AD55

I just reread all of the comments and liked a bunch of them. You all have said pretty much everything there is to say, but a few random thoughts: Agree to infinity and beyond with all who praised the acting. I was speechless. It's a shame that this kind of show seldom receives Emmy nominations. I thought Claire hearing Jamie scream was a shout out to his hearing her at Fort William. I didn't think I could love Murtagh more, but damn. I thought Murtagh carried Cait, not so much because she couldn't walk but because he felt helpless and needed to do something for her. I do think the episode teeter-tottered on the edge of torture porn. No doubt that the camera lingered unnecessarily long over the worst parts. For me, what rescues it is that movie/TV violence has become so cartoonish (<cough> Game of Thrones <cough>) that we're inured to it Violence should be disturbing. Full disclosure, I really like Spartacus, GofT, Vikings, etc, but I appreciate that Outlander is doing something different. I haven't sorted out my feelings on this, but I think what distinguishes Outlander is that we are shown the effects of violence -- on the subject of it, the loved ones, and even the perpetrator. We should care that people are being hurt and not just find the violence icky. I can understand why people who were hoping for more politics and social commentary are disappointed. When Gabaldon treats historical stuff, it's almost always a MacGuffin used to further the love story. I also have to acknowledge there is a Perils of Pauline/Paul element to Outlander. I'm not bothered by this – I'm in it for the love story -- but I probably would be if I'd signed on for something else. Since it has come up in this thread, I will say that I find Jamie's arousal during the rape to be improbable if not downright ludicrous. That's not because I don't believe it happens. It's because I don't think anyone as severely injured as Jamie could be aroused by anything. I broke my arm once and then had surgery on it. It wasn't nearly as serious as what Jamie endured, but once the nurse was late with the pain medication, and it felt like someone was holding a blowtorch under my arm. Sam Heughan could have walked into the room stark naked and I wouldn't have cared unless he was carrying a hypodermic needle loaded with morphine, but I'm supposed to believe a man whose hand has been hammered and nailed to a wooden table (“Holy Christian imagery, Batman!”) can get it up while being buggered by a vicious sadist. I do think that Claire is a Mary Sue character, but I'm taking my thoughts on that to the unpopular opinions thread.

The forced/arranged marriage in which the couple falls in love after the wedding is a common trope of historical romance fiction. Over the course of the novel, the couple gradually comes to know each other and fall in love. Ron Moore probably isn't aware of this, so I doubt he's being intentionally misleading.

I read that, too, but there's a difference between fit/muscular and muscle bound. DG prides herself on historical accuracy, but if she suggested that Jamie had the same physique as someone who spends hours a day at a gym, she's full of it. I thought Sam looked fine in the wedding scene, though probably still more bulked up than even the most sculpted eighteenth-century man would have been. Clearly, I am not obsessed either. ETA. It's ridiculous that I'm fixated on this one thing since there's very little about Jamie Frasier that is remotely realistic. He's a figure of fantasy and that's fine by me. My particular fantasy just doesn't run to bulging pecs and triceps.

I liked all the scenes in The Wedding as well, especially the one between Jamie and my man Murtagh. My primary reason for wishing it had been shortened is that it would have made room for other scenes showing the development of J&C's relationship. Mileage definitely varies for this series when it comes to which parts could be cut or shortened to free up time for other scenes such as Claire's choice at the stones. I think my opinion of it may also be swayed a bit by accusations from non-book fans that the show is mainly a protracted love affair. I don't feel that way and frankly, wouldn't care if it were. There are few enough shows that portray the arc of a relationship between two mature adults. Surely we can have one.

This. In fact, I even wonder if the fact that Jenny expressing milk was not sexualized is the problem for the people who decided to cut that scene from the Canadian version. They're supposed to be just for sex, dammit. We don't want to know they have a use other than to cause sexual arousal.

