![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Can a TV adaptation be too faithful?
Jan. 25th, 2019 08:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jo(Warning -- the article linked to below contains what I consider to be very minor-ish spoiler for season 3 and a somewhat major spoiler for season 4 if you've not read book 4 or watched that season yet -- this includes a large photo that will spoil this plot point even if you don't read the article. Although it and similar photos from that particular scene have been all over social and other media, so you may already be aware of this development in the story, but anyway, you've been warned.)
There is growing concern (to be polite) among some Outlander fans who've read the books, that the TV series has departed too far from the source material. This "concern" started with season 2, and has reached fever-pitch for some with season 4. They aren't only concerned with plot changes, whether it be omitting certain scenes, characters, sub-plots, etc., but also perceived changes to some of the characters (the most common complaint is that TV Jamie has been "diminished" in various ways).
I came across this blog post asking if an adaptation could ever be TOO faithful. The author's sentiments are almost identical to mine. This sentence in particular almost had me jumping up and down in agreement:
I thought this could be an interesting discussion, and not limited solely to Outlander. Can a TV (or movie) adaptation be too faithful to the source material? Some of the issues the blog post author raises are that for book and show fans, certain plot twists simply aren't that twisty because we know they're coming; and that some of the changes made in the series are actually helpful for people who haven't read the books. I would add that some of the changes made can also be very unhelpful to those who've not read the book(s). As I said -- no need to limit this conversation solely to Outlander -- feel free to draw in examples of other book-to-TV (or film) adaptations if you want.
There is growing concern (to be polite) among some Outlander fans who've read the books, that the TV series has departed too far from the source material. This "concern" started with season 2, and has reached fever-pitch for some with season 4. They aren't only concerned with plot changes, whether it be omitting certain scenes, characters, sub-plots, etc., but also perceived changes to some of the characters (the most common complaint is that TV Jamie has been "diminished" in various ways).
I came across this blog post asking if an adaptation could ever be TOO faithful. The author's sentiments are almost identical to mine. This sentence in particular almost had me jumping up and down in agreement:
I like Gabaldon’s work for the depth of her historical research and for her memorable characters, but I’m not sure her perils-of-Pauline plotting needs to be sacrosanct.
I thought this could be an interesting discussion, and not limited solely to Outlander. Can a TV (or movie) adaptation be too faithful to the source material? Some of the issues the blog post author raises are that for book and show fans, certain plot twists simply aren't that twisty because we know they're coming; and that some of the changes made in the series are actually helpful for people who haven't read the books. I would add that some of the changes made can also be very unhelpful to those who've not read the book(s). As I said -- no need to limit this conversation solely to Outlander -- feel free to draw in examples of other book-to-TV (or film) adaptations if you want.
