to see the story from new angles and with a fresh perspective which is just wonderful!

The only way to have made it a movie would have been to focus entirely on the romance angle and leave out everything else, which would have pretty much defeated the point of the story. It’s good that no movie version ever got off the ground.

Really? I didn’t know that they wanted a “one season one book” approach. Doesn’t seem practical to me, especially since there is still a lot of ground to cover for the first book.

I saw an interview with Ron Moore where he said that’s what they’re doing. It’s the same thing they’re doing with Game of Thrones. The economics of TV, even premium cable, is such that they they pretty much have to do it that way.

Don’t get it…Gabaldon tends to split her books in half stylistically. She is working up to a high point in the middle, and then to another high point in the second half. It would make much more sense to pick said “high point” instead of rushing through the books, especially since the series isn’t finished yet.

It would probably make sense if the purpose was to film the books, but adapting for TV is not that. Even if it was, the financial reality wouldn’t support it. No one guaranteed that many seasons for a TV show, even on cable.

Also, I’m not sure they intend to even try to film the whole series. I haven’t seen anyone official talk about it, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they intend to film the first 4 or 5 books and then stop.

I still don’t follow what the difference for a producer is if he goes one book one season or says “hey, we have this books series, and now we’ll do the following, we will adapt it into a TV-show. Here are the books, you have x episodes, please ensure to pick a dramatic moment for the season finale.” The result is basically the same, a certain number of episodes based on the books, until the ratings go too bad. I don’t think that the fans will care where they do the cuts.

I’m not the right person to explain all the details of the whys and wherefores of how one sells a TV show adaptation, but creating a structure that seems random to non-fans and creates, or appears to create, a high possibility that the show will get cancelled in mid-storyline does not fly. The people who green light the project neither know nor care how Gabaldin breaks the story within a book. Book 1 = season 1 is clear, simple and can be sold. Other breaks aren’t and can’t. The bottom line is that they’re making TV, not filming the books and this is how making TV goes.

Beyond that, I suspect that the success of Game of Thrones played a significant part in Outlander finally getting made and that’s the way GoT is doing it. When the money guys say, “Get me a Game of Thrones” they mean that pretty literally. “That show does X and is wildly successful. We want our show to be wildly successful, so we will also do X.” There are some obvious logical problems with that, but that’s how they think.

I’m not sold on Balfe either, really, but I blame the script more than her. Ron Moore and I are going to have words about that fakeout scene with Claire and Mrs. Fitz!

I freely admit, though, that I am a total curmudgeon about this because I’ve been reading these books for 20 years and have read Outlander itself probably close to 20 times, and I’m sure this is how my mother felt about what Peter Jackson did to LOTR.

You have to expect that the series would not be able to completely fulfill expectations as most movies from books don’t, but I was so pleased with the first season. The actors portrayal, both of them, are amazing, and Tobias is outstanding. I don’t think people who haven’t read the books realize that its not so much that Claire is “giving up” 20th century life as she just hasn’t figured out how to get back yet.

Balfe has the world’s most perfect angry pout. It manages to be slightly childish while conveying genuine, scary adult fury. Maybe it’s an awareness of her face that comes from modeling. Her expressions are just the best.

I love Tobias Menzies’ Frank. I also love that Claire seems to actually seem conflicted in the show. In the book it seemed like she would go along with life and then, “oh, right, my husband, the stones…”

The show has hilighted for me the conflict where Claire, seeing Black Jack, thinks “Frank” until BJ does/says something cruel.

I’m not the target audience for this show, I don’t think. I don’t usually read or watch SF/ fantasy, nor do I usually read or watch romance, historical or otherwise. But I found myself devouring both the books and the show, and you hit the nail on the head — it’s about Claire. She’s a great protagonist and it’s so refreshing to have a female character who is the HERO, not just the heroine — with all the attendant attributes and flaws.

I liked a lot about this series and I agree on all of the positive points but the violence got to me. And I realize it’s nothing compared to what goes on with Game of Thrones but I can’t stomach that either. It literally made me ill when Claire was punched in the stomach by her husband’s doppleganger (and speaking of fanciful things, a punch like that could’ve literally killed her and yet she was traipsing around like nothing the very next day). And then I read some spoilers online and found out what Not!Hubby does to Jamie and I was O.U.T.

In preparation for reading Breath of Snow and Ashes, which came out last year, I reread the entire series again, for the sixth time. It had been awhile, and since I read all the books one after another, I was struck by the violence, too. I’d either forgotten or suppressed my memories of how awful it was in the first three books.

This is a major reason (although not the only one) why after reading the first book I didn’t continue the series*. I liked certain things about Outlander a lot, but I disliked others. The fact that it’s extremely rapey was definitely in the “con” column.

*I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone else who finished Outlander, didn’t hate it, but never felt any desire to read further.

ME! All my friends raved about it but I couldn’t get past the the assumption that all homosexuals are perverted predator rapists, and the scene where she’s spanked so hard she can’t sit a horse the next day and everyone just thinks it’s funny. No.

I should have known I’d find my people here. I can always count on the BKs.

Those things just bugged the crap out of me, especially because they were so unnecessary. The wife-beating was out of character and contrary to the dynamic of the relationship, and there was no need for multiple gay rapists.

Who other than Jack Randall? And I don’t consider him gay.

If my life literally depending on remember the character’s name I’d die because there’s zero chance I’m going to be able to pull it out of the dusty corner of my brain that it dropped into, but there is one. There’s a scene where several of the men talk about the fact that a young man should never allow himself to be caught alone by X. IIRC it’s sort of treated in a jokey way (which is gross in and of itself), but it’s clear that the man likes other men, that he has a type, and that he doesn’t care about consent.

I agree that Jack is a sexual sadist, and I wouldn’t argue the point about his orientation in any detail because I only read the first book and my memory is crap, but I recall the issue being murky. It’s good that a positive gay character comes along later, but the fact is that in the first book the only men who have sex with other men are rapists.

I don’t think Randall is gay – he’s a sexual sadist – and there is a positive gay character in later books (as a matter of fact, there’s a whole series of Lord John books).

I’m not a huge fan of the author, but I felt she portrayed Randall’s damage reasonably.