I like that, too. As someone who has given birth and also rides horses, I can say that while I think it would be very uncomfortable to ride so soon after giving birth, it wouldn't be so painful that you couldn't do it if necessary. It could just be that I'm a fast healer -- I was only uncomfortable the first day -- but I assume Jenny is, too. I don't like to comment on the actors' bodies, but since how much Sam works out is a matter of choice or something demanded by the show runners, I will say that I hated Sam's body at the mill. I should probably post this in the unpopular opinion thread, but I thought he looked muscle bound, not to mention the continuity issue. I'm just not a fan of the big neck look. It was also anachronistic, not that anybody in TV or movies worries about that when it comes to body sculpting. I suppose Sam's body at the wedding probably was as well, but at least it was somewhat believable that a person who is that active would look nice with his clothes off. That said, I live in a place where there are a lot of farms owned by hard-working folks. Few of them have bodies like TV Jamie's.

Proceeding under the assumption that in the unpopular opinion thread, you can respond with a counter opinion to the unpopular opinion, I will say that I like Jamie's hair, especially in the Lallybroch episode. If I object to anything, it's that it's not ugly and unkempt enough for the period. Claire's hair and her flawlessly clean face in the Search bothered me even more. My hair doesn't look that good after I've showered and blown it dry in the morning. Admittedly, I suck at blowing my hair dry, but still. Since I'm in this thread, I may as well go all in and say that The Search may be my favorite episode so far. I pretty much loved everything about it, including the road trip, which didn't feel too long to me. I thought it told us a good deal about Claire and Murtagh and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. In retrospect, if there's an episode that wasted time that could have been devoted to other things, I think it was The Wedding. Sure, it was great to see Jamie and Claire get it on repeatedly and I enjoyed Jamie's 3 conditions -- 4 if you count Murtagh locating a kilt with the Fraser colors -- but if it had been shorter, there would have been time to develop Jamie and Claire's relationship post-wedding. I think that would have helped those, esp. non-book readers, who felt that the show didn't do a good enough job of showing the development of their relationship prior to the first rape scene.

According to Wikipedia, my source for all things historical may it be ever so flawed, the use of Americus began during the Spanish conquests and originally referred to South America. Evidently, it came to be applied to the rest of the continent. The British anglicize everything, which I'm guessing explains the use of the Americas. In the same way that India was still called India even when it became a British colony, the Americas were likely called by the name that was in use before large swaths became part of the British empire. I also like Claire's anachronisms. I noticed that Murtagh used jazz later in the episode. In the non-book thread, folks are saying that Claire was her usual irresponsibly impulsive self in this episode, and Murtagh suggests that their failure to find Jamie was her fault. While it wasn't prudent of her to give the gypsies the money, I can't otherwise figure out why Murtagh was so pissed off at her. It wasn't her fault that the gypsies stole their routines, making it less likely that Jamie would be able to follow their trail. I guess if she gave them all the money they had, it meant that she and Murtagh wouldn't be able to buy food or grain for the horses, but they seemed to be making a tidy sum from the performances and there's always rabbit on a spit.

I thought she was adorable. She looked much younger than she usually does, probably because the clothes gave her a boyish aspect and she had to appear lighthearted while performing. I'm sorry that's the last we'll see of winsome Claire, at least this season and maybe ever. I can recall moments of contentment and sometimes even joy in the books, though they're few and far between, but for the most part, no one ever looks happy simply to be alive. I realize that life is serious business in the 1700s, but I hope we see more of those moments in the series. I checked the book, and you're right that Rupert volunteers right away and persuades 4 other men to follow him. That does seem like an unfortunate change, though I did like seeing Willy behave heroically after his guilt over losing track of Claire. He tries so hard to do the right thing -- obeying Colum when he demands the Jacobite money and laying down his life for Jamie. Realistically, there's no chance any of them will survive.

