MEDIA MONDAYS: OUTLANDER & SCREEN ADAPTATIONS

On Saturday night the finale of Starz adaptation of Outlander aired. I read Outlander two years ago, as part of the Vaginal Fantasy book club, and have slowly been making my way through the rest of the series. Due to its sheer size, it isn't the sort of book that I've reread multiple times or am able to recall every small detail about, but I love the story and like many other fans, I met the author-approved television adaptation with cautious excitement: like most readers, I'd been burned before.

Ah, young love.

But over the course of the year, while I listened to many fans complain about this missing scene or that overlooked minor detail, I truly loved the series. The actors, not even just the leads but the entire cast have done an outstanding job of bringing these characters to life. The writers made what I believe to be fair judgements about what is and is not relevant and dealt with sometimes controversial material appropriately. I even find myself occasionally singing the theme song, which I felt lacked grandiose and intensely disliked through the first half of the season.

And Scotland, oh Scotland, its beauty speaks for itself.

Definitely one for the bucket list.

I truly feel the creators have treated the source material with respect. Saturday night's episode, which could easily have garnered outrage from book readers, fans and casual viewers, was appropriately gut-wrenching and visceral. While other book readers complain of changes to location, missing scenes or rushing through segments which take place over hundreds of pages, I cannot fault the decisions made by Ronald D. Moore and his team (except perhaps singing Claire, but I can't enjoy everything).

We were all thinking the same thing.

Like many others, I was once a book purist. I was so disappointed with the first two Harry Potter films so much that I refused to see Prisoner of Azkaban for a full three years after its release. I bemoaned the decision to turn The Hobbit into another trilogy. I bitterly watched Space's Bitten (for which author Kelley Armstrong was so berated, her agent was forced to issue a statement on her behalf reminding fans she is not responsible for the show), ever annoyed that Clay lacked his token southern accent. I even resented the differences between the BBC version of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and the more recent film. Much to the chagrin of others, I have annoyingly picked out missing details and sat frustrated with changes made to screen adaptations for years.

Then last year we watched the Game of Thrones panel at San Diego Comic-Con on YouTube, which included writer George RR Martin who has served as co-executive producer and written for the TV series. It's no secret that many book loyalists have been disappointed many times as the writers have deviated from the source material. During that panel, GRRM said something that really hit me as a book purist:

The question of 'so you can experience the story in it's true form' is kind of a loaded one, you know, I've said a couple of times in posts the riddle 'how many children does Scarlett O'Hara have?'. Scarlett O'Hara has three children in Margaret Mitchell's novel. Scarlett O'Hara has one child in the classic movie of Gone With The Wind. How many children does Scarlett O'Hara have? What's the true story? Of course the true story is Scarlett O'Hara has no children because she never existed. She is a fictional character and there are two wonderful classic ways of telling story and you know that may be the situation, that is the situation with the show is the show when the book is the book, you know. Who did Robb Stark marry? Did she [sic], did he... she marry a woman from Voltanis named Talisa who died at the Red Wedding or did she marry, did he marry a woman named Jeyne Westerling who's still alive and will be seen in the prologue of Winds of Winter? Is one true, is one not true? Well, you know, how many children did Scarlett O'Hara have?

He isn't the only author to make such statements. Prior to the airing of the Outlander finale, author Diana Gabaldon took to Facebook to ask that book readers, "Put. The. Book. Down. Really, I mean it. If you watch this part with the book in your hand, expecting this, that, and the other thing…you will be disappointed, I guarantee it.", reminding fans that there is no way to include everything and to enjoy it for what it is. Some authors love adaptations of their work, others loathe them. Others such as Anne Rice have been in both situations.

Alan Moore, author of Watchmen, once highlighted the issue perfectly: "There are things that we did with Watchmen that could only work in a comic, and were indeed designed to show off things that other media can't.". Since Buffy the Vampire Slayer finished airing in 2003 and continued in comic form, many of the storylines are ideas that simply could not have happened on screen. Of scenes in the Outlander finale, which are somewhat surreal in the book, showrunner Ronald D. Moore has stated that he feared the scenes, "would take [the viewer] of the story". Some things just don't work on screen. Usually there isn't enough time or money in the world.

More importantly perhaps is the fact that most people, perhaps disappointingly, won't have read the book. In some cases, who can blame them? The Outlander series is an investment, as is Game of Thrones. Many lifelong readers aren't willing to devote that much time to a single series, much less people who (I shudder to mention) don't read at all. Should they miss out on being part of the story altogether simply because they aren't willing, or able, to join the secret universe that you and I share?

There's a famous quote that has been attributed left and right but probably belongs to James M. Cain: they haven't done anything to my book; it's right there on the shelf. And it is. For those of us swept away by the magic of words, we will always have that opportunity to return to our "true" Westeros, Narnia or Hogwarts. Who's to say my interpretation is the same as yours anyway? But that isn't cause to tear apart innovative, acclaimed or simply enjoyable television for the sake of fiction.