My comment might get removed since it’s moving into future books, but without spoiling too much there is a very good main character who also happens to be gay. And this character (who happens to be one of my favorites) has to face the discrimination of the eighteenth century head on. Also I don’t know anyone who’s read the books who finds the spanking funny, but there is a lot of discussion about the class of eighteenth and twentieth century attitudes / values / perceptions.

Hi, I’m Rae and I finished the book, actually liked it and have felt no desire to read further I’m not sure why, but it seemed to end in a good place for me and I’m so very very tired of epic trillion volume series that never end and are constantly on the cusp of releasing the next book. I don’t mind a big thick read or a saga sometimes, but it seems like lately everything has to be a multi-volume epic. I didn’t mind the violence or other tetchy aspects of Outlander since they seemed to be germane to the plot but I also didn’t want to sign up for more. I don’t want to have to remember every single little thing that suddenly eight books later becomes important. Hell, I haven’t even finished book eleventy of Harry Potter yet and they were fun (until they weren’t).

I understand what you’re saying about not wanting to sign on for a multi-volume saga. That played into my decision as well. By the time I got around to reading the first one she was already on book 4 and a couple thousand more pages just didn’t call to me.

I intended to stop reading at the end of the first book but a coworker talked me into continuing on. I made it through four books and I’m happy with where that left everything.

I’ve read them all many times since the mid-nineties. I couldn’t STOP myself from reading one after another, then the wait between books when I’d gotten to the last current one was maddening. The upcoming “instance” never, ever bothered me, nor the violence. It’s a well-researched book about a point in history, with all that might go along with that time period. I enjoy the show immensely, yet love the books better. I hope they go on and on, as I do for the show.

Yeah, I think you made a wise decision. Although you might like to end with the next episode (The Wedding) to get the Garrison Commander episode out of your brain.

Oh, I made sure to watch the wedding episode. I mean, I’d gotten that far and all

I reacted the exact same way about that part in Outlander. I have read “all” of Game of Thrones, but I had to skip all the ultra violent parts. This part in Outlander seemed to go on for quite a while and I definitely don’t want to see it on TV. I would say that the level of violence in Outlander is equivalent to some of the more graphic, violent parts of Game of Thrones.

I was thinking of watching the Outlander series, but if it’s super violent, not sure if I can handle it.

I cried, Tom and Lorenzo, CRIED, to see that the absolute best bloggers ever have embraced this show! What a great review. Have either of you decided to read the book(s)? And Lorenzo, tell Tom, Ron D. Moore–Battlestar Galactica!

Right? I’m surprised Tom didn’t get there on his own! I know more than one BSG fanboy who came to this on his own because of the connection.

I came to the series because of both the Outlander books and even more because of Ronald D. Moore –given how amazing BG was, and how I would follow it all the way through Caprica and beyond. I knew with these books he really had something to sink his teeth into. I have saved the Wedding episode on my DVR as one of the hottest and purest hours of television I have ever seen. Beyond that, I think Tom is spot on with what he is describing about Hero/Lady –and it brought me back to consider how the writers of Battlestar Gallactica had made Starbuck a female character, and how she has her OWN Jamie (Bamber) as Lee/Apollo. I so look forward to future Tlo on this series. Seems the perfect vehicle for both Tom and Lorenzo: the clothes alone. That incredible wedding dress (which has an explanation segment you can find online) !!! However, having written this reply, now I can’t get the theme music out of my head. I love the music of Bear McCreary. While here may I also recommend to Tlo Starz’s DaVinci’s Demons…

I’m here just to second Battlestar Galactica.

I thought the wedding night scene was one of the best sex scenes I’ve seen in mainstream film/media. It was filmed and acted in a way that resisted the “male gaze” of objectification of the female/feminine. It was fun, silly, messy, lusty, and hot – like the best “real” sex is.

Agreed! If anything, I think it objectified the male body more than the female. Lots of soft candellight flickering off muscles…. not that I am complaining.

And so nice to have that whole paradigm of the blushing nervous virgin reversed. Love.

Lots of really great thinkpieces on this after it aired. I’ve been rewatching the first half of the season in preparation for Saturday’s semi-premiere and got to the wedding last night — I was impressed and pleased all over again. And LOVED that Ron Moore, when asked at Paleyfest a few weeks back, straight-up said he deliberately had that episode written and directed by women. Love him.

He also said that he just wanted to film the sex as realistically as possible, and was surprised to hear it termed as female-gaze – that realism was feminine.

I think Terry has actually threatened to divorce Ron if he screws up her favorite book series of all time. It goes in line with happy wife, happy life. So I am confident that he will do his absolute best to make OL wonderful, even the violent sketchy bits.

Beautifully done all around. Female and writer and female director, BTW.

Happy to report that my straight male Sci-Fi loving husband really enjoys Outlander too. It’s just enjoyable storytelling.

My husband rejected it after week one, then I caught him watching it in the early morning hours two weeks later. LOL. He had to admit he liked it and we watched the finale together and he (not I, but HE) yelled at the screen, “WHAT! You can’t end there!”

Mine too! He is even thinking about reading the books now. I think he almost likes the show more than I (who have read 3 of the books).

Glad you’re on board! I was going to watch in any case, but the show managed to suck my husband in as well. Yes the wardrobe is ridiculous, and the final “dread note”of the opening music always makes us laugh, but the story, locations and actors are so damn good.

I’ve been meaning to watch Outlander for quite a while, and this is such a glowing endorsement that I feel a sense of urgency to catch up now! Too bad that we’re not likely going to have another snow day where I can binge watch all day (I’m *joking*, I promise!). Maybe I can get through the first 8 episodes over the next week or so and catch up on the convo!

Very well said. I will be surprised as to your thoughts of what is coming next. I have read the books and I know what happens!

Yeah, and how the heck they’re going to manage to keep telling the story past a certain point….

I read the first three books twenty years ago for the time travel and history. Jaime and Claire just sneaked up on me and I found myself caring about their relationship. When a few months ago there was a free Starz weekend I binged watched the series. I loved it (I didn’t expect that I would).

Oh man, this makes me so happy. Way to hit the nail on the head.

This is one of my all-time favorite series of novels and overall I am VERY pleased with the adaptation so far. So glad you guys are on board!!!

