I also liked large parts of Book 4. But yeah, that's when the series sadly starts to break down. I admit, I hope that the show can salvage a little bit.
They have to rearrange the third book either way. The structure of the book doesn't work in a TV show.

I agree that Outlander eventually looses the balance, but that will happen way, way down the line. Let's enjoy it as long as it lasts.

I don't need to imagine that and in general, the excuse flies if the rape is handled well and it is about the development of said female character. Most of the time though it only happens for shock effect and to further the story of another (male) character.
For example I once read an excellent book which starts with…

I honestly felt that they dealt with the theme better in her first book than in her later ones. But that's a bridge I'll go over when the TV show reaches the point. Perhaps they can salvage something.

I can honestly say that I looked forward to the scene, too. Not because I am aroused by it in any shape, but because it is one of the big key scenes of the book. I can also tell you know, that I am titillated by the notion of seeing the duel scene from the second book, the chess scene from the third and the measles…

I think the main point is that Randall is not a gay character who is a sadist, but a sadist who happens to lean more towards men than women. His sadism is the important point in all this, not his sexual orientation. .

Just watch the show. That much we know, the date she gave him is correct, because she got it from the historical studies of her husband. The true question is now: Can Claire change history through her actions? (Well, I know the answer to that, but I won't spoil it for you).

Yeah, I agree, I always found the way the book romanticized the relationship to Drogo without ever truly reflecting that this guy raped his child-wife disturbing. Not that the show did that much better after throwing in that small moment of sanity.

In this case I give the show a pass. TV is still a visual medium. Claire just deducing what happened would have resulted in a long monologue. Showing it but taking care that it would be truly disturbing in a deeply unsettling way was the best they could do.

The thing with outlander is that it usually doesn't shy away from showing the consequences. Take game of thrones. In the book you have a situation in which a child is "sold" to a powerful man as a bride. During their short marriage she is "gently" raped by him, has to undergo a humiliating ritual and witnesses him…

To answer the reviewers question: It is not quite that intense in the book due to it being told from Claire's perspective. Meaning we learn about what happened to Jamie when he tells her about it, and through her observations. Which makes the whole thing a little less intense, but has the benefit of focussing on the…

To answer without spoiling anything: Outlander always changes up the setting and the characters Claire has to deal with. At the same time, though, most characters are never totally gone, unless they die. Sometimes they turn up again when you don't expect them at all.

It is okay when it doesn't come off as exploitation and has an actual impact on the character and the plot.

That's a good point, one or two scenes could and should have gotten more time in the show. Still, I don't think that the difference is that big that the show can't offer a similar fulfilling experience. The gab is just smaller, small enough that I think that watching the show gives you a really good idea of the book.

Hard to tell. Since the first book is entirely written from Claire's perspective, a lot what is show in the show, like the smashing of the hand, is something she only sees the aftermath of.

The point is that in this case, Jamie not only got raped (which is already bad enough in itself), but he was forced to participate in his own rape. And in addition, it was an act of surrender in a war he fought for years. Think about it, if Randall had wanted he could have bond him and taken what he wanted any time.…

Well, I admit, every time someone tells me that he only knows the Harry Potter movies and not the books, I feel pity for him or her. Same for people who never read The Neverending Story. It is not like I dislike the adaptations, but they are only a shadow of what the books have to offer, and if you never read them,…

It is one of the key scenes of the whole series. It is not surprising that someone in a panel would ask her about it, because all book readers knew it was coming and what big impact it has on Jamie and Claire.

It's easy: He is not a homosexual, he is a sadist. And his obsession with Jamie is based on him liking to hurt and break people, but Jamie never broke, he defied him. so conquering him gives him the biggest hard-on ever.
And I think the point is less that sadists exists back then and more that the society back then…

He could have, but he apparently thought that opening the box and killing everyone in the room would be the better option.