Outlander (TV Series)

[CatholicWhovian]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlander_%28TV_series%29

I’ve been taking an interest on the show, mostly for the history and the time-travel plot. However I’ve been scavenging this forum section if there’s a discussion thread for this series (there is none until now) and it seems some of you read the book series.

Personally I’m willing to watch out for scenes of a sexual nature since I’ve vowed to stop my impurity addiction this year. So for those who have watched the series or read the books… is this safe? Or should I take in more caution? I want to watch this show mostly for the history.

 

[Phemie]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlander_%28TV_series%29

I’ve been taking an interest on the show, mostly for the history and the time-travel plot. However I’ve been scavenging this forum section if there’s a discussion thread for this series (there is none until now) and it seems some of you read the book series.

Personally I’m willing to watch out for scenes of a sexual nature since I’ve vowed to stop my impurity addiction this year. So for those who have watched the series or read the books… is this safe? Or should I take in more caution? I want to watch this show mostly for the history.

There are some scenes that might be problematic for you. As I reread the books I realize that they could have cut away from some scenes much earlier and we still would have got the gist of the situation from Claire’s smile afterwards.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I haven’t watched the show but I did read the first three books in the series (then I stopped reading them because I felt they had “jumped the shark”). There are many sex scenes in the books, and apparently the adaptation hasn’t been shy about adapting them. I’ve also heard that there is at least one scene with full frontal male nudity. There is also a scene later in the first book that COULD be interpreted as domestic violence, but I don’t know if the show will include that.

Also, while I wouldn’t be surprised if the show changes this as a concession to homosexual groups, the main villain of the first book is apparently gay per the books (though the author later claimed he was bisexual) however, this isn’t revealed until later in the book (as I didn’t watch the show I don’t know if this made it into Season 1 or if they are saving it for later seasons, or have totally cut it out, though I find it hard to imagine how they could without also cutting out a significant scene in the book).

There is another villainous gay character in the second book, but the second book also introduces a “good” gay character, Lord John, who apparently was very popular and later became the hero of his own series of novels.

So I suppose if you think any mentions of homosexuality automatically make a series inappropriate, that is something to consider.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I haven’t watched the show but I did read the first three books in the series (then I stopped reading them because I felt they had “jumped the shark”). There are many sex scenes in the books, and apparently the adaptation hasn’t been shy about adapting them. I’ve also heard that there is at least one scene with full frontal male nudity. There is also a scene later in the first book that COULD be interpreted as domestic violence, but I don’t know if the show will include that.

Also, while I wouldn’t be surprised if the show changes this as a concession to homosexual groups, the main villain of the first book is apparently gay per the books (though the author later claimed he was bisexual) however, this isn’t revealed until later in the book (as I didn’t watch the show I don’t know if this made it into Season 1 or if they are saving it for later seasons, or have totally cut it out, though I find it hard to imagine how they could without also cutting out a significant scene in the book).

There is another villainous gay character in the second book, but the second book also introduces a “good” gay character, Lord John, who apparently was very popular and later became the hero of his own series of novels.

So I suppose if you think any mentions of homosexuality automatically make a series inappropriate, that is something to consider.

It’s fine for me… so long as they don’t show a gay sex scene in the TV series. Which I’m speculating since one part of the first season has already finished they’re going to add something later on.

I’ve heard from one of my friends who has finished watching the show that there’s this scene in one of the latter episodes that’s “intensely erotic”. I guess I should better watch out for that one?

 

[Phemie]

It’s fine for me… so long as they don’t show a gay sex scene in the TV series. Which I’m speculating since one part of the first season has already finished they’re going to add something later on.

I’ve heard from one of my friends who has finished watching the show that there’s this scene in one of the latter episodes that’s “intensely erotic”. I guess I should better watch out for that one?

Yes, that’s a pretty good description of some of the scenes in the wedding episode.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

Yes, that’s a pretty good description of some of the scenes in the wedding episode.

Is that supposed to be a spoiler? Hahaha

So… if there was a wedding, from what I’ve gathered from the description in the series that Claire is married in 1945 before she went into 1743. Would her marriage with… whoever the guy is… be invalid in the eyes of God? Or would it be valid since her (other) husband wasn’t even born yet?

 

[Phemie]

Is that supposed to be a spoiler? Hahaha

So… if there was a wedding, from what I’ve gathered from the description in the series that Claire is married in 1945 before she went into 1743. Would her marriage with… whoever the guy is… be invalid in the eyes of God? Or would it be valid since her (other) husband wasn’t even born yet?