Love the show, love the first couple of books! However, HUGE SPOILERS, I hope the series stop before the setting goes from Scotland to the US in the 1776-1789 period. Because frankly, all the characters became too problematic to like at this point.

I’m glad you bring that up, because [book spoilers] I CANNOT bring myself to finish Voyager. I haaaaaaate it. Should I push through it? Does the series get better?

Interestingly, I took a break from Voyager to read the first of the Poldark books (the new BBC production is airing in the UK now and is supposed to come to PBS this summer; I hope T&Lo will review it too) is set in roughly the same time period as the Outlander books.

What? You can’t finish Voyager? YES! Keep reading!

I got burned out the first time around too. When the show came out, I figured I’d give them another whirl. I enjoyed them more with the second reading (still slow in parts, but overall, I like them.)

I got turned onto the books first and foremost because I have an obsession with Scotland. The characters sucked me in too, but when the continent changed….it was hard for me. I got through the first time….sort of….but reading the series through again in prep for ‘In My Own Hearts Blood’ (8th book) I found them much more compelling and interesting. I’d say battle through – a lot of really cool stuff starts happening after Voyager

I would finish Voyager but man the last 3 books were a slog and it did not get better in my opinion. I even became more invested in Bree’s story than Claire and Jamie. And then all those secondary characters started to get their own POV chapters and I would skip pages after pages. But there is a scene in the last book that cristallized what had made me uneasy, as a black feminist, about the whole series after Voyager (HUGE BOOK SPOILERS CONTINUE): after operating on a young slave girl (barely 13-14), Claire asked the female owner of the slave if it wouldn’t be best to sterilize her, for the slave’s own good. And suddenly, I could clearly see how problematic her depiction of characters of color (and queer characters) had been so far: from Mr Willoughby, to Jocasta’s butler, to the obese black abortionist and the scenes involving Native American tribes, it is a mess.

Actually, I just reread the entire series last summer, and I disagree. There are some wonderfully rich scenes and situations.

I agree with this so much. I had to stop reading. It made me go back and look at how problematic the earlier novels were too. However, I still enjoy the show!

I loved the books and I love this show!!! So glad you gentlemen are on board!!!

Guess it’s time for me to tune in. Thanks for this – I may not have watched otherwise.

YAY! I love this series and I’ve been unable to slog through the books. I know a lot of my nerdy dude friends who like it too, and history friends–it really covers a lot of ground. And all my knitting friends! OMG the KNITWEAR! There are now Outlander Pattern Books and Knit-alongs and hand dyed yarn colors (which there also is for Game of Thrones, btw) and I wish I could like the books more because almost everyone I know who has read them (all women) has loved them.

Yes – the knitwear. I bought fingerless gloves that the Etsy seller marketed as “Claire from Outlander Gloves” and they are perfection.

I have just about every pattern for every piece of knitwear thus far, although I haven’t actually knit anything.

I have been reading these books forever…sometimes it feels like forever to get through her later ones.

I love the casting, the costumes and the grey Berets the men are wearing. I love Claire’s medical knowledge in those times and how they seem like witchcraft. Claire and Jamie have many adventures I hope they don’ leave out anything.

I tried to watch that show three times! I was so bored…I love a hot man, but really, do they all hAve to look like Chippendale dancers. Enjoy y’all!

I would pay cash money to see Rupert or Angus dance like a Chippendale dancer.

I’m so excited that you guys are on board with this show! I read the first book in 1993 and the author herself will tell you that there are things that, going back, she would fix and alter now she is a better writer, but trust that a lot does happen. I was super eager to see the show and it has not disappointed. I do regular quasi-satirical recaps of it, so I end up watching every episode like 5 times but every time I find new things, and I am super interested to see your take on it!

Wow, are you atomic flea? (seconding siriuslover). I live on that site’s Outlander stuff.

Oops, her site is “Killing Time.” atom1cflea on tumblr.

I’ve never read the books, like Game of Thrones, but I do love the show. It’s nice to see a really strong female led show, and yes, the big sex scene, o scenes as it was were really quite refreshing, in contrast to something like GoT. They’ve got a fantastic cast with two, fresh and talented leads. The costumes are beautiful. I honestly, I’m a history buff, tho Vikings are more my area, this period is inevitable due to where I grew up, I just try not to over think it al too much and enjoy the story. It’s not there to be a documentary, it’s an hour of sweeping, romantic, drama

“Caitriona Balfe in the lead role. That may have been the biggest surprise of all; that this largely unknown former model could give such a nuanced, soulful, heartfelt performance. Like so many adventure tales, the story only works insofar as the lead hero actor is able to sell it to the audience, and Balfe gives us a Claire that’s not only sympathetic and admirable, but someone anyone would want to get to know. She’s smart and wry, bold and funny, empathetic and stubborn.”

I’m so SO glad to read you saying that. I love her so much. I love how she plays Claire (I’ve read four of the books and only really got through them by envisioning Cait as Claire and Sam as Jamie).

I’m obsessed with this show, and my other show obsessions are Hannibal and Community – and I lay that at the feet of Caitroina Balfe.

All of the above could have been said in 2 words… Sam Heugan. I have read all ofthe lengthy books twice and they are fantastic!!

I love them both, Caitroina and Sam. They and Graham McTavish make the show for me. And Lotte Veerbeek as Geillis.

What a great review. Romance loving me has wanted to watch this for awhile. I can’t wait to see it.

I watched all eight episodes over the weekend. It was just wonderful being in that time period. You are going to love binge watching this.

“…she’s not just a classic heroine, she’s a classic hero, period.”

@TLo, I was just wondering, do you guys get approached a lot to write reviews for magazines or other news outlets? Your reviews are some of the best I’ve ever read. I mean, the Outlander people should completely hire you, because *none* of their promotional materials or commercials have made me want to go anywhere NEAR this show, and now I’m getting ready to binge-watch it on OnDemand, and that’s in SPITE of the fact that I need another show in my life like I need a hole in the head.

omg, it starts again saturday? i’ve been waiting for so long!

This show filled the hole that the departure of Charlie Hunnam’s ass left in my heart

I think it’s interesting to note that the makers of BSG and Outlander are one and the same.

