Outlander stepped away from the books to tell a tale that wasn’t in it. And it was the right thing to do. Here’s why Do No Harm was so powerful.
Outlander isn’t afraid to step away from the book material when it feels the need. Sometimes it’s due to money and time, but there are occasions where it’s a creative decision. Episode 2, titled “Do No Harm,” was one of the latter reasons. It was all a creative decision because there was an important story to tell.
In “Drums of Autumn,” Claire does help a slave at the sawmill, but never in the way she does in the episode. She doesn’t bring him into the house and doesn’t treat him to the point of helping him live. Yet, in the books, we got a good 20 minutes of the episode focused on Rufus’ story.
More from Opinion
- Droughtlander suggestions: Check out Silo on Apple TV+
- Outlander season 7 episode 8 review: The Frasers are back in Scotland!
- Outlander Season 7 episode 7 review: Does Jamie die in Outlander?
- Outlander Season 7 episode 6 review: Claire meets William (again)!
- Outlander Season 7 episode 5 review: Does Young Ian have a son?
And I’m glad the show has focused on this. Not only did we see Claire attempt to save his life and ironically do more harm than she ever wanted, but we also got a story for this young boy. We learned about where he came from and how he was brought to the New World. Once again, we were reminded that a dream for some is a nightmare for others.
We’re watching this show with 21st-century lenses. And we’re living it through Claire’s 20th-century viewpoint. It’s hard to even imagine what it would have been like in the 18th century. What it would have been like for the other slaves as they watched this white woman heal one of their own.
They weren’t thankful. The people were terrified of what this would mean. One woman wasn’t going to change the viewpoints of all the men in the angry mob. Claire was never going to change anything.
Instead, Rufus was going to die a torturous death and the other slaves would be punished for Claire’s actions. We got to see Claire try and fail — not because her skills weren’t there but because she had this naive view on the 18th century and of slavery.
The naivety of some is a danger to others
Both Claire and Jamie had this view. Jamie thinks he can just free the slaves, only to find out that they all need to do acts of honor and Jamie needs to pay a fortune to release all from their bonds. Then he’d need the support of others around him and there were far too many who went with the status quo.
Living in the 21st century and seeing all this in the history books, it’s hard to understand just why Claire and Jamie couldn’t save Rufus. I’ll admit while watching 12 Years a Slave, I couldn’t understand why Benedict Cumberbatch’s character couldn’t send Solomon Northup back to his family — why it took so long to get word to his family and it was a risk for Brad Pitt’s character to get that word out.
Outlander helped to explain that. The writers were able to take a step back and look at what life would have been like. Instead of just a view of Claire attempting to heal and save, we got more from the other black characters, especially Ulysses in a higher position to share his views and discuss the matter with Claire.
We get to hear what Claire’s naivety means for all the other slaves on the plantation. While I’ve detested Claire’s naivety and wish to force her views on others, in this instance it all worked out for the bigger story. We got this look at the danger she imposed on others even though she didn’t mean to; the harm she did without ever wanting to.
Our political landscape now is different to the 90s
So why didn’t Diana Gabaldon include this storyline if it was so important? Surely, that suggests that the Outlander writers are saying that the novel isn’t good enough. But that’s certainly not the case.
The writers are using a political landscape that has changed over the last 20+ years. “Drums of Autumn” was written in 1996. Okay, I admit that I was in school at the time and wasn’t keeping track of the news (I was 10!), I know from speaking to others who are older that the political landscape was nothing like it is today.
There’s a huge new push for diversity, equality, and civil rights. That’s not to say there wasn’t before, but there’s a new push and one that is reaching farther thanks to technology. Unfortunately, a novel like “Drums of Autumn” doesn’t reflect that but the show can. While many want the show to stick with the book, there are elements of the books that just don’t work well for the current time period.
I’ll connect this back to the change to Yi Tien Cho (Mr. Willoughby). I applauded the writers for adapting Yi Tien Cho’s storyline because it was necessary. A dated caricature in the books because of the time period it was written, the show was able to take the one-dimensional character and give him a facelift and an honorable ending.
I continue to stand by my opinions on that character, as I will stand by my opinions on Outlander Season 4, Episode 2 and handling Rufus’ storyline.
What did you think of the change to the book’s storyline in Outlander Season 4, Episode 2? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Outlander airs Sundays at 8/7c on STARZ.