I loved this episode. Claire and Jenny are great together -- I'm going to miss Laura Donnelly. I'm a big fan of Murtagh and of road trips. Glad we got to see Claire and Murtagh become close. Duncan is a joy to watch, and they were both fantastic in the cave scene. I love the way Claire transforms from a reluctant performer to a ham. I don't think I would have been able to sing different lyrics to a tune I know very well. Possibly my favorite line: "Stop quoting the bible. It doesn't suit you." I thought that Claire and Jenny's willingness to kill the redcoat, even though Murtagh conveniently turned up to perform the dirty, might substitute for Claire killing that teenager during the escape from Wentworth. But when Jenny handed Claire the knife, I realized Moore plans to film it. I hate that scene and am sorry it won't be cut. For some reason, I'm not bothered by the brevity of the Lallybroch interlude. I enjoyed it in the book, but I think it would have seriously messed up the pacing and been kind of claustrophobic if they'd attenuated Jamie and Claire's stay there. When Murtagh says, "he's a son to me," I didn't take that to mean he is Jamie's father -- just that he loves him like a son. I've heard people say things like "she's my daughter" without their meaning to declare their paternity.

Very thoughtful post. All I can say is that you must be truly frghtening when you are able to articulate what you're feeling/thinking. ;)

In all honesty, I don't know when Gabaldon began stating that Jack Randall is an equal opportunity sadist. I discovered the books about 3 years ago and only began reading interviews with her when the series was announced. I can only say what my interpretation of the books is as a reader. I'm less concerned with the incest plot, which always struck me as a kind of throwaway, than what I personally see as negative stereotyping of gay men. It goes without saying that this is just my opinion.

I'm sure I'm being dense -- probably because my memory of the details of future books is woefully inadequate -- but I don't follow your argument. Doesn't the fact that DG doesn't change the name in book 2 mean that she always intended that readers view Jack's love for his brother as incestuous? I still maintain that she's engaging in revisionist history, if not with respect to the incest angle, then at least in terms of having created a character who fits the stereotype of the predatory gay man. As I recall, Jack can't get it up with either Claire or Jenny. He only succeeds with Jamie and Fergus. I continue to think that her special pleading has to do with the criticism she encountered. On a somewhat unrelated note, it would be nice if every straight woman and gay man in Outlander world wasn't attracted to Jamie. I mean, I know he's hot and all, but surely, there are a handful of people who can resist his charms.

This is how I interpreted it, too, though I can understand that non-book readers might not see it that way. As I recall, the book has Jenny provoking Ian to beat her so that he'll feel manly. That's just as disgusting as those who think a woman wearing what some think is provocative clothing is an invitation to rape. I'm really glad they cut that.

This. A thousand times this.

Viewers may know what happened to many career women after the war, but Claire didn't. We don't know that Claire and Frank had the talk, "so, darling, you will have to give up nursing and host garden parties for the other tutors and their wives." If Frank was inclined to be draconian, perhaps Claire would have convinced him otherwise. (Jamie can be pretty draconian himself.) I think the show does depict conflicts between Frank and Claire -- his wanting to pull strings when she is posted to the front, their awkwardness with one another, her boredom at his interests. I think of Frank and Claire as decent people who might have made a go of their marriage, even if it wasn't ideal. In some ways, that's a more realistic view of marriage than the endless honeymoon of Jamie and Claire. Don't get me wrong -- that fantasy is one of the charms of the books and I really enjoy it. I just don't find it all that realistic. I've always thought that Frank's infidelity in the books was largely motivated by his living with a woman who disappeared for a lengthy period of time, came back pregnant, and no longer loves him. Perhaps he should have divorced her -- Claire makes it clear that she is not only willing to let him go but is indifferent to what he does. I don't know why he didn't. I'm pretty sure I would have. I've never found his falling immediately in love with Brianna to be all that convincing. ETA. Just to clarify, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say. It's more that I think that the show does depict the cracks in Frank and Claire's marriage, even though it's more subtle than the books.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of her situation at that precise moment, but it makes perfect sense. Claire was probably still in shock. I recall that line where she says she knows that Jamie is worried about her, but she is afraid to talk to him. I assumed it was because she was worried she would blurt out the story of how she got to Scotland. Running away from danger also means returning to someone who knows who she is. Staying with Jamie is a more tenable choice once she no longer has to lie to him.