Not a spoiler to anyone who has read the books and looked forward to that episode.

In the books, Claire actually discusses that with a priest. Not so much the ‘validity’ aspect, but her fear that she is committing adultery. He tells her she isn’t.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I’ve just finished watching the first three episodes. My judgments:

It’s a good series so far. There were sex scenes, but I skipped them since I’m using an on-demand service.

At the first episode Claire said she’s nominally Catholic, which quite explains why at some points she disrespected St. Paul and sometimes showed her contempt with the Church. Jaime, the highlander lad, however seems to be the opposite. He seems to be a good Catholic. Quite educated as well.

 

[dixieagle]

I’ve read all the books and seen the series (half of the first season/book has been shown thus far; it picks up again in April.)

There is no denying that there are some pretty intense sex scenes in the books and the TV series. It is also true that the scenes that have caused the most talk take place between a married couple. The author, Diana Gabaldon, (Ph.D.) is a practicing Catholic whose own marriage is of long standing and quite happy. There is frequent mention of God and Catholicism throughout the books; the latter part of the first book includes a perfectly beautiful description of Eucharistic Adoration involving feisty, outspoken, “nominally Catholic” Claire; I hope that it is included in the TV series. Catholic monks also play a significant role in that part of the book. A French Catholic sister figures prominently in the second book.

The author never shies away from religious themes; Jamie (known to real fans - and they are legion - as “the king of men” for his bravery, strength, honor, intelligence and humor) often prays, and Catholic Jacobites figure prominently in the first several books. Jamie was also a 23-year old virgin at the time of his wedding.

There will be some very intense, disturbing scenes involving “Black Jack” Randall and Jamie towards the end of this year’s series (it is after this that the monks come into play) and this terrible incident will reverberate for a long time.

The books and show are not for the faint-hearted or squeamish. They are, however, exceedingly well-written (and produced) and explore a multitude of delicate issues in an intelligent - if sometimes earthy - manner. The reader will learn much about the ill-fated Jacobite rebellion, slavery, early Appalachian settlements, Native Americans, the American Revolution… all painstakingly researched. Definitely not for children, but with much food for thought - and frequent humor.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I’ve read all the books and seen the series (half of the first season/book has been shown thus far; it picks up again in April.)

There is no denying that there are some pretty intense sex scenes in the books and the TV series. It is also true that the scenes that have caused the most talk take place between a married couple. The author, Diana Gabaldon, (Ph.D.) is a practicing Catholic whose own marriage is of long standing and quite happy. There is frequent mention of God and Catholicism throughout the books;** the latter part of the first book includes a perfectly beautiful description of Eucharistic Adoration involving feisty, outspoken, “nominally Catholic” Claire**; I hope that it is included in the TV series. Catholic monks also play a significant role in that part of the book. A French Catholic sister figures prominently in the second book.

That sounds exciting!
But I should have my expectations lowered.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Jamie was also a 23-year old virgin at the time of his wedding.

dixie-eagle, it seems you’re trying to portray the series as Catholic-friendly, but (though I only read the first 3 books) I really don’t think that’s accurate.

Jamie being a virgin at marriage is depicted pretty much as an anomaly even for the era – I can’t think of any other prominent male character in the books who was a virgin at marriage. It’s essentially shown as an endearing little quirk of Jamie’s that he’s a bit of a prude, not as something readers should find morally heroic.

Indeed, in book 3, very young, barely pubescent boys having sex with prostitutes is not depicted as at all problematic; Jamie being shocked by this is seems to be played for laughs, and for one character (Ian Jr.) it seems to be portrayed as a GOOD thing, said character is later essentially raped by the female villain and again, doesn’t seem to really suffer from the experience at all.

Also, while Gabaldon may be Catholic, the sense of morality she depicted in the books is very much “ends justify the means”, both characters commit physical adultery to “save” the other but I doubt Catholic moral theology would justify it. Just because a series has Catholic characters doesn’t mean it espouses Catholic morality, indeed, the “French Catholic sister” actually facilitates Claire’s understandable but not quite orthodox actions.

I also did not like how she eventually removed Frank Randall from the picture, way too convenient a way to justify Claire’s actions instead of leaving it ambiguous as to whether she did the right thing.

I also recall that there at least 5 children who are actually of different biological paternity than what is assumed, and that’s only in the first 3 books! I just thought the repetition of the plot device was hard to believe, even in the first 5 books.

And I totally lost all respect for the author when she admitted that Brianna was just a plot device and never came alive as a character for her. If she’s going to admit something like that, she should have done it when the series was actually over or close to it, not while she was still planning out new books.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

dixie-eagle, it seems you’re trying to portray the series as Catholic-friendly, but (though I only read the first 3 books) I really don’t think that’s accurate.

