AD55

When I first heard there would be a midseason break, I assumed episode 8 would end with Jamie leaving Claire staring at the stones. By about episode 4, I realized they hadn't left time for that and figured they would end with Claire kidnapped by Randall. ETA. In Outlander world, eventually every female character is either raped or threatened with rape. I don't think the series is any worse in this regard -- the truncated format just makes it seem worse. I don't see how the showrunners could have cut any of the rapes, though they might have avoided two attempted rapes in one episode, as DG sets up the book so that the plot revolves around these incidents. It drives me crazy in the books and it's what I dislike most about the series.

I agree. I immediately thought of Mrs. Graham's reading when I first watched that scene and assumed the reference was intentional on the part of Cait or the director or both.

This is both hilarious and reflects my exact feelings about Jamie. From about midway through Voyager, I find him increasingly unappealing. I do like Roger, and I'm also among the tiny few who have a fondness for William. I grant he's annoying, but it's not easy to accept that everyone you're close to has been lying to you. Discovering that your father by blood is leading the opposition can't be easy -- he doesn't belong anywhere and that's a hard thing to accept when you're young. I keep wondering if he will give up the earldom (?). Roger and William are both deeply flawed and loaded with self-doubt, which I find more attractive than Jamie's confidence that he's always in the right or, at least, that being a man means acting as though you think you are. I hope that Sam's Jamie continues to be less cocksure of himself, though I'm not overly hopeful since Moore has embraced Jamie as the "king of men."

Oops, must have been a Freudian slip. :)

I have a question. I've read a couple of reviews by non-book readers who complimented the writers for making Claire's choice ambiguous -- ie, did she return to Jamie because she chose to or because the magic didn't work? As a book reader, I have criticized the scene for being unclear on that score when the book is not. I can see, however, that this adds another dimension to the show for those who aren't familiar with the books. That's not necessarily a bad thing. When I saw the Kubrick adaptation of The Shining, I was so terrified that I asked my book-reading date to tell me how it ended. He replied, I'm trying to keep an open mind since this way of playing the scene seems to have worked for at least some non-book readers. I don't think Caitriona and Sam play the last scene in a way that suggests Claire finds herself stuck in 1743: "Bollocks, the magic didn't work. At least the sex is hot!" On the other hand, the ambiguity, if it exists, might add something to the remaining episodes as viewers witness Claire's devotion to Jamie and her heroism in mounting a rescue mission. It also takes book readers out of their comfort zone, which I like in principle. One problem with watching an adaptation is there are usually few or no surprises, and I love surprises. What do other folks think?

Oh please, do repeat yourself. Romance novels are not for everyone -- there are genres I don't like either -- but the form is often unfairly maligned because it is mainly written and read by women. At least, that's the stereotype. The reality is more complicated. I know people who don't like mystery novels, but you don't hear a lot of them speaking of the whole genre with disdain -- that contempt is mainly reserved for romance novels. IMO, Gabaldon distances herself from the genre because she thinks she won't be taken seriously if she is considered a romance novelist. She's not wrong about that, but that doesn't alter the fact that her novels meet the main criteria of the romance novel: primary focus is on a hero and heroine (or hero-hero, vampire-human, etc), the two face seemingly insurmountable impediments (class, family, different species, come from different centuries) to their union, the barriers are eventually overcome. Gabaldon says that the Outlander books can't be romances because romances always end with a marriage and her novels give us the history of a long marriage. That's wrong on at least two counts. First, the forced-marriage plot is a staple of the historical romance -- Outlander obviously fits into that category. Second, Outlander is actually the exception that proves the rule. The continuation of the series depends on the separation and reunion of Jamie and Claire being repeated over and over: Claire has to return to the future, Jamie is kidnapped, Claire is kidnapped, one of them nearly dies, one of them is believed dead, Claire has to reaffirm her commitment to staying in the eighteenth century, etc, etc. That Gabaldon is retelling the tale with the same couple rather than creating a new one each time doesn't mean she's writing in an entirely different genre. Part of the problem is that she and others define romance novels in very narrow terms when the fact is there is huge variation within the form. Again, I have no problem at all with anyone who loathes romance novels. As with any genre, personal taste prevails. A lot of them are poorly written, but that's true of all genres. My main issues are that the novels are considered a low form of writing and that people will sometimes defend their affection for a particular book by placing it in opposition to the romance novel. The argument goes something like this: I hate romance novels. I like [fill in the name of the novel the person likes]. Ergo, the aforementioned novel is not a romance. This is right up there with, "I'm not a feminist, but I am in favor of equal rights for women." I need to work out more. I just twisted an ankle descending from that soapbox.