BSG had an ensemble cast with Olmos at the helm. However the show often diverted to highlight the characters of Starbuck (rebooted as a woman!), Six of Nine, or the President.

So did they take out the homophobia and the wife-beating in the TV series? Because those were the reasons I didn’t get past the first novel.

They haven’t gotten to that point in the story yet. They apparently kept the wife-beating, but tried to do a less terrible job of it than the book did. No clue how successful that will be. I’ll also be interested in seeing how they handle the homophobia.

I think there is a very large difference between ‘wife beating’ and ‘spanking’………………………… ‘wife beating’ – what I know of it – is literally that. Beating for the sheer pleasure of hurting someone else. Psychological as much as physical. All over the body without any regard to damage and in fact TRYING to do damage. I don’t see that as what Jamie does to Claire at all – and while she didn’t ‘enjoy’ it, I think she came to understand and appreciate what it was really about. JMHO – I’m sure I’ll get massively thumped on for this opinion and it wouldn’t be the first time.

I also – don’t quite understand the numerous comments about ‘homophobia’…..I never got that idea from the books. Black Jack is just a sadist no matter what sex he is picking on. Jamie – is understandably uncomfortable with someone of that persuasion because of what was done to him. I know women who can’t deal with men period after being raped. One of my absolute favorite characters from the book is Lord John – and he becomes one of Jamie’s best friends.

Oh. My. God. There is no context in which physically punishing one’s wife is acceptable or understandable. The idea that he beats her, injuring her to the point that she can’t sit, and then she comes to understand, appreciate, and even love him for it, is repugnant. Now, if she was traumatized but understood that it was a hateful part of the society in which she had landed, and decided she had to tolerate it for her own survival, that would have been one thing. But the way it was handled – “every wife needs a good beating now and then” – was just revolting to me.

As for the homophobia, I read the books years ago and can’t remember all the details. All I remember is that in the world of the book, gay = perverted sadist. He didn’t have to be a sexual predator to be the villain. I felt the book perpetuated the miscomprenhension that gay = sexual predator. My friends said, “But that’s what everyone thought back then.” That’s beside the point. The books weren’t written in the 18th century; they were written recently, and if they’re going to include things like time travel there’s no reason to include harmful gay stereotypes.

won’t argue the spanking vs wife beating. I was spanked as a child – and was much better for it. Kept me from turning into a total brat. I wasn’t beaten, though I too had trouble sitting for a bit (and keep in mind sitting horse when it isn’t something you are used to makes you sore spanking or not). Big difference. Looking at a practice from another time and culture with current eyes and attitudes – they will never mesh. If it’s a deal breaker for you then – peace to you.

I didn’t find the book at all to say gay=perverted sadist. I don’t think Black Jack IS gay. I think he is a perverted sadist that happened to fixate on Jamie because Jamie defied him. He would have done just as much or worse to Claire had he had the time. He tries to rape Jamie’s sister. He’s just……….not right in the head – doesn’t make him gay and I never ever thought he was. As I said, one of my favorite characters in the book is Lord John who is VERY gay and ends up becoming one of Jamie’s closest friends – though they take a very long time to get there. He has his own series of books actually and I quite enjoy them as much as I do the main books.

Claire is not a child, Jamie is not her parent. As noted elsewhere, in Scotland at that time the culture wouldn’t have simply said that of course a husband should beat his wife when she displeases him. Whatever Gabaldon’s reasons for including that scene, it wasn’t a matter of historical accuracy.

She did a great deal more than ‘displease’ him and the other characters wanted to kill her- a spanking by him was the compromise. Why do you think men didn’t hit their wives and get away with it without criticism in the 18th century?

I think it’s best if we just agree to disagree about this and drop it. IME with discussions about the books, this tends to get ugly really quickly and this isn’t the space for that.

In the context of the 18th century spanking a wife was acceptable, even required- as in the situation in the book. The scene put me off and had I been the author I wouldn’t have made those choices, but I understood why she chose to. She wanted to write something that punctured the ‘historical romance’ bubble. The situation and the ‘beating’ are also more complex than most people remember. Claire has attempted to leave after marrying Jaime- he doesn’t know that she’s got an excellent reason for putting herself and him and his clan in danger continually, so he’s a bit frustrated. When she escapes on that occasion and is instantly captured by the English it leads to a lot of danger for everyone and to Jaime having to kill someone whom he perceived as basically innocent and just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Scotland is occupied and after rescuing her, his clan is now firmly on the wrong side of the English- which will have life altering and decades long repercussions which everyone but Claire perceive pretty clearly. He is himself in a very vulnerable position within the clan and he tells her that the other men (whom he is subordinate to) have told him they will beat her (for real) and are arguing to kill her outright unless he does the beating. He gives her a serious spanking on the butt which makes riding a horse uncomfortable for a couple of days. They fight out this spanking for years in the books. She never comes to accept it and always tells him she’ll leave him if he ever does it again. He continues to feel he did the only thing possible and that she deserved it and ‘needed’ it as no other warnings had been enough to make her stop running away (at least without help). Lastly, he apologizes (though he still thinks he was right in the situation) when he finds out why she kept taking off. Again, I almost put the book down myself as it was a complete turnoff, but I recognized that I wasn’t reading a genre romance and so I was able to get over it and put it in context.

Thank you. I’m never good at explaining this issue.

I agree that there’s a large difference between ‘wife beating’ and ‘spanking’. That difference is mutual consent, which that scene did not have. Claire did not consent to be hit. Jamie got off on it, Claire did not. That’s not spanking, it’s abuse. It gets glossed over in the story and excused by readers because Jamie is the hero, but that doesn’t change the situation. Again, the line between spanking and beating is consent, not whether it’s done by the hero or the villain.

Same here. Both issues were really a turn off when I tried to read the first book and have kept me away from the show thus far.

God, it did not get better after the first novel. There is a scene where a young woman (pregnant and in distress) we are all supposed to root for threaten to publicy out a gay man if he doesn’t marry her and give her the security she needed at the time.

I was excited to see your positive review of this series! I discovered these books back when the first one came out and am so happy that Starz is doing well by the story and characters.

