SassAndSnacks
-
Posts
375 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by SassAndSnacks
-
-
3 hours ago, gingerella said:
Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ!
This is the best terminology to describe this episode. <insert derisive sound effect>
3 hours ago, gingerella said:I did notice that Claire calls Jamie by his real name in front of Madame Pauline
Yes! And then she kept doing it. <facepalm at Claire>
3 hours ago, gingerella said:Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ! After thoroughly enjoying the hell out of the Christmas episode in Boston, and the reunion episode (I actually liked the Christmas epi best this season, which surprised me), we're back to constant attempted rapes, murders, disposing of bodies in unsavory manners, and illegal activities again, and it seems like Claire hasn't even been back 48 hours yet, I mean has she even bathed herself?! Sometimes it's just too much, and I think I enjoyed the Christmas Boston episode so much because there was angst but there was also plot resolution to some story lines and nobody was getting raped or killed and no illicit business was being conducted, it was just life scenes as they relate to the overarching story lines. With Jamie comes a constant barrage of life and death problems and it's fucking exhausting! I suppose these things play out in a more natural and less hurried time line within the books as I've heard they're massive a la GoTs tomes, but still, I'd rather have a longer season and stretch these things out a bit more, which is one reason I loved S01 so much, yes there was a lot of violence but it was stretched out a bit more, it's amazing how much of a difference it makes to the overall timing when you have an extra 3 episodes to play with.
Anyway, let's get to it shall we?
Edinburgh, Scotland 1766:
Claire & Jamie
As Jamie came into the room and found Claire standing over the almost dead rapist/creepster that Sir Percival sent over, when he removed the dirk from Claire's hand I was reminded once again of a similar scene when they were attacked on the ridge whilst having a honeymoon romp in S01. Claire was staring at her bloodstained hands then and this felt like another mirror scene, and in both scenes this shows us that while Claire is a badass woman in so many ways, when she is forced to defend her life and has to kill another to do so, she is shaken to her core, she isn't ruthless and isn't accustomed to such violence in her life from her own time. In the aftermath of that scene, I did notice that Claire calls Jamie by his real name in front of Madame Pauline, and I immediately have a bad feeling about that as I don't trust Mme. Pauline at all right now. Claire's insistence that she must try to save this man 'because she's a doctor' doesn't hold water for this Viewer. This man was going to violently rape her and likely kill her afterward so she owed him nothing and trying to save his life will only put other lives in danger with him living. So what the fuck was the point in that? The only good thing to come from that scene was seeing her and Mr. Willoughby together. I like this new character very much, he seems genuinely kind, he cares about Jamie, one of many whom Jamie has helped give a hand up to and then has indebted to him for life, though he asks not for such fealty.
I loved when Jamie and Claire are talking and the following exchange occurs:
Jamie: "Since you left, I've been living in the shadows...When you walked into the print shop it was as if the sun returned and cast out the darkness."
This is another mirror scene/dialogue from The Wedding, when Jamie is recalling every moment of the day leading up to their marriage ceremony, and he tells Claire that when they removed her cloak and he saw her standing there outside the church, it was as if the sun suddenly came out on a cloudy day. I love that he returns to metaphors from their past and uses them as a foundation for their present.
Then he says after Claire makes it clear she's going to call in on that gentleman's sister alone:
Jamie: "You will return, afterwards...?"
He is so afraid of losing her again that he's literally wanting her to stay locked up in his room at the brothel, and never go anywhere unless he or someone he trusts is with her, just to be sure she's going to stay with him this time. I cannot imagine the angst and fear that he is experiencing, right along with the joy of being reunited with Claire, yet moments of panic when he's weighing in his mind "will this moment possibly make me lose her again?!"
This, for me, was really the only bright spot of the entire episode. I appreciate how they are conveying his apprehension, his nervousness, and his fear of losing her again.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:The conversation between Jamie and Claire about how Brianna was raised felt oddly placed to me, like it was shoehorned into the Show, whereas in the Books it probably is fleshed out in a way that makes a lot more sense.
Right you are! (and so very perceptive.) Totally different place and tone in the books. This scene annoys me as it plays here.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:Am I the only one noticing this weird affectation when he speaks of their time apart? It's even more bizarre given that from what we saw before Culloden, Claire was willing to die with him there, so it's not like she was all "Hey, before you start killing redcoats, would you mind dropping me off at the Stones so I don't get killed with y'all too?!?" She begged and pleaded with Jamie to let her stay with him there.
No, you aren't the only one. I actually have a visceral every time he mentions it like that. She absolutely didn't want to go. I'm wondering if it became a coping mechanisms for him over the last 20 years.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:I don't know what Bal Brachen is, or how it's spelled
Balriggan
3 hours ago, gingerella said:Overall, this was a rather unsatisfying episode after two great ones
Agree. I felt like the writing was poor, the story was rushed, and there were parts that simply didn't make sense or seemed contrary to the characters as we now know them to be.
I also feel like Jamie and Claire needed a moment to breathe, reconnect, and talk away from everyone else. They didn't get that, and so neither did we, and it was a disservice to both them and us.
-
2
-
-
On 5/29/2021 at 3:56 PM, gingerella said:
I wonder the conversation I'm mentioning above happens in the books but not in the Show?
On 5/29/2021 at 5:57 PM, gingerella said:but I feel like there ought to be more dialogue between them about Claire's world. Maybe I'm just wanting something that either doesn't exist in the story at all, or it exists in the Books but not in the Show?
