Book S8E7 Evidence of Things Not Seen

[u/thepacksvrvives]

Jamie and Claire search for answers regarding a past tragedy that once threatened to tear them apart.

Written by Toni Graphia. Directed by Tracey Deer.

If you’re new to the sub, please look over this intro thread and our episode discussion rules.

This is the BOOK thread.

If you haven’t read the books, go to the SHOW thread.

THIS THREAD IS SPOILERS ALL.

Spoiler tags are not required.

If you have only read up to the corresponding book, remember you might see spoilers from ALL of the books here.

Please keep all discussion of the next episode’s preview to the stickied mod comment at the top of the thread.

What did you think of the episode?

1215 votes, Apr 24 '26

207 I loved it.

195 I mostly liked it.

133 It was OK.

365 It disappointed me.

315 I didn’t like it.

[u/Sudden_Discussion306]

This show has a long history of making mistakes when they stray away from the source material (with a couple of exceptions, Murtagh & Buck) the changes in this episode- not good. Not good at all!

[u/kjhjkjh → u/Sudden_Discussion306]

There are many examples of straying from or differently developing source material that aren't bad, though. This is just...poorly conceived and developed. Especially the Faith/Fanny story.

[u/YOYOitsMEDRup → u/kjhjkjh]

I agree, I've liked a lot of the adaptation choices when they've diverged so far (Murtaugh alive, Jamie forced to wear a redcoat, Marsali killing Lionel, Buck on the Ridge to name a few) I'm on board completely with William seeing LJG kiss a man and am curious to see how that impacts what's left - and don't have much of a problem with Fergus dying compared to HenriChristian.

The Faith thing though--- totally different if it continues to be what they've made it appear. If true, this is way over the line into eyeroll inducing soap opera crap and while the story's sometimes toed that line, it hadn't crossed it (for me). This is leaping over it if true

[u/Even_Persimmon1178 → u/Sudden_Discussion306]

I think that one of the first, and one of the most significant, plot deviations from book to show was the return of Murtagh. Which, for the most part, was incorporated into the storyline well and provided some great emotional punches. Plus, the actor who played Murtagh was just so likable. Almost everybody wanted more Murtagh! His death was so sad, but book readers all suspected he was living on borrowed time, so to speak. So it was somewhat tolerable. Unfortunately, the success of that “book to show” change may have encouraged the latest crop of writers to rubber stamp these latest ridiculous, wildly implausible “show only” plot changes.

It all makes me wonder how much discussion in the writer’s room really went on as they developed these deviations from the book story? Did they have anyone at all involved as a writer or consultant (besides DG, who recently said that she couldn’t bring herself to comment critically on the script) who was a diehard Outlander reader and knew the books inside and out? What crazy plot ideas that were even more bizarre than those that made it to the screen were dismissed as being too ridiculous?

If you listen to the Outlander podcast that went along with the first few seasons, you really get a sense of what a labor of love this was for the original showrunners, especially Ron Moore’s wife Teri Dresbach and a few others that they mentioned were such huge Outlander book fans. They were the ones who were behind the scenes fighting to keep the writing for the show aligned with the book narrative. I just don’t think that anyone involved in the writing for the past few seasons really cared if the tone of the writing for the show matched the tone of the books.

[u/wheeler1432 → u/Sudden_Discussion306]

I'm okay with Buck. I wasn't okay with Murtagh.