Yeah, I know too much about 1740s Scottish history to NOT get burned at the stake. I’d be sending everyone to North Carolina and telling them to avoid The Bonnie Prince Charlie like the plague years before he landed and definitely don’t follow him to Culloden. Unless I could get close enough to him to convince him to march all the way to London and get the job done and maybe change history. Although, if history were changed, I wouldn’t exist, because my ancestors were from all over the British Isles, not just Scotland. Obviously, the Temporal Prime Directive is a bit problematic for me.

I only have an issue with how “fanfic”-y it is at times. There are lots of situations that seem forced.

I LOVE this show. (I was a bit peeved that it was good as it meant paying for a Starz subscription, but oh well, what can you do.) The one down side I found so far to their retelling of this series was on the wedding night they left out one of the most important, and most overarching themes of this 8 (9?) book series. “A marriage (or any relationship) can have room for secrets, but not lies.” It’s a theme that gets visited over and over again; I’m surprised they didn’t use the line.

Yes, that’s actually an extended scene. I don’t understand how it could have been taken out. Also, it would have been nice to have one episode with more of their “honeymoon” before the other stuff that’s coming up.

I watched begrudgingly and ended up really enjoying and admiring it. You boys described it perfectly! They scenes where you get a sense of how much danger she’s in are quite effecting. I will be fun to watch season 2. s

One of my best friends in high school LOVED this book series. Like, I-got-her-a-Frasier-plaid-scarf-for-her-birthday loved this series. She finally convinced me to read the first book, and I liked it, but didn’t love it enough to continue the rest of the series. Reading the TLo review makes me want to give the show a try, though. For any other viewers, how many episodes does it take to know you’re into it or not, and is worth buying from Amazon?

I love the show, not the books so much. I loved it from the first few minutes, but there have been people who said it started slow. I’d give it two episodes.

I’d definitely give it a solid two, if not three episodes. I really liked the first episode, but I know the book and I can imagine it seeming a bit slow at the start. Episode two gets my respect for ‘most realistic bedhead in cinematic history’ btw.

So glad you are on board with Outlander. The books are some of my favorites and especially the audio version with Davina Porter as the narrator, she really truly brings the characters alive. Jaime, if real, well my husband would just have to step aside because I love this character!! The historical background, time travel and a strong female character adds to the strength of this series. Sam Heughan physically is not how I imagine Jaime, but he has grown on me. I have a really hard time imagining anyone playing this role, but I would think someone more chiseled, with the fiery red hair and tall. Balfe does make a wonderful Claire. Hopefully Tom and Lorenzo will listen to the books, and believe me, there are a lot of steamy passages to add to the pleasure of the books.

I really tried to get into Outlander when Starz had a free preview weekend a couple months ago. Though it was well done, I just couldn’t get past the conclusion that the characters were doing things that made absolutely no sense to me, simply because the author NEEDED to move them in certain directions. The action that broke the camel’s back for me was that the Laird openly distrusts Claire, so … he sends her off on a road trip that is a recruiting campaign for the rebellion? After that I couldn’t stop picking at the plot holes and suspension of disbelief just went out the window.

He sends her off with the full of intention of marrying her to Jamie. His intention is to help his nephew without any harm done to his own people.

I don’t think that was necessarily the original intention, though I may be wrong. It’s very convenient to Collum to marry Jaime to Claire, but wasn’t really done for Jaime’s benefit. I think they already covered this in The Gathering episode? (Maybe spoiler———Jaime won’t be voted laird if he has an English wife which Collum and his brother are worried about.)

I think there were many reasons for Dougal and Collum to marry off Claire to Jaime – he was less likely to be voted laird with an English wife (as you say) ; it solved the problem of what to do with Claire (since they still didn’t know who she was and wanted to keep her close in case she was a spy); and it helped Jaime (which is admittedly a much less important reason). Needless to say, there was more time in the books than the show to get into the politics and explanations of everything.

True, though I can’t remember how it helped Jaime (from other people’s pov) other than getting him a penniless wife.

They also needed to keep Claire from being tortured because she wouldn’t be able to keep their fundraising a secret.

Bingo. That’s Dougal’s immediate motivation. The fact that having an English wife would prevent Jamie from challenging Dougal to the lairdship once Colum dies is a secondary benefit.

I think …………….if I remember right…………..they took her along specifically to take her to the English garrison and see if they could determine whether or not she was a spy. (at least that is how I remember it in the book). If yes, confront that issue….if not, wash their hands of her finally. Because of how things went, it was fortuitous to marry her to Jamie. Kept her away from the English (since they were obviously going to hurt her) AND make it so Jamie wouldn’t be picked over Dougal.

Also, Colum and Dougal are on opposite sides of the Jacobite cause. Dougal is for it, Colum doesn’t want to get involved. From what I remember of the books, Colum doesn’t want Dougal leading Clan McKenzie as he is a hothead. I have seen ep 9 at Paley a few weeks ago, and I think in the show, Collum wanted Jaime to lead the clan if necessary. He was upset that Jaime married an Englishwoman, just for that reason.

sorry, about possible spoilers… and to be fair, they’re details from a 20yr old book. I’ll be more dilligent in the future though.

I wasn’t passively aggressively making a comment about your post! I had a comment removed and I thought it was because I’d said something that could be considered a spoiler and was trying to avoid that a second time.

1) I love it when you guys reveal more of your personal differences/the behind-the-scenes stuff that influences what you cover, it is always fascinating to me.

2) Well, I’m sold. I’m particularly impressed that a woman is portrayed with a drinking problem!

The knitwear is awesome. So far I have knitted 10 Outlander style cowls for family and friends, LOL!

I do so adore your television criticism, TLo. Nailed it. As usual.

For those who don’t have Starz, I think the first series is now available through iTunes, Amazon Instant Video and on DVD.

Tears sprang to my eyes when I saw this post. I love this show – and Caitriona and Sam – with a passion. I am so happy TLo likes it. We’ve been waiting for 6 months now for the second half of the first season and finally it is here on Saturday. Hopefully you will review!

I’m just thrilled that Ron Moore has another successful show to helm. Say what you will about the way Battlestar Galactica ended, but it was a fucking fantastic show and it totally hooked me. And combined with Bear McCreary’s score (and yes, I absolutely LOVE the “Skye Boat Song”), this show is my catnip. And I don’t even like the book!