The story is much more fleshed out in the books, of course. The books are massive. Voyager, on which Season 3 is based, alone is nearly 900 pages. In the books, Claire and Jamie do have these conversations, and he is much more interested in "her" world and time.
The show set a stage for time-travel in the very first episode, and since then, it has glossed over the various aspects surrounding it. I'm not here for that aspect of the story, so it doesn't bother me so much, but every now and then that glossing is problematic to the big picture of the narrative, the characters, and where all of this is going.
On 5/29/2021 at 5:45 PM, Anothermi said:But as I ponder what it would be like for Jamie to be plunked into Claire's world I don't see it being viable for him. He would not know any of the history that occurred between the time-he-came-from and the time-he-arrived-in—or the complete change in lifestyle (think Claire being unable to cook using a gas range!). But everyone else would.
I agree. I think in the grand scheme of things, it would be much easier to travel back to a time where people have been and you have some record of than it would be to travel forward to a complete unknown.
On 5/30/2021 at 1:19 PM, gingerella said:But none of that ever felt like Jamie was passionate about a Stuart on the throne since he was in actuality trying to prevent that, and the whole idea/plan was Claires to begin with. Was he a proud Scot? Absolutely! And yes, he suffered physically and mentally at the hands of the British army, but I never got the impression he was passionate about political ideology. That said, perhaps all that changes once he thought he'd lost Claire forever? Maybe just as Claire threw herself into practicing medicine as a way to keep Jamie, and her life with him, alive in her own time, perhaps Jamie turns to printing seditious, Papist propaganda as his way of keeping Claire's political fighting spirit in his life...? Maybe they both are doing this (Claire with being a surgeon and Jamie printing seditious materials) as they only way to keep a glimmer of the other in their daily existence because both have lost all hope of ever reconnecting again until Roger's Christmas arrival...
Jamie always seems to roll with whatever is placed in front of him. He thinks and plans very quickly on the fly which is a huge strength for him. I think he is good at identifying opportunities are they are presented and then working through them. My guess is that a printing press in Edinburgh fell into his lap somehow and he just went with it. Because the British took everything from him - his land, his clan, his family, his wife, his child, his innocence, and his freedom - it makes sense that he wouldn't exactly be Team Brit.
On 5/30/2021 at 1:35 PM, Camera One said:So I mostly saw it as Jaime trying to find a way to change the outcome to save the Scots, and also to ensure a safe future for Claire, and not so much as Jaime being suddenly becoming strongly nationalistic like Dougal was. Jaime's actions felt more like pragmatism to me.
Yes, or what you said! He is incredibly pragmatic.
On 5/30/2021 at 1:19 PM, gingerella said:Also, as we move through this season I am increasingly wanting to slow my viewing down so I can make my first watch of this series last longer...is this a normal reaction?!?
Ha! Yes! But I'm loving the daily updates, and there's STILL so much to talk about!
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, gingerella said:
She was willing to leave their daughter forever, to reunite with this man who may or may not still feel the same way about her, and every hesitation, every pause, every wondering glance gives way to what I can only image as panic and fear that she may have made a bad decision and he may not want her the way she's wanted him for every minute of every hour of every day of every year since they parted the day of Culloden.
Though she didn't want to do it and didn't mean to do it, she had created a stable life for herself. She bought a vase (and a whole lot more). Now, she's left that stability, and for what? Jamie, certainly, and a lot of uncertainties that come with him - living in a brothel, smuggling, treason, and whatever it is that needs Ned Gowan's attention.
Claire tells Jamie, and probably herself, that she knew he would have had a life. Telling yourself, mentally prepping yourself for something only goes so far. Experiencing it and seeing it firsthand had to be confusing and unnerving to a degree.
I think her questions to him are interesting, too. "Did you love his mother." "Is it because you are such a good customer?" "Did you fall in love with anyone else?" All of these show a different type of emotional attachment. Jamie knows he sent her back to be with someone who loved her, so he would expect her to have been with someone else. She left Jamie thinking he would be gone in hours, never having the opportunity to be with anyone else, but he didn't die and it's 20 years later. She's trying to fill in that gap in emotional attachment between him then and him now. If the answer had been YES to those questions, maybe he wouldn't have wanted her the same she way she has wanted him since Culloden.
When you haven't seen someone in a long time, you always anticipate them being the same as they were the last time you saw them. You can tell yourself that X amount of time has passed, but deep-down you still think about and treat that person as who they were when you were last with them. But, time passes, things happen, people evolve, and no matter how consistent their personality type, everyone changes a bit based upon the path their lives take.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Ok! I'm so excited for this conversation. Let's dig in, shall we?
21 hours ago, Anothermi said:I liked that they showed us the reunion from Jamie's view. And I liked that they showed us a certain level of uncertainty and wariness. They have lived 2 decades of life without each other. There are bound to be things about each of them that the other doesn't know nor would have imagined.
I really appreciate the cold open, with Jamie earnestly going about his day, completely unaware that Claire is also in the same city IN THE SAME TIME. (Those sounds you hear are my inaudible, geek-out squeals.)
5 hours ago, gingerella said:My initial gut reaction was 'WTF is this wench acting all touchy feely with Jamie?!' but then my rational brain told me that Jamie would not likely take up with a Madam and I thought that's what she was from the start so it wasn't a surprise when it was confirmed. In fact, we know Jamie has a history of becoming friendly with well known local madams, first Madame Elise in France, and now Madam whatshername in Edinburgh, so I wasn't shocked. That said, it still got my hackles up straight away.
Anyone not named Claire touching Jamie gets my hackles up.