I'm sorry AD55, I know you mean 1740s, right? I promise, last time I correct ye! :P Feel free to correct me anytime I mess up. I edited my post.

I also don't think the development of Frank and Claire's relationship detracts from Claire's decision to stay with Jamie. If Frank is a nonentity as he is in the book, then the decision is a no brainer. As I think someone already mentioned in this thread or another, it's possible to exaggerate how safe and secure the 1940s would seem to Claire. She just survived the bloodiest war in history -- one that included the dropping of the atom bomb, the Holocaust, and the Battle of Britain. Scotland in the 1740s might have looked like a walk in the park by comparison. The book emphasizes the hot baths and toilet paper, but I think the savagery of the modern world might also have given Claire pause.

I've always wished Outlander did more with the time travel plot, mainly because I'm a fan of stories that mess with time. In the first book, at least, it's just a device to get Claire to the eighteenth century. I've read that DG needed an explanation for why Claire speaks like a modern woman. I recently attended a conference with a friend who loves the TV series but hasn't read the book. It was hard enough keeping my mouth shut, but the main problem was that I don't have a poker face. Each time she speculated wrongly, I tried to look blank -- without much success.

First, count me amongst those who miss Murtagh. I find Duncan Lecroix incredibly sexy. That voice! I loved this episode. It may be my favorite thus far, though I also really like The Gathering. As I think about it, the episodes have something in common. Both have moments of heightened stress and suspense, but what I love about both is how character-driven they are. I agree with all of WatchrTina's "checks" -- Sam got to show his range. As someone said, I can see why this is his favorite episode. He's wonderful in every scene. I have liked Laura Donnelly ever since I saw her in an episode of Merlin. Usually, I roll my eyes at "birthing" scenes. They're so over the top. She got it just right. I thought Cait was terrific, too. One of my favorite moments is when Jenny says, "damn you, Claire," and Claire responds in a bland nursey voice, "yes, damn me." I come from a family of nurses and no one does matter-of-fact compassion better than a good nurse. I love when Cait gets to interact with other women. Petunia846 is so right about Book Jenny's description of pregnancy. I cringed when Laura Donnelly launched into it, but it was fine. I agree that the book setting made it creepier. Plus, I always pictured Jenny acting superior and smug during that icky line about men wanting to crawl back inside their mothers or whatever. Laura played that with an air of wonderment and love that I thought was really effective. I also think that scene went on way too long in the book. Other than the parting scene, the episode was free of sexy moments between Jamie and Claire and yet they seemed closer to me -- like a real married couple -- than they have in past episodes. Also loved the scene when Ian kills Horrocks. The bond between the men and their understanding of and respect for each other's differences were palpable. Both actors were amazing. Can't wait to see Claire and Jenny's road trip. A question about the missing Murtagh. When does he show up in the book? I don't recall him being at Lollybroch. Does he arrive with a U-Haul soon after Jamie and Claire's return? If so, I can understand why he's not in the episode. He surely would have accompanied Jamie and Ian on the raid, which would have required Moore et al to explain how he and Ian both got away. Murtagh would never have left Jamie. ETA. I just read a comment in the no book thread from someone who pointed out that the secondary characters are much more nuanced than the principals even though they have many fewer scenes. Claire, esp. book Claire, is obviously a Mary Sue character and Jamie is the stereotypical romance novel hero. In the past two episodes, however, I think the writers have succeeded in making them more complex. Jamie especially seems more flawed, which is a good thing. And finally, an episode with only one tiny bit of voiceover. I hope this trend continues. With one or two exceptions I find them irritating and unnecessary. Did we really need internal dialogue Claire telling us she is worried that Jamie won't return? Are the viewers such dolts that her staring down the road and talking to Jenny about it weren't enough?