That didn't ring true for me either, especially given that in later books Jamie is generally pretty comfortable with vigilante justice. I thought Ned's desire to lessen the repercussions of the rescue effort was a more convincing rationale.

A thousand times this! I got sucked into the series and I seem to be in it for the long haul because I want to know how the various characters' stories play out, but I give myself permission to skim read or even skip huge swathes altogether. DG hasn't learned the cardinal rule that unless a detail moves the story along, it needs to be cut. I find myself cursing her editor, but I also sympathize with her/him. It would take a pretty gutsy soul to tell a bestselling author with an outsized ego that she needs to cut text. It's a shame because the result would be tighter, more focused books. I also think that eliminating the chaff would improve DG's writing overall. The clichés and purple prose might be more obvious to her if she were encouraged to be more precise and concise in her writing. As to the changes between text and screen, I'm mainly fine with the ones Moore has made. Books and TV have different storytelling conventions. JMO, but I generally think that Moore has done a good job of balancing fidelity to the text with the differing dramatic requirements of series television. In many instances, I think he's improved on the books. I have quibbles now and then, but I prefer his approach to the reverential adaptations we sometimes see on film and television. I like TV Claire much more than I do book Claire, and I think TV Jamie is a more complex and interesting character. That may be more down to the actors than to the writing, since Moore hasn't actually changed that much with respect to their characters. He's done a lot to enrich the secondary characters such as Frank, Dougal, and Murtagh. All of this is just my opinion, of course. Mileage obviously varies when it comes to the creative choices adaptors are forced to make.

From what Jamie told Claire, I got the impression that the primary function of this custom is it allows the parents of a dying child a way to make peace with their loss. When the supposed changeling child inevitably dies, the parents can take comfort in knowing their own child is living the high life among the fairies. Ned reminds the mother of this in court, and the actress played the scene as though she accepted his suggestion she owes Claire a debt for ensuring that the magic didn't work.

Murtagh compares Claire to a melted candle when he hauls her out of bed the morning of her wedding. I had to watch the episode several times -- just for the dialogue, mind you -- before I caught it. ;)

Honesty requires that I credit the estimable Murtagh for the phrase "melted candle."

Maybe Jamie will let her off the hook because she believed in the love potion and thus actually does think Claire is a witch. "Christ Almighty, Claire, what were you thinking giving an impressionable melted candle like Laoghaire a love potion?" Count me among those who find it absurd that Claire neglected to tell Jamie that Laoghaire sold her out. I don't care how many years had passed, I am sure I would have found occasion -- sometime in between discussions of our favorite books and movies -- to tell my husband the little bitch he flirted with almost got me killed.

I've now watched this episode 3 times, and I don't find Claire's behavior at the trial to be that dumb or rash. I suppose she could have lied when Laoghaire testified about the love potion, but that would have been out of character. There wouldn't have been any point in her lying about the changeling child since there were witnesses. In any event, her outbursts didn't strike me as being harmful to her case -- looking sober and reserved would have been just as damning and it was clear that she was going to be found guilty. I realize I'm in the minority in this, and perhaps I'm projecting as I can see myself losing it in similar circumstances. Claire has a finely honed sense of justice and her indignation at being accused by people whom she has tried to help doesn't seem all that strange. I wouldn't expect her to be calculated. The more I see this episode, the more I like it. I'm even coming round to the way the writers handled the scene at the stones. While I did at first want Jamie to have tangible evidence that she is a time traveler, the fact that he pulled her back from the stones shows that he did believe her whether we think it's reasonable or not. As someone said up thread, he's always known she was hiding something and he's seen plenty of evidence that she is incapable of dissembling. Claire hasn't shown any signs that she is a candidate for Bedlam -- that, combined with Jamie's having been "born and bred" a highlander might be enough for him to trust her word. For the most part, I have liked the series more than I did the book, which gives me confidence that Moore and Co. will come up with an acceptable rationale for Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire.