5 hours ago, gingerella said:I got full body chills when Jamie sees Claire and it was so great to see that scene from his perspective this time. The way his back straightened up when he heard that voice, and when he heard her name his eyes went so wide I thought they'd pop right out of his head! Poor guy, I cannot imagine what would be like, incredulous really, so no wonder he passed out.
Can you imagine?! How many times has he "seen" her, dreamed of her, wished for her, and today of all days, he probably wasn't thinking of her at all then Boom, there she is.
5 hours ago, gingerella said:I did find it slightly odd that they spoke of being separated and I think Jamie say's 'It's two of us now", then goes on to say "It's very find to see you again Claire." That sounded so bizarre to me, like he was seeing an old acquaintance again, not the Love of His Life. Anyone else find that strange?
Yes, there are a few things in this episode that I think they got wrong, and this is one. Going from the fainting, the embracing, the sweet seeking of a kiss, tears, etc. and then "It's very fine to see you again." It felt cold, very cold. It would have stopped me in my tracks. It is almost as though Jamie got wrapped up in the moment and then reality very quickly set in.
21 hours ago, Anothermi said:I did laugh at Jamie brushing off Claire become a surgeon with “you've always been that, but now you have the title.”
I actually took this as a weird back-handed compliment. Of course she would be a surgeon. To him, she is this amazing, talented, extraordinary person. He holds her in such high regard. It's only natural that she would go on to something grand.
5 hours ago, gingerella said:The meal is reminiscent of their meal after their first time, but I wished we'd gotten more of their 'catching each other up' on their live the past 20 years.
YES! Irk #2. And this is really a universal statement for the entire series. I think I've mentioned before (Season 2 when Jamie tells Murtaugh that Claire is from the future) that we miss so many important conversations - the Wedding when they talk about their families, Murtaugh and Jamie in Paris, Claire telling Frank what happened to her, this one, and there are others. I don't need to hear the whole thing, but something right? What did they feel was the most important thing that happened to them in the last 20 years that they would absolutely need to tell their soulmate?
What's interesting is that Jamie clearly didn't tell her anything about Ardsmuir, because later, when she is trying to guess what he does for a living now, he tells her that he's been to prison for treason at Ardsmuir, and she says, "Yes, I know that and a few more things." Ok, so wouldn't you want to elaborate on how you found this man? And also, being in prison for 5 years, kind of a big deal. Wouldn't that have been brought up at dinner, specifically since that is how you came to live in England and father a child?
5 hours ago, gingerella said:And Claire's discomfort, standing there naked in front of the man she's dreamed about and been heartsick over for 20 years and he's not saying a word.
What I really appreciate about the whole episode is Claire's vulnerability. There's an underlying current of uncertainty and vulnerability, and who can blame her? On top of the huge decision of going back in time 200 years, she only knows the basics of Jamie's life since then, and I think my mind would be absolutely racing the entire time trying to determine if and how I fit into this now. Nevermind all of the physical uncertainties of whether or not this man will still want her the way he used to.
When she asks him if he wants her to go, and he tells her he's burned for her for 20 years... Lump in my throat. Diana Gabaldon at her finest.
5 hours ago, gingerella said:Twenty years of ice wars with Frank must have seemed like an eternity when you know what you have with your other husband!
Would also like to point out that she kept her eyes wide open with Jamie.
5 hours ago, gingerella said:I'm not sure if this keeps happening to Claire because she is putting herself in dangerous situations because she is always going through life in Jamie's time as if she was a woman in her own time, or what. It's very distressing, but also getting really old.
I think it is both - Jamie's world and Claire's modern take on it. Claire always sticks out a bit, she's always a little different, and that attracts unwanted attention. Couple that with who Jamie just is and does, it's bound to get her into dangerous situations. I wish these two would just find a cozy cottage somewhere out of the way and live happily undisturbed together.
1 hour ago, gingerella said:It felt as though they were literally fucking away 20 years of desolation, desperation, and abject loneliness. It was sort of heartbreaking to watch and it wasn't a joyful romp, it was two people opening up their emotional valves and letting out 20 years worth of sorrow, of longing, of hopelessness. And that is why I found that first round very intense, not for the sex but for what that moment stood for to them both. The second time they could take their time and enjoy one another slowly because they'd been able to let out the built up steam of emotions they'd both carried around with them all that time apart.
This is perfectly stated.
46 minutes ago, QuinnM said:I think back to the wedding night when he flipped a ‘leg over’ on the bed essentially doing a one handed push up with all his weight and Claires with the ease of a 22 year old. Now 40 years later just scooting her up on the bed is a challenge.
See! They did age!
39 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:That was the longest undressing session in the history of tv....
Yes, long and slightly awkward. I found myself thinking that maybe that was intentional when I watched it this time. We, as the audience, were supposed to feel a little awkward, because Jamie and Claire were also feeling a little nervous and slightly awkward.
-
2
-
-
Can we also talk about Claire’s 1960’s knit wear game? That cobalt sweater (jumper) she was wearing when she had dinner with Roger was A+. And the dress she wore when asking Joe if she was attractive, love.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Cdh20 said:
Did anyone notice how utterly glowing Claire is ( once she is in the past)? She looks young, & fresh, & nervous, & excited!
23 minutes ago, gingerella said:I was wondering if that has something to do with time travel or just her dress/hair/and no makeup. I rather think it's the latter because Jamie has aged 20 years, he of the terrible, awful, no good greasy wavy bangs...*aHEM*
Then again, it could also be in part just how Jamie sees her, as if no time as passed at all. Hard to know when time travel is involved, so I'm going with the most logical reason!