Jamie being a virgin at marriage is depicted pretty much as an anomaly even for the era – I can’t think of any other prominent male character in the books who was a virgin at marriage. It’s essentially shown as an endearing little quirk of Jamie’s that he’s a bit of a prude, not as something readers should find morally heroic.

Well quirk or not, at least I can find something to admire about Jamie. I think Jamie being an “anomaly” of the era might probably be explained by the fact that most men at the time thought it’s OK to have sex after an engagement/betrothal? I know it was common during the Middle Ages but did the practice continued on even after the Council of Trent and during the Age of Enlightenment?

 

[dixieagle]

dixie-eagle, it seems you’re trying to portray the series as Catholic-friendly, but (though I only read the first 3 books) I really don’t think that’s accurate.

Jamie being a virgin at marriage is depicted pretty much as an anomaly even for the era – I can’t think of any other prominent male character in the books who was a virgin at marriage. It’s essentially shown as an endearing little quirk of Jamie’s that he’s a bit of a prude, not as something readers should find morally heroic.

Indeed, in book 3, very young, barely pubescent boys having sex with prostitutes is not depicted as at all problematic; Jamie being shocked by this is seems to be played for laughs, and for one character (Ian Jr.) it seems to be portrayed as a GOOD thing, said character is later essentially raped by the female villain and again, doesn’t seem to really suffer from the experience at all.

Also, while Gabaldon may be Catholic, the sense of morality she depicted in the books is very much “ends justify the means”, both characters commit physical adultery to “save” the other but I doubt Catholic moral theology would justify it. Just because a series has Catholic characters doesn’t mean it espouses Catholic morality, indeed, the “French Catholic sister” actually facilitates Claire’s understandable but not quite orthodox actions.

I also did not like how she eventually removed Frank Randall from the picture, way too convenient a way to justify Claire’s actions instead of leaving it ambiguous as to whether she did the right thing.

I also recall that there at least 5 children who are actually of different biological paternity than what is assumed, and that’s only in the first 3 books! I just thought the repetition of the plot device was hard to believe, even in the first 5 books.

And I totally lost all respect for the author when she admitted that Brianna was just a plot device and never came alive as a character for her. If she’s going to admit something like that, she should have done it when the series was actually over or close to it, not while she was still planning out new books.

Let’s just agree to disagree, as we have come to very different conclusions about certain parts of the book. I think that your take on Jamie’s virginity is wrong; hardly a prude, he was simply being an honorable man, as taught by his father. There’s still plenty we don’t know about Frank, according to the author herself.

When time-travel is added to historical fiction, all sorts of moral questions can come into play, and Gabaldon raises plenty of them. (She has described herself as a “Catholic Libertarian”, for what it’s worth.)

You seem to have kept reading the series, despite your objections.

 

[dixieagle]

I just noticed, ToeIntheWater, that you’ve only read the first three books. Suffice it to say that much is explained in later books, and there is more to Frank’s story than meets the eye.

 

[thinkcarefully]

I am not familiar with the Outlander books, but saw so many promotional pieces and interviews, and read so many positive reviews that I was very interested to see it. I watched the first 2 episodes then many weeks later 2 more, and binge watched 6 on and off in one day. The filming and location were beautiful, almost dreamlike. The music mesmerizing and the costumes extremely detailed and intricate. Definitely, a carefully thought out production to the minutest detail. The actors peformed exceptionally in the dramatic scenes, conveying the strongest emotions and excitement. But even with all these attributes, I cannot justify watching it, and will not go any further in the series. Art is intertwined in life, but there are boundaries when it no longer resembles art, but becomes dark and gratuitous. When writers and directors graphically depict the most heinous crimes and sexual details, proclaiming it necessary for the story, they are really feeding their desires to be outrageous and contretemps. They have tremendous talent, but reduce it to rubbish, using profanity, vulgarity, and torture in their scripts, painstakingly convincing themselves that it is art. I am sorry for them, for the actors, and for the fans who have bought into this deception. The professed success of a book or tv series, measured by the writers, producers, directors, actors, and fans involved is a biased opinion. The Outlander tv series had all the elements to be amazing, but added in so much disturbing, irreverent, graphic material, it destroyed itself. There is more than enough violence and sexual dysfunction in the world, now and throughout history. Presenting it as artistic form does not change the reality of what it is. It always must be rejected in reality and fiction, and overcome with virtue and industry, in real life and art.