We often talk on this blog about TV shows adapted from books
and what they can teach us about writing. And I couldn’t resist talking about
the latest book-turned-sure-to-be-huge show.
This month, Starz debuted its answer to the Game of Thrones juggernaut over on HBO: Outlander. Based on the eight-book series
by Diana Gabaldon, this show is supposed to be just as sprawlingly dramatic and
addictive.
It’s a historical romance wrapped in time-travel in which
Claire, a former WWII nurse, goes on a second honeymoon to Scotland in an
effort to rebuild a marriage torn apart by war. But right in the middle of all
that, she’s transported back in time from 1946 to 1743. There, she not only
meets one of her husband’s direct descendants (and he happens to look a lot
like him only with long hair and a telltale red coat), but she also ends up
falling in with his descendant’s mortal enemies: rebel Scots. One of these
Scots is Jamie Fraser, a man with whom she has an undeniable connection.
Cue a love triangle of epic proportions.
Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the original book, Outlander, debuted on Apple’s iBooks
bestseller list this week, despite the fact that it was published first in
1991. A similar bump happened for George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Fire and Ice when Game
of Thrones debuted on HBO a few years ago.
Honestly, I totally forced my husband to sign us up for
Starz just so I could watch the show. I do own the first book—thanks to the
suggestion of a few of my critique partners—but haven’t finished it. Still, I
wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Now, a few episodes in, I can’t imagine I won’t both watch
the show and read the books. Good for
me, great for Gabaldon, great for Starz.
What do you think of this trend of taking book series with
huge followings and turning them into expensive, beautiful TV shows? Good for
the books? Bad for the books? Middle of the road?