Yes! I always felt it was because she felt unburdened. She's where she's met to be. She can take off her "costume" - her makeup, her modern clothing, let down her hair (figuratively since she actually pulled it up). This is where she feels alive, he makes her feel alive, and so she looks more youthful, joyful, and alive.
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, Anothermi said:
Looks like an amethyst to me?
It DOES look purply. It is a cabochon ruby in the book.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Anothermi said:
There has got to be a better way to deal with long-but-non-plot-related passages of time .
I agree. Claire's story wasn't given nearly the care that Jamie's received.
3 hours ago, Anothermi said:I hope Claire experienced just a little of Jamie's trademark empathy when/if she thought about Sandy after that. Also interesting was the difference between how Sandy Travers viewed Frank—he would have hated all the fuss—and Claire's—he would have quite enjoyed it. I don't see one being wrong and one right. It just shows the difference in their experience of him.
This is really interesting, and your comment has me thinking about that exchange differently. I had always been annoyed with Sandy. The nerve. I find myself wondering how Frank painted Claire to Sandy. He clearly never conveyed that Claire told him they should divorce years prior. Did he let his bitterness seep through in his conversations to Sandy? Was Claire brought up at all.
But then I remember that I don't like Frank at all and don't want to live in his world.
How's THAT for empathy?! (Maybe I should hang out with Jamie more? Yes, please!)
3 hours ago, Anothermi said:I'm glad they switched the trope about and made it Jamie. Sent me off from this episode with a chuckle.
Yes! Sort of a running theme. Jamie as the virgin. Jamie fainting. Jamie seen crying more often than Claire is. Flips the stereotypes around.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, gingerella said:
Joe is a faithful friend and colleague, and I loved the scene where Claire insists on finishing one more bit of removal on a patient before closing and Joe's just watching her like, "Girl! You are crazy, and I'm here for it, but DAMN, that was risky business!" I loved so many of Joe's comments in this episode - "Fuck fate!" "I've watched you life a half-life for 15 years...If you have a second change at love, you should take it."
Joe is absolutely the best. I adore him, and I wish the show had used him more.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:I'm still wondering if what throws me off when she speaks is that she has a very American accent and it plays oddly against all the lovely Scottish lilts and burrs?
I think this is part of it, as well as the fact that she is usually the only one with an American accent, and she isn't American. I also struggle with her inflection, I believe. She raises her tone at the wrong point sometimes, as in it hits on the wrong syllable.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:because let's face it, you have this redheaded child and neither you nor your wife are redheads - it had to come up a lot over her childhood, not just the day she was born.
Hubs and I are both brunette and we have a redhead. When we was very little, we got a lot of comments. I thought that had stopped, but just this weekend whilst waiting for an ice cream the woman in front of us turned around and asked "Where did you get that red hair?" So yes, people surely said something.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:Claire doubting her own desirability now that she's 20 years older hit close to home, I know that feeling as of late and it's hard to grapple with.
I thought this was so real and so well done. No matter your age, 15 and crushing on a boy, in your 20s and going on a first date, your 30s and in the throes of motherhood, your 40s and aging, you want to look desirable to the person you love most, certainly if you haven't seen them.
Her insecurity was so relatable at any level, but digging deeper into her, it isn't as though she and Frank were having a physical relationship. She wasn't with anyone else. Had anyone wanted her, physically wanted her since the living room interruptus with Frank? Had anyone felt that they absolutely HAD to have her they way Jamie did? I thought her asking Joe if she was attractive was incredibly pure, and I could see myself doing it. Of course she feels insecure. How many of us have given ourselves a hard look in the mirror one morning and been like, "wait a second...I'm not 25 anymore?!"
3 hours ago, gingerella said:The Batman theme music just was the icing on that scene's cake!
I didn't think I would love it, but I did!!
3 hours ago, gingerella said:Do I wish I'd seen how Claire got to the Stones again? Yes, I would have, and perhaps that's in the books but there wasn't time for it in the show? ... In my head that is more satisfying to know, but again, perhaps it's in the books.
The whole section is completely different in the books. Well, really...the whole search for Jamie and Claire actually traveling back is different. The show was very liberal with this part of the adaptation. I appreciate both for what they are.
3 hours ago, gingerella said:Claire lost the amethyst that was in Jamie's father's ring
Twas a ruby, if my memory serves.
-
4
-
-
14 hours ago, Anothermi said:
Not so much sympathy—empathy. He can imagine how others might feel. It was one of his main personality traits that won Claire over. When his did something that was perfectly normal in his world and she got really angry and upset with him, he worked through it by using his empathy and found the way to let her know he understood and would make changes. He wasn't doing it just for her. It was Jamie being Jamie. We've seen him do it for others—like John Grey—and we've seen John go from hating him to being his BFF. This quality is rare and totally unusual in any one, but it's what makes Jamie compelling. He always tries to do the right thing.
Ah, right you are. He says something in Paris (and you are so much better with the quotes than I am) when he is arguing with Claire, something to the effect of "Must I bear everyone's burdens?" That's empathy, though, sharing and understanding other people's emotional burdens. He does always try to understand and do the right thing.
But doing right by Geneva didn't have to mean sleeping with her. I'm not saying that you are implying that. It's really just me yelling in vain at the Outlander gods, ie. DG.
And actually, I don't even care SO much that he slept with her. It isn't as though there was emotion behind it, and in that regard, it is similar to Mary McNabb. It is the child that bothers me. Children are forever and connecting. He will forever be connected to this stupid chit.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, gingerella said:
BUT...As street smart, as intelligent, and as able to read a room as Jamie is/can, he DOES do some idiotic things from time to time and those things have gotten him into trouble probably an equal number of times.
