Agreed about Pride and Prejudice and The Princess Bride. On the subject of play-as-adaptation, in the nineteenth century directors would routinely revise Shakespeare to suit the fancies of their audience, having Cordelia and Lear live at the end of King Lear, for example. Some Shakespeare scholars would say The…

A play on the stage is always an adaptation because it turns one form of art, dramatic literature, into another, performance—something entirely different. I love the way the film "Stage Beauty" demonstrates how performance is an art in its own right, if you need a striking example to understand what I am trying to…

Agreed on this. I would say a faithful adaptation is like a great cover of a classic song that both compliments the original and reinterprets it. A great cover not only does the original justice but somehow also manages to become a work of art in its own right.

( AV Club has shown my reply out of context.) I'd like that if only Moore would use the time to make it better.

THE FEMALE GAZE
Diana Gabaldon's "Outlander" is told in first-person when Claire is speaking and in third-person omniscient narrative when she is not, although one can often surmise the point of view of the character under discussion. Tell me if you have to have examples or will just accept that.

It may sound crazy, but I'm glad that you're still part of the audience with me.

Well, Jessabean, 40% of the audience is men according to the content-rich article accompanying the infamous Entertainment Weekly cover in early March. And darn it . . . Chris Albrecht and Ronald Moore want men to enjoy it.

Well, what is your favorite story of all time?

Good question. There was a story accompanying the Emmy Magazine Photoshoot article dated June 4, 2015, but it was taken down. It could be found using the Wayback Machine if you are so inclined. I know it was there because I cited Chris Albrecht quoted in this article saying that he has asked Ronald Moore to make…

Why do those who agree with the majority assume that those in the minority think of themselves as superior? Surely, those in the majority find the minority and their views inferior, right? So why complain about a minority opinion? If the majority is in the right, it should be harmless, at least on a comment thread.

As Jamie says in the spanking scene, book and series, "It's about justice."

I've substantiated many of my criticisms, but those who approve of the choices just say, "I LIKED IT!" Whatever detail you would like me to provide, I will do my best. Ask away.

Just because you're watching "Vikings," you don't have to drink them, you know.

I am intensely interested in why it is so awful.

I talk about the genre of "Outlander," its historical authenticity as historical fiction, its relation to the novels, as it is an adaptation after all. To me, it's like a recipe with a lot of ingredients, that it's an effort to get right. Ask yourself, why so hostile?

I say, bring it on. The entertainment industry has needed substantive debate about its products for a long time.

I think Kayla has made some observations that are on point, but she has given herself a handicap. Why do that? You've got the gig to review the series, and it's not like there are no fans of the novels.

We are having a period in American culture when anti-intellectualism is again on the rise. That is part of the Trump phenomenon, where no matter how misinformed or crude he becomes, his fans will support him. This is just an example. Of course, I do not wish to imply that you are one of Trump's supporters.

Think of it this way: Every time you see a play on the stage it is as much an adaptation as Moore's "Outlander" series. So you have seen many faithful adaptations of a literary form without even thinking of them as such. I would say that "Wolf Hall" and "War and Peace" were two recent television series far better…

(AV Club has put this comment out of order.) You should get out more.