Home TV Reviews Movie Reviews Book Reviews Frequently Asked Questions Articles About Us Support Doux

Outlander Book Versus Series: Evidence of Things Not Seen

So here's the situation. (Spoilers for the Outlander episode "Evidence of Things Not Seen" below. Please go read my review of the episode first!)

There are ten books in the Outlander series. Nine have been published, and author Diana Gabaldon is currently working on book ten, the last one, which is ominously titled A Blessing for a Warrior Going Out. Gabaldon has also written a significant number of novellas and short stories set in the Outlander 'verse. (She has an official website with all of this information, if you're interested.)

In book eight, Written in My Own Heart's Blood, there was a fire in the printshop (which was in Philadelphia, not Savannah). Germain and Henri-Christian were indeed sleeping on the roof. Germain made it down on the rope trying to carry Henri-Christian to safety, but Henri-Christian, only four years old at the time, fell to his death. Fergus was still alive at the end of book nine, Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone.

Up until this season, the show runner and producers of the television series have hewed remarkably closely to the book series, and for good reason – they're much beloved best sellers. They're also very long, ranging around a thousand pages each, with lots of characters and situations that haven't made it to the series. Until this season, the only major change has been Murtagh dying in book/season five instead of three, and I think that particular change was a good one; it kept a beloved actor and character in the series a lot longer and it worked dramatically.

Diana Gabaldon did not sound happy about this change with Fergus. In her recent interview with Parade, she said, "I suppose they thought they had to kill somebody. Personally, I thought if they were too chicken to do it right, they should just have eased back and burned down the print-shop—but luckily not my call."

While I was watching "Evidence of Things Not Seen," I thought Henri-Christian would die and I was dreading it. Fergus' unexpected death was a shock and it just ripped my heart out. But after considering for awhile, I think the television series writers made a better dramatic choice. It felt right having Fergus sacrifice himself for his sons. It was something Fergus would do. That adorable little boy dying would have been just too horrible to watch. Kids have this sort of plot armor for a reason.

Faith, Fanny and Master Raymond

At the end of last season, the TV series made a major change in Gabaldon's story – that Jamie and Claire's first child, Faith, survived because she was brought back to life by Master Raymond. The flashback in "Evidence of Things Not Seen" confirmed that Master Raymond left baby Faith with the lacemaker across the street, who ended up raising her to adulthood. Raymond even sang the song Claire was singing to the lacemaker, a practical answer to how Jane and Fanny could have known the song.

But the thing is, back in the season three episode "Faith," Claire held that stillborn baby in her arms for a very long time, so long that Mother Hildegarde had to send for Louise, who carefully talked Claire into letting the baby go. The follow-up, the stillborn baby that Claire revived with her hands this season in "Abies Fraseri," wasn't dead for anywhere near that long. I also don't know how they can explain the existence of Faith's gravestone at the Hôpital, or the possibility that Mother Hildegarde lied to Claire. Mother Hildegarde wouldn't do that.

Diana Gabaldon was outright dismissive of this change in the story. I agree that this particular plot twist that is giving Jamie and Claire another granddaughter feels way too twisty for me. Maybe I'm nitpicking. If Master Raymond and Claire can both revive a baby that has died, does it matter how long the baby was dead?


William and John

I hadn't even remembered that there was a third change: William catching Lord John and Percy kissing. This didn't happen in Gabaldon's books, either. In the Parade article, Gabaldon said, "I really object to them making William find out that Lord John is gay. There’s absolutely no reason, plot or character-wise, to do that, other than shock value."

I am not one who believes that a movie or television series must follow the book they are adapting to the letter. They're different mediums. Some of the changes that they've made in the series have made the story better. But I might be on Gabaldon's side in this one.

What do you all think?

Billie
---
Billie Doux loves good television and spends way too much time writing about it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We love comments! Just note that we always moderate because of spam and trolls. It's never too late to comment on an old show, but please don’t spoil future episodes for newbies.