Ugh, yes. You're right. I try to pretend these things didn't happen. Alas...
3 hours ago, Camera One said:I feel like the show was trying to have Jaime sympathesize with Geneva wanting her first time to be great (as he thought about his own first time), and Jaime wanted her to have a good experience. That sort of made the whole thing even more repulsive to me. The fact that Geneva threatened the well-being of Jaime's family at Lallybroch made her despicable and irredeemable.
1 hour ago, gingerella said:His wanting this woman, who has been an unmitigated bitch to him and is blackmailing him with unwanted sex, and he still wants to give her a good experience. Just, NO.
YEEEESSSSS!!! WHY should he sympathize with her? She's wretched and manipulative. She threatened and sexually coerced her hired help. She's a special kind of low.
3 hours ago, Cdh20 said:I am also protective of Jamie & Claire’s love ( it’s something special) and didn’t want to see Jamie sleep with any other women. However in both instances we’ve seen, Jamie is thinking of Claire, & the show made that quite clear.
Ha! You almost pulled your rational thinking trickery on me again, but not this time, my friend. Not. This. Time. :-)
The parallels between his time with Geneva and his first time with Claire actually make it worse. I don't like that the show took something that was sacred to the story of J&C, their wedding night, and paralleled with Geneva. It was wrong. The scene of him untying her nightdress just about sent me through the roof. No, you don't do that to me, Show. Those images, that motion, those touches. Those are for Claire.
-
3
-
-
I think it is important that I start by saying that I absolutely HATE the Helwater/Geneva/Jamie/Willie storyline. Like, Frank Randall-level hatred. I've gone off on this a few times on these boards and @Cdh20 always intervenes and makes me see reason. (Not to call you out specifically, but you do usually make me see reason). But then time passes, and I'll stumble across this episode once more, and I get all fired up about it again.
As a rule, I try to be introspective and to be self-aware, but for the life of me, I could never QUITE put my finger of why I have such a visceral, adverse reaction to the Helwater business, and then I saw this -
20 hours ago, gingerella said:I find myself oddly protective over the Jamie/Claire relationship that it makes me cringe to see either of them with anyone else.
And major light bulb! Yes! This is what it is.
On top of that, I agree, it is absolutely absurd for him to sneak into her room. The whole storyline is freaking absurd, and it paints Jamie as not that intelligent or as not having situational awareness, which we know he is and does. Geneva isn't trustworthy. To sleep with her, let alone sleep with her as a virgin, is the height of stupidity, no matter what she would foreseeably do. And I freaking call her bluff on anything that she would foreseeably do...other than claiming he tried to or did rape her. He needed to stay away, far far away from her.
I also find it unbelievable that young(ish) grooms would be permitted to go riding alone with her.
Finally, it absolutely annoys me...no...stronger...it pisses me off that Jamie just had to have a son. I understand that sons were more valued because of primogeniture, but c'mon Diana Gabaldon. Why was it necessary? And if having a son is so valued, why did a one night stand with that spoiled bitch have to result in the son? If he needed a son, why couldn't it have been Claire? Because Frank couldn't raise his son? Because John Gray raising his son is better? (Ok, yes on that one.)
Ok, anyway...
20 hours ago, gingerella said:did the library just not have them at hand?
No, the manifests they had were mislabeled. The library did not have the records they were looking for.
On 5/20/2021 at 10:35 PM, Anothermi said:This approach to story telling leaves me feeling oddly unbalanced.
Absolutely. Another major gripe of mine about this episode. It also annoys me that Claire is taking a back seat in researching Jamie's story. When has Claire ever taken a back seat in anything?
16 hours ago, gingerella said:B. We were told ad nauseum that Willie was starting to look and act just like Jamie. Lady D even went so far as to preemptively mention to her lady friend that they spent so much time together that they (I assume 'they' was the family) were saying that Willie and Jamie were starting to look alike (nevermind they didn't, but they said it several times) and they also mentioned how Willie had the same cock to his head, and one other thing I think.
So yes, I think Jamie, who always tries to do the right and noble thing, felt like the right thing, the best thing for his son, was to go back to Scotland now, before Willie became even more attached to him, and he knows he's leaving the boy in a secure and well off family with a friend whom he trusts to raise and look after Willie as he, Jamie, would.
Yes, the show actually didn't do a great job of making this clear. Jamie and Willie were spending a lot of time together, and people were starting to talk. Jamie was concerned that if people began to ask questions, they would come to the conclusion that Willie was his son and he didn't want Willie to suffer any ramifications, such as losing his inherited lands and titles. He would never want his child to be labeled a bastard.
-
1
-
3
-
-
23 hours ago, gingerella said:
His BJR has ruined watching the Crown for me right now.
22 hours ago, Cdh20 said:Same here with the flashbacks. I think he did any amazing job with these two characters but I hated him in the Crown ( I hated the whole cast change but that’s for another forum).
I had to stop when he started.
23 hours ago, gingerella said:One thing that makes me feel better in a petty way is that everything Frank looked at Brianna he knew she was the product of Claire and Jamie's love. So suck on that Frank.
YAASSSS, GURL. (As the kids say these days, or so I'm told.)
23 hours ago, gingerella said:I don't think it's a spoiler but you can put tags on it just in case?
I'm 90% sure they touched on this in the show, but very (too) briefly -
SpoilerMac Dubh refers to "Son of the Black." Jamie's dad was known as Black Brian because of his dark hair, like a silkie.
