ScotchnSoda

Is Sam wearing earrings and lipstick ? For some filming or what ?

Hello Daisy, Glade and Avaleigh. I discovered the show and raced thru the book during the mid-season break. But, I didn't have anyone to share the experience with. I hope it is OK to follow along with you. Just finished reviewing Chapters 1 & 2. Loved reading your comments as the details unfolded. As for me, I discovering little details that may have connection to the future. This time around, I noticed that On last pg, Chap 2, Claire emerges thru the stones and " crawled toward a stand of oak saplings . . . to steady (herself)". Just for fun, I wonder if in some future reference to Craigh na Dun, those saplings are giant oak trees ?

To all my Outlander "sisters", YES, YES, YES ! I'm rejoicing to join the chorus of your accolades for S2,Ep4 ! At last we have real emotions from our wonderful cast, and in my opinion, it's because we are at last (or at least until Ep6) rid of Metin Huseyin (the director of Ep1-3). He directed S1's "The Watch" and "The Search", not among my S1 favorites. And the - how to say it ? - "flatness" of every bit of the 18th century S2,Eps1-3 must IMO be placed at Huseyin's doorstep. Given the decisions of S1, the writers of S2,Eps 1-3 have been wonderful in conveying tons of info, both structural and emotional. Goodness me, we had Ron Moore, Ira Stephen Behr and Anne Kenny writing the words! No. I can't shake the feeling that Huseyin just doesn't get the soul-deep (even eternal) bond between Claire and Jamie. And worse yet, he didn't take advantage of the truly collaborative relationship between Cait and Sam. Both are eminently capababe of conveying the growing coolness, loss of footing and aloneness that Claire and Jamie were feeling. But, I believe Cait and Sam instinctively could have portrayed these feelings with something more wordlessly communicative than blank eyes and sullen looks. Given directional "gracious space" the distance between their characters could have been imbued - by body language, tone of voice or gaze of eye - with a sorely missed nuance of Claire and Jamie's ever abiding and visceral need for one another. So, the disappointment and, even, dread I was beginning to feel have been washed away, and I'm thrilled that the Outlander TV program I fell in love with has "come back to me" (and to us) !!

Thank you, Archery. I have so loved being part of this Otlander sisterhood, but lately I was feeling very much out of the mainstream. I loved this episode. To me the structure was perfect for two reasons: it included time travel and it got back to Frank. I don't really get the Reason so many fans don't like Frank. I think of him as a necessary catalyst to the entire Claire-Jamie story. Claire had no reason to be in Scotland if not for being with Frank for his genealogy search. It was Frank who encouraged her study of botany; he understood her independent nature, even supporting her when she went to the front line field hospital ; later he enabled her to continue her medical studies and took over the day care of young Bree; and many other examples. I've only read A couple of the books, but they are filed with Claire's loving references to Frank. So much so, that Jamie sends her and his unborn child to The safety and care of Frank. The biggest Jamie-Claire fight was her fear that Jamie's actions might have bad repercussions on Frank. Why can't we fans be as appreciative as Jamie is that there was and is a Frank in Claires life?

Rosie Day; another "Friend of Sam" ?! Like Laura Donnelly, Rosie was in Sam's Norwegian movie,"Heart of Lightness". Hey, speaking of that movie, does anyone know if it will be released in the U.S. , or is otherwise available to view?

Thank you, CHOCOLATETRUFFLE . You said perfectly what I meant.

