annlaw78

I, for one, assumed we were moving on from the dungeon and onto the rescue and healing, given the paucity of time remaining in the season. I didn't think the show was crying out for a more detailed depiction of Jamie's being sexually assaulted. And, as others have mentioned, there's a way to handle this subject matter in a way that is not extremely graphic.

I can think of many circumstances -- namely, all -- in which the artist's intentions, motivations, and context are relevant in art criticism, especially lit crit. Anne Frank's diary is not notable sheerly because if its prose, but because of who she was, what she was going through, its context, etc. Holbein's famous painting of Anne of Cleve's had a context which arguably influenced how he portrayed her. Louisa May Alcott's experience with Utopianism informs much of her writings, as does Hemingway's wartime experiences his. Querying the artistic choices of the creators and the intentions in the show's languorous depiction of a horrific violation is to be expected and welcomed.

Yes, we should. It's called art criticism. An artist makes choices; the audience is free (indeed, encouraged and expected) to have a response. I don't think many in the viewing audience needed the multiple scenes of rape to understand rape is wrong, and men should not force themselves on other men or women. I knew at the end of the last ep that Jamie would go through a terrible ordeal, without their needing to show anything more. I'm not trying to convince anyone who likes the books or this ep to change his or her mind, or impugning his or her taste or character. I'm simply saying that just because this is the story that the book/show has decided to tell does not make it beyond examination or criticism.

I think you can tell a story with a couple/love/relationship facing adversities, without the adversities being so rape-centric. Being from different times, cultures, places, the looming Culloden struggle, and the as-yet-unexplained time-traveling (and potentially mucking with the space-time continuum) etc. provides a lot of fodder for adversity, without throwing in a very over-the-top Villainy McVillain to stalk and rape one or both of the central couple. I think those unfamiliar with the books had expected that type of adversity and plotting, and not for the final two eps to have such a focus on sexual assault.

Word to Matt's review.

I guess she's (understandably) all in for Jamie now, but I would have expected a little pause or voiceover that she's putting an ocean (well, the Channel, but there's no Chunnel back then) between her the magic stones and her way back to her time/old life.

I'm glad they cut that out, b/c frankly I don't think there's much support for role-playing as a rapist as a therapy for rape victims. But maybe I'm wrong.

Or all the time wasted flashing back in this ep. We all can imagine and intuit what happened, and that it was horrific; I didn't need the point belabored.

The lingering shots on Jamie's anguish at his impending rape were horrific to me. The dilemmaBJR presents Jamie -- I assault You or I assault your wife -- goes way beyond creepy, to me. Mileage varies.Ditto everything Catmack has said. Book readers have had 20+ years to wrap their heads around BJR's sexual assault of Jamie. For those of us who are learning the story through the show, this is really quite shocking and appalling. The first big speech Jamie has is that no one will touch her when he's there to protect her. He fights off clansmen in the garden at the Gathering. He escorts her around the Castle for her safety. He sleeps outside her door when they're on the rent trip. I think much of Jamie and Claire's relationship is forged on his protecting her from peril, most of it sexual in nature (and her patching him up when he gets hurt).I could understand if the story wanted to use that set-up to have Claire actually save Jamie in turn, but that's not how the story is going.

That's fine that you have a differing view; I would respectfully suggest that those who do believe the show's rape setting could be turned down from 11 are not merely in a "snit." We have a valid, differing viewpoint. Everyone's mileage varies, everyone has sensitivities or pet peeves partucular to him or her, there's not consensus of thought. And that's what makes for a robust discussion.

For me, it's the accretion of rape/threat of rape being used by the show (and I suppose the books) -- repeatedly -- as a plot device/catalyst/narrative crutch that gives me very little stomach for yet more rape scenes by the same Hitlerian caricature. And, frankly, a character's apprehension of impending rape is a terrible, grotesque thing to see. At least for me. The show can tell its story, but that doesn't mean it's immune to criticism, simply b/c it's the story the show wants to depict. I don't have to turn my brain off and blindly like the narrative choices that are being made. I like the show, but I have no fealty to the source material, which I haven't read. The show should stand alone as its own entertainment product, and on its own merits.

Seriously! Good grief, we can all imagine what came next in the Wentworth cell; they really don't have to show any more. Move on to what happens after.

I think it would have been much cooler for Claire to have had a weapon and an opportunity to kill BJR once and for all. She would have had to choose which husband to save: sacrifice Jamie to preserve The possibility of Frank, or sacrifice Frank to save Jamie. That would have given her more agency, rather than being the weeping damsel, and would have made the torture porn less pointless: it's there to make Claire choose, really choose. Instead, it appears she dumbly wandered into the prison to save Jamie completely unarmed. Great plan!

I see your point about show verse v. historical reality, but I would say historical fiction needs to actually be true to the period to be successful. This isn't a fantasy series set in a fictional world like Middle Earth or Westeros.Hurrah for lively discussion!

Except the UK came about after the Scots king became king of England, not the other way around. England didn't conquer or invade Scotland, or otherwise annex it by the tip of the spear. Scotland wasn't 1939 Poland.I realize I'm grossly oversimplifying a swath of history, but it's not as though the English decided one day to march north and conquer a sovereign nation. If you believe in the monarchical right of kings, then when James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603, his heirs inherited a joined kingdom. The political union that followed in 1707 didn't come out of nowhere.