5 hours ago, gingerella said:It was apparent that BPC was sort of humoring Jamie when he had Jamie walk with him and he said Jamie was his 'doubting Thomas', and it felt very apparent in that moment that he wasn't taking Jamie seriously anymore, IMO.
Gold aside, I think BPC's change in treatment to Jamie is also because Jamie was telling him things he didna want to hear, ye ken? Jamie knew they were headed for not fun times and tried his best to steer the ship a certain way. In the process, he had to stop blowing smoke up Bonnie's arse, and Charlie Boy wasn't such a fan.
6 hours ago, gingerella said:It's interesting to me how Claire is trying to overcome and rise above her grief, whilst Jamie is sort of giving in to it and wanting to end it all.
I read this comment before I fell asleep last night, and I've been rolling it around in my head all day. Around 1:30 this afternoon, I had some really articulate response, but it's 9:30 now, and I've lost it. I'll try to piece it back together...
Claire 1) made a promise to Jamie to live and bring his child into the world, the child that was "all that would be left" of him (small sob). She HAD to live and not only live but to live a life of which Jamie would "approve" of, if you will, for Brianna's sake. Claire 2) threw herself into being a doctor because Jamie so admired that in her - her ability to help people. Her ability to help and heal is what brought them together initially when she set his shoulder and then again when she treated his gunshot wound. He knew her as a healer, she HAD to live her life as a healer to keep him with her always. And also, because Jamie knew her that way, she would want Brianna to also see her that way.
Mostly though, I think Claire lived because Jamie died to her. I think it would be easier to move on, knowing that someone was completely gone and there would be no chance of that person coming back. There's no hope, and so you have no choice but to move on.
It is different for Jamie because he isn't sure what happened to her. He doesn't know about his child. He can't even imagine that life. He can't even fathom what they could be doing, because how could he possibly picture the future? He knows he can never physically reach them. He sent her to be with someone else. But she is still alive, and she could possibly come back. There's hope, but that hope is dashed as the years roll on. Wouldn't it just be easier to be dead (Jamie's thinking...not mine) than to continuously be disappointed and hurting because she isn't there?
Claire had purpose - raise Jamie's child and live a life that would honor him. Jamie lost everything - Claire, baby, home, family, friends, culture, birthright, everything. What would be left to live for?
6 hours ago, gingerella said:but ironically in an age when it's just not that hard to die or be killed, Jamie is failing at dying miserably.
I do find it interesting that Jamie is good at basically everything except for dying. I guess it you're going to be bad at something, be bad at dying.
-
2
-
-
17 hours ago, gingerella said:
Annnnnd, Frank is a dickhead once again!
I feel validated. I know there are a lot of Frank sympathizers in the world, and I respect their opinions. To Frank-o-philes, you do you. For me, I don't care how acrimonious the relationship, how "open" Claire told him he could be (side note, I don't think that conversation actually happened but I've been wrong before), or just how f-ing petty someone is - you don't NOT go to your wife's med school graduation dinner OR OR OR invite your side-piece to your house when your daughter is there. Like ever. EVER.
He did it intentionally to humiliate Claire because he is a petty piece of shit wretched man. Tell me I'm wrong. I've had three cups of coffee, and I'm ready to die on this hill, if necessary.
17 hours ago, gingerella said:Tobias Menzies has these very strange vertical lines going down the sides of his face, from below his eyes all the way to the jowl and I cannot not look at them, and it's very distracting to me. Anyone else?
YEEEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!! Maybe it's because his portrayal of BJR has ruined him for me for all eternity, but I struggle to actually look at his face and/or enjoy anything he does on screen. That's not to say that I don't think he's a brilliant actor, because obviously he is to make me feel this way. I also struggle to watch him in anything else that he is in.
17 hours ago, gingerella said:He might not be as demented as his relative, but he's a vindictive bastard. ... To me, this is Franks coup de grâce, he's been biding his time, making strong bonds with Brianna in the hopes that one day he can rip her from Claire in one final act of anger and spitefulness. The last living vestige of Claire's one true love, and he can rip that away from her in one fell swoop, and let her emotionally bleed out over it. I fucking hate Frank now.
Claire gave him an out multiple times, and he refused to take it. The side note they threw out there about their neighbors' divorce and the father not seeing the children was eye-roll inducing. Claire is not vindictive, and Frank could have had visitations with Brianna. Claire has always held firm that Frank is Brianna's father. She wasn't about to take that away from him.
His jealousy has been an issue from the beginning. He yells at her that she was never able to let Jamie go, but really, he wasn't able to let Jamie go either.
18 hours ago, gingerella said:Not sure what MacDoo means but it must mean something, right?
Mac Dubh. Do you want to know what it means?
15 hours ago, Camera One said:I think John Grey arranged for Jaime to become indentured to this noble, so the government knows about it. They won't think he escaped.
Yes. He was a high profile criminal, so there was no way he would/could be transported to the colonies. They had to keep him close and watched.
-
3
-
-
18 hours ago, gingerella said:
But before I say more I have to say something, the HAIR & MAKEUP people should be fired because Jamie's hair and makeup was ATROCIOUSLY bad.
It WAS pretty shameful. Especially given the whole "Dun Bonnet" reference, where the brown hat was supposed to hide his hair to disguise him, and yet he had scraggy hair hanging out everywhere. No good.
18 hours ago, gingerella said:When he said to Fergus, "You remind me I have something to live for", it was both heartening and sad as hell, his voice was back to the voice we know, but you could tell he was nearly empty inside.