ULKIS SAID: "I mean, to be honest, a lot of this stuff doesn't bother me because it's fiction. That's pretty much it. I know that leads into a larger what is okay and what is not to show and what has consequences, etc etc, but just for me, personally that is the answer for why doesn't a lot of the stuff in the book/show bother me. . . . People have different standards for fiction." ______________________________ end of quote. Well said, ULKIS. Thank you. And may I add, fiction has intrinsic value. Libraries, museums and film archives are full of art that depicts horrible events. Should we question the motives, self-restraint or political correctness of those who create the art or those who appreciate it? I, for one, am grateful that art allows me to vicariously experience the the entire spectrum - good and bad - of the human condition. We rarely question art being too sunny. Oh, maybe we call it light-weight or Pollyanna-ish. But we don't wonder how anyone can actually "enjoy" it. IMHO, brutal depiction of what humans do to one another helps build empathy and outrage. And these emotions, more than any others, stimulate us to take a stand . . . maybe even try to address the actions versus wanting to view such realities in soft focus. As importantly, the realistic depiction of assault and aftermath honors both the survivors and those who did not survive.

Okay . . . Starting with Nodorothyparker's comment regarding her enjoyment of the first 8 being greater than that of the recent 6, and most every one of your (the collectives) follow-up comments . . . I wholeheartedly agree (even with the contradictions) ! In re the first 8: I loved all the additions/ changes made, with only one really huge exception. I will never cease lamenting the omission of the "honesty oath" during the wedding scenes. It was the only oath Claire made that day that she meant to keep. It revealed so beautifully Jamie!s honor code. Truth is rarer than love or lust, commitment or obediance. Truth precedes trust, and together truth and trust make the unfathonable, believable and the unendurable, bearable. What a missed opportunity for the show ! In re the second half (6 so far): The stones! Oh, those blasted stones! So many ways to show (pun intended) the agony of the decision each one made for his/her love of the other. Instead, we got a cheap "fade to black". Where was the eloquence to pierce our hearts? The depiction of the strength that will carry them - together and separately - through the travails of life? Woe is us for having been so denied ! Lastly, regarding the contradictions: for me, the contradictions make the books and the show intriguing; provocative, if you will. I get all kinds of emotional: disgusted, happy, confused, satisfied, sad, judgmental, afraid, cozy. I get all kinds of involved, too. I rewrite, in my head, things I want to be different. I speculate, and love all your speculations, on what's coming. And, I look forward to Saturday night. In short, I'm feeling vastly entertained.

I have started on this post a number of times, but am finding it difficult to articulate what are merely a series of personal impressions. To most of you, I am sure it is remarkable that I never focused on what has been called out as consistently unsavory depictions of homosexual characters. For one thing, in the show (and then when I read books 1-3 during the hiatus) the first two times BJR sexually assaulted another's person was first with Claire, then with Jenny (as written; in reverse order chronologically). He may indeed be a homosexual, but his evilness arises from his cruelty not his sexual orientation. At the time Jamie tells Claire how BJR propositioned him, he also tells her how he came to have Alexander MacGregor's bible, and that he intended someday to avenge MacGregor's suicide. Later, at the Abby, when Jamie tell's Claire that BJR had called him Alex, I took it as a reference to MacGregor. I imagined that any human being - even a sadist like BJR - must find it unbearable to accept that Alex would rather kill himself than live with the repulsion and self-loathing he felt for having engaged with BJR. For me, BJR calling Jamie "Alex" is his way of revising history. He is reliving his encounter with Alex and wanting a different ending; i.e. Alex's love. When Alexander Randall is introduced in book 2, I saw Alex as the younger brother whose love (despite his knowing BJR's true nature) was unconditional and the only redemption in BJR's hellish existence. I didn't then, and still can't now, read incestuous inclinations in what seems to be reciprocal brotherly love. Also (now that I'm on a roll, might as well get it all out of my system) Jamie's desire to revenge Alex, his offer to take Leery's punishment, his connection to Claire (a stranger who seems to have lost everything) and his desire to prevent her from falling into BJR's hands all stem from his empathy. Not many people feel, much less act on, empathy.

As to Jamie's and Claire's age difference: the show story started in October whereas the book story started in May. There is a 6-month difference which accounts that she is 27 and 28 during the 12-mo period he is 23. This difference in start dates also impacts the seasons of the show. The Wentworth book story derives a lot of drama because of the snow and bitter cold. And the Abby scenes were in winter, too, making for the delight of the warm spring scene. Wonder how the show episodes will depict these events.