My bad, I should have said a fair trial. Im not sure it's a matter if talking us non-book readers off the ledge, so much as understanding that up until a couple of eps ago, the show presented BJR as wanting to sexually assault Jennie and Claire, and physically assault Jamie. It's hard to process BJR's sexually assaulting Jamie. It seems to come a bit out of left field.And, for what it's worth, I'm not just disturbed or squeamish because our hero was subjected to sexual violence, and that has upset my gendered expectations. I'd also really love to never see another unwanted hand trespass under Claire's skirt. There has to be some conflict on the show, other than "who's getting raped this ep?" That well is dry, and it was back when Dougal and other clansmen were pulling this in The Gathering.

I'm not naturally siding with the POV characters, I'm bristling at the questionable historical accuracy, as Tomp lays out so well below, of suggesting the British troops were a marauding, Nazi-Ish occupation/colonial force. Scotland wasn't Post-1939 Poland, nor even Ireland. The Union of the UK occurred when the King of Scotland succeeded to the English throne -- it was hardly by the tip of the spear. That the Rebels object to their king's German descendants on the throne, fine, but it's not as though one day the British troops just decided to march north of Hadrians Wall and conquer and occupy a neighboring sovereign nation.A writ of execution that can be stayed on the authority of one captain is likely not the product of a fair and impartial trial, but you're right, I'm just assuming there was not a trial. There could have been. I'll get off my soapbox now, but I guess my overall point is I don't need BJR raping and torturing Jamie repeatedly to understand and empathize with the Highlanders.

BJR is not the only English soldier portrayed as a heartless sadist, though.The Redcoat deserters raped/attempted to rape Claire and were chuckling about making Jamie watch before killing him. The Redcoats crucified Highlanders and left them to rot. None of the Redcoats interceded when BJR was publicly flaying Jamie -- and as captain, he'd hardly be the highest ranking officer at Fort William. The Redcoats are hanging Scots en masse, the suggestion being without due process/proper trials. They're dumping the hanged bodies out a Corpse chute, rather than burying/releasing to their families. The Redcoats are being portrayed not simply as fierce foes, but as caricatured monsters.

I agree. There's a lot of hand-waving, 'cause, history, and I don't think this is a terribly accurate portrayal of the time period, which is post-Enlightenment Scotland, not the Dark Ages. Witch trials weren't still common, women could venture ten feet from a gallant hunk without getting raped, and the Redcoats weren't a bunch of sadistic miscreants. Edinburgh (which I understand is lowlands) was a seat of learning, culture, theology, literature, etc. That the warden made a comment that he could tell Claire was a Christian was bizarre, b/c everyone would have been -- RCC, COE, or COS/Presbyterian.

Hannibal is an interesting character. BJR is not. Hannibal is not just a one-note baddie. Hannibal would make a fine dish of spite haggis out of BJR, and I'd be totally fine with that.I just really don't get why no one hasn't offed BJR before. In the Pilot, when I thought Jamie et al were the Highland equivalent of the Duke boys (never meaning no harm) and BJR was their rascally old coot of a Boss Hogg, I could get why Murtagh wouldn't have killed him. But knowing what we know now? That seems wildly implausible.

If BJR is essentially the Hitler of the Highlands, it makes Murtagh's decision not to slit his throat right after he had knocked him out in the Pilot simply unbelievable. Ditto to Jamie's decision not to kill him at Fort William (though, at least there's the explanation then that it would be too obvious who had killed BJR). If BJR is THAT BAD, why would any of them not summarily kill him on the spot if an opportunity presents? By the scene in the Pilot , he'd ostensibly raped Jennie, flogged Jamie repeatedlyThey can't have it both ways: The Highlands can't be this super-violent and brutal place to service one plot point, and then the Highlander outlaws too precious and moral to kill the Big Bad. Especially when Murtagh's, Jennie, and Claire were willing to kill the courier in the last ep!

I query whether the level of brutality and violence (particularly how prone men seem to be to try to rape women at any opportunity) can be explained away as historically accurate. We're talking about post-Enlightenment Scotland, not the Dark Ages. Edinburgh was a cultural, theological, and scholastic capital of Europe -- its medical research and training was the finest at the time. The idea that Highlanders would rape women walking alone, or that witch trials were still de rigeur, etc. I don't believe is true.

I'm not unfamiliar with the literature and history of that period. Jamie is well-educated, part of the landed gentry (I believe), and well-connected to the Scottish upper class. That all the lairds are smacking their ladies around is questionable. And the whole "rule of thumb" thing is largely apocryphal. Regardless of whether this may have been common, a person could always choose to be uncommon. As Jamie himself says, he's not the lowest common denominator. But, this is clearly a mileage varying thing, so I'll get off my soapbox.

Assuming she disobeyed/messed up, I think being humiliated, nearly raped and stabbed are enough to learn her lesson. She's a smart woman. She doesn't need her husband to teach her lesson -- her younger, callow husband at that. I would have preferred to see Jamie defend and support her, and exercise his own judgmrnt and discretion.

Mileage varies and all, but I thought there was some victim-blaming in Jamie's throwing in Claire's face that next thing he know, she's flat on her back with the scum of the earth between her legs. "On your back" and "between your legs" are pretty loaded, accusatory, "slutty" terms. And, in this situation, not even accurate to how he found her. That's what Claire was trying to explain to him, that going for a walk doesn't mean she deserved to be kidnapped and raped. (And, as an aside, it doesn't make much sense why a British patrol would apprehend a random woman -- it's not as though she had her photo ID in her and they were able to call back to the station to check for BOLOs.) Also: there's no proof the British patrol wouldn't have checked the teeny little bit of wood she and Willie were hiding in a few yards from the stones, if they were on a specific mission to round up all brunettes they come across. So, there goes Jamie's, et al. Impeccable logic.