18 hours ago, gingerella said:He can not fathom that he survived Culloden. After all the build up to it, and assuming he would die on that battlefield, he has no game plan now for “what next?”
1 hour ago, Anothermi said:He has no plan to take him forward after Culloden—and no one to make a new plan with.
I think we see here that Jamie isn't physically dead, but he is lost. It hurts for him to remember and feel, so he shuts it off. Throughout the episode, we see him continue to take these hits - Holding baby Ian, Jenny mentioning Claire and moving on, what happens to Fergus, deciding to turn himself in - and it is a constant reminder of just how much he has lost.
I think your bolded section above is spot-on. He didn't exactly have a solid life plan pre-Claire, so what is he going to do post-Claire?
18 hours ago, gingerella said:I was happy to see Claire going to medical school though, she looked happy and she said exactly what I thought - that she had had a purpose in her life with Jamie beyond being his wife, she was a great healer, and becoming a doctor would be a way to keep that part of her life with Jamie still alive in her own time. It is a way to honor their life together in a way that she doesn't have to explain to anyone, not even Frank, she - and we - know why she's becoming a doctor, and it will give her something to throw herself into now, beyond being a mother.
I love Claire as a doctor, and I love that she threw herself into this to keep a part of her life with Jamie. And I do honestly think she enjoys being a mother, and that her devoting herself to medicine isn't done so that she can not be a mother. The scenes we see with her and younger Brianna, she is clearly dotes on her daughter.
12 hours ago, Cdh20 said:I will say that the first time I watched this one I too thought it was the most depressing hour of tv, but on rewatch I have come to appreciate it more. Jamie is physically strong but not emotionally strong without Claire! And Claire throws herself into work instead of family, I don’t think they knew how hard it would be?
I always appreciate how you do this with each episode. I'll ponder aimlessly on about something, trying to get my point across, and then you just summarize what I intend to say so perfectly. And then I read it and I'm like, "Well, duh Sass. What she said."
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, Cdh20 said:
I felt like most of the scenes from 1948 were to remind us (and Claire) that she “belonged” in 1746! That is where she found her home!
Yes!!
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, gingerella said:
I include Scotland in that too probably much to the chagrin of Scotland, we cannot forget that the British Empire did unspeakably awful things to those countries it colonized - a 'nice' word for 'fuck off you peons, we're in charge here now, God Save the King, rah rah rah!' I have worked in many Commonwealth countries and cannot for the life of me understand why the continue to want to be tied to their colonizers, it is a strange phenomenon, which could come to fall by the wayside once the Queen is no more, mainly because Charles - yes another rather inept 'Charles' - is not one who really inspires others in the way his mummy does. But I digress...
I was just having a similar conversation with someone last week. We were musing about our role as a British colony and how it continues to frame political issues happening in our country today, which really led us down a rabbit hole.
7 hours ago, gingerella said:But then I waffle back and hear Frank speaking proudly about his wife's accomplishments to his peers and I feel like he acknowledges her achievements when it suits him, but when backed into a corner or arguing, a bit of resentment comes out.
She's the prize, the trophy. Her accomplishments are only meaningful when they can place him in a positive light. Interestingly, he never once mentioned what she had done in the war to Reverend Wakefield, that we saw anyway. Maybe he already knew? Maybe that trip was all about Frank and so it never came up. I was surprised he mentioned it here, but I think he was at least trying to show his boss that he didn't marry a stupid woman. Opinionated, yes (the horror!) but stupid, no.
7 hours ago, gingerella said:Was he just going to let her walk out of his life with this baby that he was so excited about? Just like that?
Well, she hadn't been born yet, so was the attachment there?
4 hours ago, Anothermi said:Claire became close to Frank before she knew who she was—or who she could be. And he knew her from that time. His "take" on Claire would include her uncertainty about who she was in her own life and her lack of life experience. She was young. I mentioned previously—when Claire told Brianna that she did love Frank—that I understood that to mean that at that time she married him she didn't know what love could feel like and assumed that what she felt for Frank must be love. Sure it may not have lived up to her expectations, but that's all many women had and they were satisfied with that.
Just as war is said to turn a boy into a man, Claire's war experience turned her into a woman—an adult. She was challenged during the war and learned a great deal about herself—her ability to be self-reliant, her instincts, her abilities. It was the proving ground for everything she'd absorbed during her unusual upbringing. She parted with Frank unsure of where she fit into the world and came home knowing she was capable and could make a place for herself. That was who Jamie met. And Jamie had yet to complete learning who he was.
Frank didn't have enough time to revise his initial "take" but he was a man of his time and his actions—and reactions—were led by his inner belief that men deserved their dominant place in the world and didn't need to examine that belief.
Gah, I appreciate this entire statement, especially the bolded above. How many of us know our full potential or what we want to do with our lives at 18?
What is interesting to me, is your statement about Jamie yet to learn who he was. I agree. I think there were snippets of the man he would become, but earning Claire's love and fully loving got him there. He was able to do that with her, whereas Claire was unable to do that with Frank.
5 hours ago, Anothermi said:Not Jamie. Jamie FINALLY had what he wanted: to face BJR and prove that BJR could not take his soul away and Jamie would fight him to the death to prove it—die fighting if it came to it—but never again giving in. He was laser focused once he saw BJR. He was prepared for this encounter to be the last thing he ever did and he would be proud of himself for facing down his worst demon!
Great observation! I'm going with it! 1. Secure Lallybroch for the family; 2. Get men to safety; 3. Send Claire and child through the stones; 4. Fight for the cause; 5. Kill BJR. Quite a To-Do List, and he checked it all.