I love BSG and Star Trek TNG and think that Ron Moore is awesome. I’m not a fan of the Outlander books, I’m sorry to say I really disliked the first one that I tried to read, even though it should’ve been right up my alley. So do you think that people who didn’t like the book at all would like the show? I’d be willing to give it a try.

I think it’s worth a shot. I really disliked Gabaldon’s writing more than anything- I get that she was a young writer and it was her first book but my GOD is that prose purple. It really just became a drag to read, so I gave up.

The show really benefits from some excellent writers, beautiful scenery (both landscape and human) and distilling the story. It’s hard to explain how, but it really does feel like an RDM show despite the lack of space opera-ness. And Catriona is a really fabulous actress who made me like Claire (who I did not enjoy in the book).

So yes, it’s worth giving a chance. If it doesn’t grab you by episode two or three, it just may not be your cup of tea.

Thanks, yes I don’t think that I liked Gabaldon’s writing style either. I didn’t have the patience to make it through and once the violence kicked in, then I couldn’t get through it. I’ll give the show a try since I think we might be getting a free preview week of Starz soon.

I would definitely give Outlander a chance. I loved BSG, and learning that RM was at the helm convinced me to give Outlander a shot, even though I was never able to dive headlong into DG’s book series. Either the purple prose did me in (I really don’t recall as I tried so long ago) or the historical setting was not of enough interest to me once upon a time. But I think I became hooked on the television show in about five minutes in, recognizing the quality of the production, how well the actors were cast, and the lushness and beauty of everything from the opening credits song to the historical setting and believable scenery, costuming, dialogue and deep emotional connection I immediately felt for this heroine and her dangerous foray into an unknown world. It quickly became one of the few shows in memory for me that I made appointment TV, settling in each week, not only eagerly awaiting the adventure to come, but feeling immersed and transported to another world and leaving my present day behind. It’s easily one of my Top Ten Favorite Shows ever. Ironically, I don’t believe I’ll ever read the books, for me the visuals of the show give me all I ever want of this world, and I don’t want to feel that spoiled by what I’m missing in the books. (I realize this is contrary to how one usually feels comparing any book to a screen adaptation.)

Sounds great! I am a sucker for beautiful settings and costumes! I totally get not being I to the book as much as the show. Sometimes the visuals really benefit the drama of the story. Thanks for your thoughts, I think I’ll give this show a try (I’ll probably close my eyes at the violent bits though!)

Great review and analysis!! The best I’ve read on this show. I would argue that though her treatment requires a suspension of disbelief, she arrives wearing what appears to everyone to be her ‘shift’ (undergarments) and the first person she meets does try and rape her. Her story then becomes that that’s how she ended up in her shift and the Scots suggest raping her as well, but Collum says he ‘doesn’t hold with rape…and we haven’t time for it anyway.” It’s terrible, but also hilarious. The priest and others are already looking at her pretty askance as far as her medical knowledge/witchcraft goes. Scotland was occupied by the English during the period and one of the reasons she’s initially kept as a ‘guest’ is that she knows too much (they were on the run from the English when they ran into her) and they’re afraid that if they kill her all hell might break lose on them depending on who she is and what she’s doing. Lastly, she claims to be heading to France and her relatives- allies of the Scots. Lots of politics going on.

I love that the camera goes places that most male focused adventure stories don’t- into the kitchens and gardens and the clothes dyeing hut, etc. While it’s not all historically accurate, it does give some sense of the lives and work of women which is generally absent. Their gossip is just men ‘talking, discussing, informing’ in another tone. In the bedroom, they’ve turned the camera 180 degrees and are looking at the scenes through the eyes of the woman, not the man, which is refreshing and hot for the ‘other’ half of the world. It kind of surprised me just how much of a difference it made as I’m so conditioned to seeing it from the male viewpoint. On a tangential note, I recently watched a doc titled “Children of the Middle Ages” and about halfway through I realized that outside of one famous heiress who was used as chattel, they didn’t mention female children or what they were up to in the period at all!

Squee! Can’t wait for this show to come back on. I was uncertain about the casting for Claire while watching the first couple of episodes, having read all of the books years ago & expecting a lighter-haired woman. However, I am now so impressed with all of the cast! Geeking out while waiting for Sunday night!!

I’ve been reading your blog daily since 2006 but I rarely make a comment. I’m glad Tom finally got into Outlander! I love the series and appreciate the book which I read only after I watched the TV production. I’ve been listening to podcasts and reading extensively about Outlander since. Wow, has this story got followers — somebody takes each episode and breaks into individual screencaps. There’s an Outlander Kitchen blog that a chef maintains and an Outlander Anatomy blog by a science professor. Also, according to the Scot and The Sassanach bloggers, women were not persecuted for witchcraft in Scotland by 1743, among other interesting things. I really enjoy your comments. Do you think you could offer yourselves as stylists to Caitriana Balfe and Sam Heughan when they appear on the red carpet? They really need you.

I’ve read all the books and just finished the Blu-Ray of all 8 episodes. I think they’ve done a very good job with a very dense book, and I like the casting, by and large (Frank/Black Jack Randall, especially. No one could fill Jamie’s shoes in my imagination, and Catriona has Claire’s coloring, but is built much more like a model than Claire is. Minor quibbles, though.). It is very much Claire’s perspective, but it doesn’t stay that way. Gabaldon changes whose perspective is viewing events more in future books. It will be interesting to see if that changes, as well, if this stays on its current trajectory. I also don’t know how they are going to age everyone 20 years, but I hope it is popular enough that they try!

I’m just excited that books that I really enjoy are actually being made into a TV series. And a successful one, at that!

Just in case you didn’t know – Ep9 actually (at least starts out) from Jamie’s POV.

I understand the next episode (9) is the beginning of the perspective shift- it’s from Jamie’s point of view. I think they kind of had to cast someone somewhat along Catriona’s build. Jamie is something like 6’4″ and she’s supposed to be about 5’4″- which is fine in a book, but looks very unbalanced on screen if not a bit comical. – so they had to go with a woman who was at least a couple of inches taller than in the book. Claire is meant to be quite busty, but look at what Catriona looks like in those dresses- if she had any more bust, it’s all we’d be able to focus on as they’d be in our faces as well as her own. Lastly, if they went with someone with substantially more weight on her, the dresses would be quite a bit less flattering. Again, what sounds good in our mind’s eye doesn’t always look that great at least to a modern aesthetic.

