![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
*** WARNING! This thread is for discussing deviations between episode 302 and the source material, the novel Voyager. If you have not read the book, please understand that the discussion will contain possible spoilers for the series moving forward (including possibly beyond the current season). However, if you have no intention of reading the book, or don't mind spoilers, or are simply curious to know how things differed, proceed at your own risk! ***
If you wish to discuss episode 302, please do so on the dedicated episode discussion thread.
There were a few notable changes from the source material in this episode. How do you think these will affect the story going forward? Did you like the changes? Did any annoy or upset you?
no subject
Date: 2017-09-17 08:17 pm (UTC)The first really obvious one is the incident wherein Fergus loses his hand. As we book readers know, in Voyager, Fergus is intercepted by red coats one day when he is bringing a cask of ale up to Jamie hiding in his cave. Jamie watches in frustration and then horror as Fergus taunts the soldiers, insulting them in gutter French and waggling his backside at them. Four of the soldiers run after him and one takes his sword out and brings it down, probably aiming for the cask, but instead he slices off Fergus' hand. Jamie sees Fergus' hand lying in the mud and he faints. The cask falls into a burn below the hill, thus giving the place the name "Leap o' the Cask".
None of this is really critical to the overall plot of the story -- Fergus loses his hand either way -- but it is something that comes up when Bree and Roger are doing research trying to find out if Jamie is still alive after Culloden. They reference Leap o' the Cask because it's part of the Dunbonnet legend. Also, in a later book, I think Written in my Own Heart's Blood, it finally dawns on Roger that the Leap 'o the Cask incident was Fergus -- he hadn't previously connected the two, and it's quite poignant when he does realize that it was Fergus. I really don't know why they felt a need to do things differently here.
The other major change was having Mary take the blame for 1) having a gun and 2) firing it. I can understand why the decision was made to give Mary McNab more prominence in the episode -- in the novel, she's largely background furniture until the scene in the cave with Jamie. It wouldn't have worked well TV-wise (and for non-book readers) to see some random servant they barely noticed in the show do what Mary does at the end. However, by making Mary the key player in the scene with the red coats after Jenny's given birth to Ian, we lost the book scene where wee Jamie overhears Jenny telling them that the babe was stillborn and Young Jamie believes this to be true and flies into a grief-filled rage. It is his behavior that drives the soldiers away and prevents his uncle from being discovered. Again, I sort of understand why they needed to give Mary a larger role, but I don't think they needed to change this bit, and it would have been good to see wee Jamie drive off the nasty red coats.
Again, neither of these changes have any really major plot impact (unlike the Laoghaire thing in 208), but they felt unnecessary to me and I sort of wish they had followed the source material in these instances.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-18 12:40 pm (UTC)Yes, to me Mary would have come out of left field if she hadn't been prominent in the episode. This way, I got a nice feel for her. And it made her part of the family, that she loved and was protective of them.
I kept wondering where Jenny's daughter was. Maggie was it? She wasn't dead was she?
no subject
Date: 2017-09-18 01:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-18 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-18 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 03:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 10:13 pm (UTC)I was thinking that if they did decide not to have him die, what would they do with him? Then I thought that the most likely thing might be to drop the Duncan Innes character (the dude with one arm who ends up marrying Jamie's aunt) and replace him with Murtagh.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 11:51 pm (UTC)As for Murtagh, I hope he's really only back for flashbacks. His literary purpose as Jamie's logical foil (logical when Jamie isn't, illogical when Jamie is, same with violence and romance) is really moot, with Jamie growing up as much as he does in "Voyager."
Also: I love Duncan, please let's keep him. (And Jocaste. Forever. I adore them.)