For the most part I liked this episode. I thought the trial and all the interactions between Claire and Geillis were terrific. Ned, who has somewhat condescendingly been portrayed as a cozy older man, demonstrates the ruthlessness that must be required of a lawyer who represents the interests of the Mackenzies. The rescue was rushed, but I was glad they retained those lines about Jamie's oath before God to protect Claire. (I hope we find out how Jamie knew Claire was in trouble.) IMO, the reveal was done well – Catriona and Sam were riveting – though I wish Claire hadn't told him about Culloden at that point. One thing that seemed very real to me was that Jamie doesn't want to know about the future, but when he is leaving Claire, she pleads with him not to set foot on Culloden field. I was happy Jamie apologized for beating Claire, and like CatMack, I hope we're now done with that. I think the lovemaking scene was important, showing retroactively that Jamie has decided to bring Claire to the stones and wants to imprint her on his memory. I did question the decision to have him tell her about Lollybroch on the way there as it makes it sound as though he's making a case for her staying, but I fanwanked that to mean he wants to spend the little time he has left with Claire telling her what's important to him. It's actually shocking that Moore messed up Claire's choice. As others have pointed out, this is the pivotal moment, and I had to do a lot of fanwanking to make it work at all. I wish the writers had brought in chocolatetruffle as a consultant. The voice overs almost always make me cringe – they're not just unnecessary, but they're usually poorly written. (When I was listening to Jamie's inner dialogue by the river, I was praying that he wouldn't tell us when “I became a man,” but you could tell it was coming. If I hear Claire say she feels adrift in a running sea one more time, I'm going to start throwing things.) Why, then, did the writers drop their favorite technique and ask viewers to infer everything Claire was thinking at the stones? Blessed are those who believe without seeing, I guess, but I would have been a lot happier if Jamie had seen proof that Claire was telling the truth. Even after listening to a 100 Welsh minstrels, a man might have trouble buying that his wife is from the future. I can't decide whether I like that when Claire reaches for the stone, the screen goes black just as it did in episode 8, but I loved the last scene – Jamie's tears and the echo of episode 1 when Claire says, “on your feet, soldier.”

I wouldn't mind that actually. The Jamie-Jenny fight always struck me as contrived. I think I saw an allusion to the fight in one of the interviews, but perhaps it will have a less shaky premise than "I didn't want to come home because I couldn't prevent the rape. Plus, I sort of blame you for it and resent you for naming your kid after me." Am I right in recalling that sometimes Jenny provokes Ian so that he'll have a reason to beat her, thus making him feel manly in spite of having had his leg amputated? If so, I hope they excise that bit as well.

Okay, thanks. My understanding of poison is woefully inadequate. I thought maybe you could dole out cyanide in small doses like whatever Claude Rains's mother uses on Ingrid Bergman in Notorious. Right -- my point was mainly that it would be easy for Laoghaire to convince herself that Claire really is a witch so that having her tried as one is for the benefit of the community and not just herself. If Jamie can be excused for the beating on the basis of historical context, then it's possible to make the same argument for Laoghaire, especially since she's a bit of a dim bulb and her powers of introspection are nonexistent. I may be reiterating a point first-person Claire makes in the book -- as I said, it's been quite a while since I read it. ETA. I don't mean to let Laoghaire off the hook with the historical context argument. Accusing someone of witchcraft when you've been casting spells yourself is pretty sleazy.