Claire is 5’6” in the book, and Jamie spends a lot of time commenting on her lush bottom. THAT is what Catriona’s missing the most! And it’s really not fair to think we wouldn’t enjoy Claire with a bit more meat on her because of the fit of the DRESSES! It took me a while to get over the fact that her eyes are the wrong color…as Book Claire has distinctive whiskey-colored eyes. But I did.

Skim reading this as unless I sign up to Amazon Prime I ain’t seeing it anytime soon :/ The main channels in the UK haven’t picked it up… the cynic in me would say they want to avoid any parallels between the Jacobite uprising and the current political climate!

I really want to see it… Amazon may be getting my cash yet.

I’m shocked this hasn’t aired in the UK yet.

Pretty sure the OP is right about the political climate. The show started about two weeks before the recent vote in Scotland on whether to split off or not. I’m betting the Brits didn’t want a pro Scots independence show running right before. Ironically, one of the anti-independence arguments was that they wouldn’t get the BBC, etc anymore.

And given their behaviour lately, we wouldn’t want them.

I know. Finally it’s hit on Amazon prime, but it’s a disgrace it wasn’t picked up by the main channels. However, it is politics. It could be said that Braveheart’s release encouraged the less politically thinking to vote for Scotland’s own devolved parliament in the 90s. The media has been very, very biased against independence (the BBC don’t want to lose a chunk of licence fee for one thing) and they wouldn’t want to repeat that by showing something that portrays a Scotland in the throes or rebellion.

I thought they just had a premier (or red carpet, at least) in London and Glasgow. Maybe that was for Amazon?

Yes, they are only showing it on Amazon UK in the UK, and they had the premiere a few days ago.

I love this show. The episode of “exploration”, let’s call it for spoiler purposes, is very hot. The two leads have serious chemistry.

I also heartily recommend Black Sails and Vikings, even though they are “boy” shows. Vikings, in particular, has interesting characters, fantastic costumes and at least one scene per episode of breathtaking beauty. It’s one of the only period pieces I can think of that truly paints the past as alien as we’d probably find it were we to visit it. And Travis Fimmel is amazing.

Black Sails has Toby Stevens, who is a total dish. (Of course the Dowager Countess would have a hot son. It’s fitting.) It also has pirates!

Toby Stephens is Rochester in the 2006 Jane Eyre miniseries which is the best adaptation of it in existence, IMO. He and Ruth Wilson are FABULOUS together, and she is the best Jane I’ve seen- it helps that her face is just so interesting to watch and she uses so many microexpressions in her acting.

It’s also the only time I’ve ever really been pro-Rochester, including when I read the book. It’s a great adaptation. (and on Youtube)

Yes! It’s the ONLY time I’ve actually felt like Jane and Rochester had any kind of friendship outside of what the narrative tells us they have. They did such a good job developing the fact that they had an actual connection before all the lovey-dovey stuff kicked in. Plus, their chemistry is ridiculous.

It’s definitely the sexiest adaptation of Jane Eyre!

This would make a lovely discussion for our TV forum.

Agreed. I love this Toby Stephens version of Jane Eyre. (Plus, his mom is Maggie Smith in real life. Bonus!)

I have avoided Black Sails so far because I read that it is a very gory show…what is your take on this? Gore for the sake of it or just because it belongs into the era?

YES. Thank you! Very well put. And can we talk about the wedding night? Because that was wonderfully awkward and sexual.

Oh, for heavens sake, they had me at Hello. Plus, reading Gabaldon’s tremendous novels two decades ago helped. Team Jamie AND Claire.

I find it hard to go from GoT to Outlander (having read both series) in part because their are fewer plot lines and characters in Outlander. In that respect, it makes the show feel less flashy and compelling for me. That says more about how much GoT is overloaded, but it is still a big adjustment to make when comparing the two.

There is really no reason to compare them. There is nothing about them that is alike.

Nonsense. They’re both war and adventure stories set in castles, fought with swords, loaded with sex scenes, with supernatural undertones. There’s no reason NOT to compare them.

My *only* issue with the TV rendering so far is that I feel they’ve left out a lot of Jamie’s humor. He’s a wry but genuinely funny guy in the books and that adds to both his youthfulness but matches him even better with Claire. I miss it in the episodes, but like I said, it’s a small thing and they’ve got time to develop it.

Give them time. Even in the book this aspect is not that prominent until they actually get to know each other. They are barely married in the show (wait, there is something wrong with those sentences….)

Excellent point. Given how well Ronald D. Moore has presented this from Claire’s point of view, and has presented her as a strong central character, I’m looking forward with interest to see how he handles, um, what happens next.

Excellent point about the way we underestimate the complexity of the past in our representations of it, by the way.

Ron Moore didn’t choose to present anything from Claire’s point of view. The entire series is written in Claire’s voice (hence the voice over) and from her perspective. The credit for that should go to the author, Diana Gabaldon. I get that this isn’t the book forum, but it drives ME batty when people give the wrong person praise.

What? No discussion on the hottest guy on the show… Tobias Menzies? (Frank AND Black Jack. Hey…)

Holla. Tobias Menzies is a revelation as both characters. Black Jack is a monster but damn, he’s compelling. And Tobias makes even nerdy, intellectual Frank pretty interesting. Tobias is by far the best thing about this show, to me.

I find Jamie boring and insipid and pretty. I think even Dougal is sexier than Jamie, who I guess just isn’t my cup of tea. I haven’t read the books and don’t plan to but if Jamie is more educated, witty and interesting in the books it’s really not coming across on screen. So far he’s uh, pretty, and always willing to offer himself up as a human sacrifice. And did I mention pretty? If the show simply becomes Jamie and Claire’s great sexy romance then it will become pretty boring to me. Hell, Claire already has a husband (Frank) who will give her oral sex and in public, no less. I just don’t see a sane woman giving that up, along with mod cons (electricity, plumbing, the BBC) to have a roll in the hay with a Chippendales dancer. Especially knowing the dangers that surround her, and also knowing the coming catastrophe of Culloden.