I agree. Granted, I'm not attached to the books the way others are, but FWIW, TV is a different medium. Moore has said, and I think he's right, that an episode has to have an arc -- a beginning, middle, and end. It makes sense that he would begin with the fight between Jamie and Jenny and end with their reconciliation. In between, we have the progression from Jamie trying to be someone he is not to gradually coming round to realizing that being laird doesn't mean disregarding the opinions of others. With a few quibbles, I've liked the series more the book. That huge fight between Jenny and Jamie, with her grabbing his balls, never rang true for me. It portrayed both of them as unreasonable hysterics, which neither of them is. I don't recall if Jenny's skepticism about Claire in the book stems in part from her being English, but if not, I think that change makes sense. It also rings true to me in the context -- Jamie is lecturing Jenny about being a fallen woman (really, Jamie?), but he's brought some unidentified woman home. If news of Jamie's marriage didn't make its way to Lollybroch along with the trunk or even if it did, Jenny might be getting a little of her own back in matching her brother in the jumping to conclusions department.

There is evidence that Randall is coded gay -- he can't get it up with Jenny, he asks her repeatedly to turn around, he is attracted to Jamie. Rape isn't about sex but about power. He should get off on her fear. It's only when he is unable to perform that she laughs at him. Notably, he tries to blackmail Jamie into being a willing participant, though obviously consent is impossible under such a threat. I think the show is flirting dangerously with the stereotype of the predatory gay man. Just my opinion, but I believe that's what is insulting to gays. Sandringham, though in a much milder way, is also portrayed as predatory -- in the context of the show there is the implication that he uses his status and power to manipulate; Murtagh and others suggest that the only way to avoid his attentions is to stay away from him. While it's possible that in subsequent episodes we'll discover that Randall isn't gay, thus far, I do think this is more than implied.

I agree. I wish they had made explicit that Jamie saw evidence that the stones are magic, but I agree that the show has made an effort to present his trust in Claire as plausible. We've seen that belief in time travel has filtered through to the twentieth century. Jamie has been presented as someone who has am ambivalent relationship to magic -- he's an educated man who doesn't believe in mocking Satan in his own kirk (paraphrasing), he describes the changeling incident to Claire as though it exists only to comfort the parents, but if he really thought that was entirely the case, you'd think a protective guy like Jamie would be running around the woods rescuing babies in his spare time. When he asked Claire if she was a witch, I wasn't sure if he believes in witches or simply that some people practice witchcraft, which isn't necessarily the same thing. Did he think the ill wish had efficacy or was he just upset that someone wished Claire and him harm? I'm willing to accept that within the contours of the show, Jamie's ambivalence about folk beliefs inclines him to trust Claire. He loves her, knows she has a mysterious past, and is invested in trusting her. Those are potent reasons. I think that Jamie believes Claire did choose to stay, as opposed to being forced to because the stones didn't work. He's seen some evidence that she is terrible at dissembling, and he knows she is at least fond of him. I doubt he considers that she is lying, even if only in a passive (I'll let him make of this what he will.) way.

Based on the interviews I've watched, Moore et al are planning to film Wentworth in all its horrific glory. DG has said she's never seen such brave performances from two actors. In interviews, Moore reported that they didn't feel they could shy away from those scenes. They've filmed the other violent assaults as flashbacks as the characters relate what's happened. I'm not looking forward to it. The homophobia bothers me more than anything -- the predatory gay man is a damaging cliche, and I do think we're meant to think of Randall as gay since he can't perform when he's trying to rape Claire and Jenny. He's not just turned on by violence because he rapes Jamie even though Jamie doesn't fight back. Someone in the no book thread mentioned that Outlander has 2 stereotyped gay men -- the prancing Duke of Sandringham whom we know has pursued young men who aren't interested and Black Jack. I've always suspected that DG created Lord John in response to critics who took her to task for her appalling portrayals of gay men. Moore has mentioned that both Frank and Black Jack have been traumatized by war, and he has BJ tell the story of the young soldier who was beheaded, which I don't think is in the book. I don't recall any hint that either man suffers from PTSD in the book. I think that was Moore trying to find a rationale for BJ's violence other than his being a psychopathic gay man.