Speaking of Sam tapping his fingers . . . What about Jamie's habit of running his fingers thru his hair and, in Book Claire's words, making it "stand straight out" ? I miss that one.

Some surprises I like; others not so much. In this case, all I can say is "Thank you, SpiritSong, for taking the words right out of my reluctant mouth!".

By George, I think you've got it! Somewhere along the line I have read speculation that the Abby location in the show will be in Scotland, rather than in France. If that is true, then the boat scene that Caitriona thought was so romantic would be of a physically and psychologically healed Jamie. He and Claire are sailing off to France to begin their efforts to prevent Culloden. Could be . . .?

Please pardon the interruption to the topic under current discussion, but I desperately need would your opinions on Season 2. Does anyone out there believe (or even hope) that there is even a teeny, tiny chance that season 2 will skip the 20th century Part 1 of Dragonfly in Amber and start directly with Claire's "Bread" scene - pregnant and with morning sickness in Le Harve? I'm really hoping that we can skip the whole 50yr old Claire and grown Brianna intro. It was a good hook for the stand-alone book, but maybe not for a television series that has so many of us reader/watchers and non-book readers wanting to see the story of Claire and Jamie continue, not to mention the political build up of the Rising. I fear that trying to make our beautiful Claire and Jamie look 20 years older/younger in such a short period of time would be jarring, and beg for nit-picking. Season 3 could pick-up Claire's return to 1948, the excellent scenes at the hospital, Frank and Claire's struggle, all the while interspersed with Jamie waking up "dead", the 18 Scot officers holed up in the little house, Hal (what's his name) honoring his brother, John's debt of honor. Now we could continue with parallel stories and only switch back & forth in geography. Now scenes of life in Boston, disastrous dinner but in a more linear story-telling fashion. Then scenes of life in Boston, little red-haired girl growing up, Claire wanting to become a Dr. etc, interspersed with Jenny tending Jamie's injuries, 7-yrs in a cave, etc. This way we get to Inverness 1968 more "organically". DIA part I can be added to the front of Voyaager chap 2 etc. An added bonus would be that the current actors can undergo some subtle aging and once we get to 20yrs later, they age naturally thereafter. Also, Brianna and Roger would not have to be cast until later. I'm sure you see my drift. If it's just me, tell me to get over it.

For me, If we weren't having this breadth of responses, then it wouldn't have been a good show. We are really invested, and that's a good thing. A show that fulfills every expectation, incites no visceral emotions, prompts no reflection - is a waste of time. I enjoyed it; even the parts that I didn't particularly like. We, readers and viewers alike, have a much broader world view than any of the characters in this story. But, Jamie's world view reflects the only one that matters in this case, the microcosm that is this story's setting, as it has been presented to us. Jamie recognized that the only way to remove the shame that had accrued to Claire in the eyes of the clansmen was to punish her in a way the clansmen would recognize as justice. Did you see her face when she realized she was invisible to them? That look was pure hurt from the heart. So, this event had to be portrayed, and it succeeded better than I could have imagined. It restored Claire's place in the society she finds herself in, at this moment. What life could she continue to have if the clan came to view her as a danger to their way of life? Shunning would be the least of it. The physical struggle between Claire and Jamie was a dramatic depiction of the internal fury of their respective emotions (and ours). If Claire had just meekly bent over, it would have destroyed her spirit. If Jamie had whipped the woman he loves in that pitiful state, it would have destroyed his self respect. This was a crisis that could have destroyed them both. Instead it helped their relationship move forward. Heretofore, their sexual pleasure with one another served as a respite from the harsh realities of their individual situations. The repercussions of this event helped Jamie realize that his love for Claire is not enough, and he begins to understand how to love her as she needs to be loved. And in turn, Claire realizes that what she feels for Jamie is more than lust, and she begins to acknowledge her love for him.