Not the tail end for Jamie, alas. I loved the postcoital conversation between Claire, Jamie, and Murtagh. It was one of the brief but packed scenes this show does well. Exposition about the Duke and Jamie's past association (or lack thereof), an instance of Claire's mysterious knowledge of political machinations, and more evidence of Jamie's transtion to adulthood. I loved Sam's and Duncan's expressions when he tells Murtagh that they will both honor Jamie's promise to Claire. They spoke volumes about how their relationship is shifting now that Jamie is an adult. I was one who thought that the showrunners had waited too long to make it clear why Claire would choose Jamie over Frank. He didn't seem manly or mature enough for her. But last week and this we've seen him take the lead several times. His interactions with Colum clearly show that he's a man with strong opinions who is not afraid to express them, at the same time he is wise enough to pick his battles. I also thought the showrunners had left too many plot elements for the last 8 episodes. Seeing how much they packed into the last two episodes without making them seem rushed has put my mind at ease. One thing I've admired is the way Moore and the other writers have filled some of the plot holes of the novel, but they more than tipped the scales the other way with this episode. As WatchrTina and others pointed out, it was filled with things that make you go hmmm. I really liked the episode, so I did a lot of hand waving over all the things that beggared belief Yeah, 1740s Claire has a way shorter fuse than 1940s Claire. When Frank accuses her of being unfaithful, she looks only slightly put out and forgives him right away -- there was no ranty, "Do you really think that while I was tending wounded solders at the front I climbed on top of one occasionally?" I assume the contrast is to show that Claire's passions are much more aroused by anything to do with Jamie than with Frank. It's hard to imagine her smacking someone who had a crush on Frank, ill wish or no. I also feel kind of bad for Laoghaire. For all she knows, tapping your heels together three times makes the person you care about run like hell into the arms of another. I'd be pissed, too. I thought showing Arthur with stomach problems earlier in the episode was to remind us of his gastrointestinal crisis in episode 3 and suggest that Geilis has been poisoning him gradually so that it won't look like murder. I didn't think she specifically planned to have him die at the banquet. I'm not as close to the books as others, but does it seem odd that Jamie keeps talking excitedly about returning to Lollybrach? My recollection is that it's only after the crisis at the stones that he decides he has the courage to go back home. Up until that time, he had pretty much made up his mind that he would never be able to face Jenny.

Thank you! This drove me nuts for the same reason. It would have been nice if Jamie could have told William that he was conceived with affection. The guy already has enough reasons to feel bad about being born on the wrong side of the blanket.

CatMack, I've been following several discussions of the beating scene and yours is one of the more cogent and persuasive critiques I've read. And thank you also for referencing DG's truly appalling treatment of race. I couldn't agree more with your analysis of the irresponsible way she handles race. I only just joined PreviouslyTV and had made up my mind not to get involved in the discussion about the beating scene because I think most people are tired of it. I feel I should have jumped in sooner if I wanted to participate. I'll try to make this short, but I want to say that I also agree with something you said in an earlier post about excusing or even defending the behavior because it's historically accurate. First, as you suggest, beating your wife was more controversial during earlier centuries than DG credits and second, that defense depends on a linear view of history in which progress is a steady march from barbarism to civilization. It's much messier than that, and I believe we give earlier periods too little credit and our own too much when we engage in moral relativism. One more thing -- I don't understand how one can criticize Claire for trying to run away (ie, Jamie told her to stay put, so she's responsible for putting the clan in danger.). She's been a prisoner of the Mackenzies since she landed in the eighteenth century. She was coerced into marriage and if I wanted to get all psychoanalytical in my interpretation of her character (and, boy, I really don't; it would once and for all kill my enjoyment of the books and show), I could argue that she suffers from Stockholm syndrome. Jamie's motives in marrying her may be laudable -- I buy that he loves her and wants to protect her -- but for the rest of the clan, the marriage is intended to ensure that Black Jack doesn't have an opportunity to beat the truth out of her about Dougal's fundraising for the rebellion. For them, protecting Claire is a side effect. She doesn't owe them anything, though I would say they owe her for not giving them up to the British. Apologies to those of you who are done with this conversation -- I feel bad jumping in at this late date, though obviously not bad enough to keep my mouth shut! :)

I agree with Hybiscus about the actors aging 20 years. Sam turns 35 this month and Caitriona will be 36 in October. Sam is playing a 22-year-old (I think. There's some ambiguity about his age in the books.) and Cat is playing a 27-year-old. Surely they can play people who are 10 years older than they are. As someone else said, DG makes a big deal about how well Claire ages, and Jamie seems to look almost as good, in spite of having spent years in a cave followed by a long stint in prison. I figure if I can accept the time travel and that Jamie can do anything except possibly be lead dancer at the Bolshoi, I can suspend my disbelief about their ages. I concur with those who say that casting Bree and Roger will be key, but given the ages of most of the actors who play high school students on shows like Buffy and Glee, I'm not too worried. I trust Ron Moore and his casting director to find actors who can pull it off.