But as long as Tobias is featured prominently (and Dougal and Geilis) I’ll keep watching.

I enjoyed this article but I am frustrated that when a women appreciates a man it is “lusty and feminist” or the show becomes “lady” because the protagonist is female and likes sex. Look at Game of Thrones. They have scenes where women are naked and breasts are popping out everywhere for the gratuitous pleasure of the male characters but it is just fantasy. Not lusty male fantasy. I love both shows so am not complaining but it would be nice to have a discussion of Outlander without the romance title. Over 40% of the audience demographic is male. To me the show is a historical fiction fantasy adventure.

The protagonist is all of the characteristics mentioned and she just so happens to be female.

I disagree. I don’t think Claire “just so happens to be female.” I think the fact and implications of her gender are central to the story and the way it’s told.

I so agree with you. If you want to argue that Claire defies stereotypes then calling the show “lady” seems a little contradictory.

“Tom’s “lady” jibe came back to haunt him after he’d sat through a few episodes because it revealed his own prejudices.”

“Tom’s “lady” teasing was off-base, because the flip side of the character is that she embodies so many classic hero traits,”

“Once Tom figure that out – that it’s a good thing to see an adventure tale, with all the trappings of one, but seen through an unconventional character’s eyes and pitched to a nerdy, adventure-seeking audience of which (for once) he’s not a member – he couldn’t get enough of the story.”

Love this blog guys, so glad you are loving the television series, now both of you, get to reading the books, so you can truly understand why Diana Gabaldon has had millions of fans reading her books for decades. The production team, and the cast and crew are doing an awesome freaking job, but the books are just so much…more.

This story is strong on history , adventure and plot..Claire is a good strong lead…no matter what the tv writers are trying to make out of her or how they try to make Jamie wimp out..

Thank you, TLo, for highlighting this show. I’m a knitter and had heard via those forums that the knitwear was AMAZING, so I wondered about the rest of it. Looking forward to giving it a spin.

This review has made me want to give this show a go. Just a note on ‘gossip’–that’s not a feminine activity, but a human one. Men gossip every bit as much (and some studies say

more than) women, but we probably don’t usually apply the word gossip to men because it’s generally used as a demeaning descriptor of women’s conversation. But it’s every bit as important to men’s success as it is to women’s.

First, this: “it gleefully and deliberately plays with the very tools and tropes that have traditionally defined femininity in western culture for so long.”

And second, maybe you should see the show before you criticize the review of the show.

I’m a little confused since the comment Disqus sent to my email was lengthier and gave the impression that I had caused offence. I hope this shorter version means you decided to give me the benefit of the doubt, but just in case–because it’s been bothering me all morning for TLo to think I was criticising them–I am very sorry that my comment came across as criticism. I would hate to think that my first interaction with people whose work I’ve enjoyed and admired for years had been one in which I caused offence.

I offered what I thought of as a gentle aside, not because I thought you needed to be corrected, but because gossip is still commonly considered a feminine activity, and while it would have been a derailment for you to go into the reasons why that’s not true in your review, it seemed perfectly appropriate to bring it up in the comments as a relevant point of discussion. I’m sorry that I didn’t manage to do that without it sounding like criticism. I suppose my comment was probably prompted by this quote “or the tools she’ll use – like gossip among female characters – that a male protagonist not only wouldn’t think of, but wouldn’t have at his disposal”, but I don’t think you’re sexist; I don’t think your review was sexist; and I have no reason to think the show is sexist. I liked your review and I’m looking forward to seeing the show.

All I’m saying is that this is addressed in the review and might make more sense if you actually watch the show.

Never heard of the books and happened upon the Starz series by accident. Stayed for the entire season — loving each episode more and more. Kudos to all involved, especially Caitriona Balfe!

For me it’s not about whether the violence is justified by the narrative or not, I just can’t stand seeing it. Makes me physically ill regardless of how justified it may be.

True, but for me there is still a difference between “there for the story” and what I call torture porn. Most show have a lot of the latter. Vikings just got ruined for me because it lost its balance.

I’ll jump into simply to say that TCM is sometimes the default station in our household, due to my deep and abiding love for classic movies.

One thing that I’m curious about is how the show is going to handle the ugly fight that’s coming up between Jamie and Claire. (spoilers ahead!!) – In the book, Jamie brutally beats Claire for disobeying him (and subsequently getting caught). He also toes the line of threatening her with rape, and talks about how much he enjoyed beating her in a disturbingly sexual manner. It ruined the book for me. Jamie went from being a respectful hero to an actual sadist. And the thing is, Gabaldon then turned around and had Claire forgive him, and then acted like everything was perfectly normal from then on. And the bizarre thing to me is that I never see anyone even talking about this. I know spousal violence was common at the time, and I know both Jamie and Claire are threatened with rape multiple times throughout the book, but it doesn’t sit well with me at all. I hope the show skips a lot of that stuff.

The show will show everything. That series of events is discussed a lot in the groups/forums I’ve been on regarding Outlander. Also, I wouldn’t see it as making him a sadist, and it’s not something that ever happens again. The characters themselves have, from what I remember, a lot of discussion about it, and even though she eventually forgives him, it’s not something she is ever OK with.

Yes yes yes. I love the discussion that a female hero is bringing to other audiences. And well said about how this show has “lady” traits but it is not in any way less interesting.

Very well written. Erudite. Sharp. Empathetic. Bravo. Really enjoyed this. Thank you.

I read the books, so I know what will come….and I won’t spoil anything, just that much, which is relevant for the show, too: The books are VERY historically accurate, from the illnesses to the treatments to the habits of the time. A lot of this carries over into the show, most notable in the episode about the “haunted place”. The plant exist. The illness exist. The treatment exist. It’s the main reason I read the books, not for the romance but for the history and I am glad that the show takes care to do this aspect credit.

Great review, Think about this in 1860 Washington D.C. My gggrandfather died leaving my gg grandmother to raise five children. She supported herself as a seamstress thoughout the civil war and lived only blocks from the White House. I bet she traveled through some stones herself. I personally love history sword fights battles and political maeuvering. They entertain me. I am a woman and I’ve travelled through some stones myself. You and your friend are getting all the insider info on how to get a women to love and respect you completely but I sense you’re both intelligent enough already because you respect women too!