-
2
-
-
On 5/8/2021 at 10:47 PM, Anothermi said:
Very effective opening!
Yes, this is an incredible episode! I feel like I shouldn't enjoy this one because of the death, sadness, and helplessness of everyone in involved, but it is so well done.
7 hours ago, gingerella said:I felt like his killing BJR should have been more, I don't know, painful, awful, demoralizing, something other than what it was. The whole BJR falling on top of Jamie as if in death's embrace, it was as macabre and sick and twisted as BJR is, but it just felt like not enough for a Viewer.
Me too. I wanted more. The death blow was a heave of desperation. And although having BJR laying on Jamie's leg stopped the blood flow from his wound and also concealed him from the English following the battle, likely saving his life, the "embrace" and laying on him was far too intimate for my liking. Jamie should not have had to endure the horrors of the actual fight of Culloden and then also have to endure that man's touch, no matter if he was dead or not.
7 hours ago, gingerella said:When Claire walks up to Jamie on the battlefield and asks "are you alive?", it felt as if her spirit was really coming to him to see if he survived or not, it didn't feel like a vision, it felt more real to me, because she would be wondering at that moment in Inverness Hospital, "Is he alive? Did he live or did he die?" So it makes sense that someone they are actually connected in that moment since everything has 'just happened' for Claire too.
This is a great take on that scene. I knew it was coming this time, so it was dulled slightly, but the first time I saw it, I gasped out loud. What I thought was interesting was that her clothing wasn't quite right for the time period, so it signified that to me that she wasn't really there but that maybe he was seeing her somewhere else. It reminded me of "ghost" Jamie, standing in the town square watching Claire in her window.
On 5/8/2021 at 10:47 PM, Anothermi said:I did take note that Claire has recently come back from the past where women were pigeonholed into roles—but not dismissed as useless and brainless.
Where did she have more freedom? Where was she more respected? For all her gaffes in the past, it does feel like she'll live a more restrained life in her present.
On 5/8/2021 at 10:47 PM, Anothermi said:I was very grateful for the fairwell scenes Rupert got this episode.
Yes, he deserved this send-off. There was a sensitivity and poignancy to his reconciliation with Jamie that I really appreciated. It hit me hard, mostly because he was our last link to the tangential Highland characters that we grew to know and love.
On 5/8/2021 at 10:47 PM, Anothermi said:The British were such a mixed bag.
Over the years, I've gone back and forth about the portrayal of the redcoats in this series. As an American, our country is based upon fighting them and breaking away from them, so they are bad. Then, they became our allies, so they are good. I'm an anglophile, so yes, they're still good. But, what they did to the Scottish people and the Highland culture, very bad. I'm waaaaaaay over-simplifying these events and feelings for brevity sake, but it does circle back to a recurrent COVID-era theme for me - There are assholes everywhere, but there are good people everywhere, too. I surely had this epiphany earlier in my life, but it's really taken the last year to truly embed it in my belief system.
On 5/8/2021 at 10:47 PM, Anothermi said:I was also surprised to see that Claire and Frank's breakfast was one egg, one rasher of bacon and one piece of toast each.
This actually reminded me so much of grandparents and how they held onto Depression/WWII era habits throughout the remainder of their lives.
7 hours ago, gingerella said:I loved the 1968 scenes from the last episode and the 1940s scenes this episode, much less so. Is it because poor sod, Frank, is there again? I don't know, but what I do know is that I see the same lackluster Claire that I saw in Inverness before she went through the Stones the first time. I said in S01, that I felt Frank stifled her spirit, but I don't think that way anymore. I think Claire holds back much of herself from Frank, and I don't know why. I mean I know now why, Jamie, but I don't know why she was like this before Jamie too. She just seems like life is black and white with Frank, while it's in full blown technicolor with Jamie. I also noticed when Claire described Frank to that nosy neighbor as being "progressive and open-minded" - I thought, 'yes, so is Jamie!' It's interesting that they both share those traits but I SEE them in Jamie and I OVERLOOK them in Frank. At least Claire sees this, that's something for Frank.
I do believe that Frank stifles her, but not directly. He doesn't openly say to her that she can't do this or that, but he does question the things that are important to her and it is clear that what is important to him doesn't always align with who Claire is. She does hold herself back from him because I think she knows that some of who she is really wouldn't fly with him. I remind myself a lot that Claire met Frank when she was a teenager and he was much older than she was. Then, she spent a lot of formative time in her young adult years away from Frank. She met Jamie as a full-blown adult who had seen and done some things. There's a confidence and a security with who she is when she is with Jamie that she doesn't have with Frank.
I also think she feels beholden to Frank. She is an incredibly loyal person. Though she gave Frank an out, he didn't take it, and she's going to do what he wishes because he is providing her with a secure life and she promised Jamie she would. She doesn't like it. I wonder that if Frank hadn't taken her back and she had to go at it alone, would she be happier and the "brighter" character that we see when she is with Jamie?
7 hours ago, gingerella said:The Americans were painful to watch, nosy, obnoxious, and just came off as so rough compared to the British and the Scottish and Highlanders. And the whole misogynistic boss BS felt a bit poorly done. Would a big shot at Harvard be that obnoxious?
The comment that about tea bags was humorous and true! And the comment about how "Americans like new things" rang so true. That's why I am an unabashed anglophile, I love old things, classic things, things that stand the test of time! I should have been born in Scotland I think....
Ugh, I wanted to feel like this was such a terrible stereotype, but wait, was it? Full disclosure, I've decided to embrace my American-ness. After falling down a Buzzfeed hole of articles related to annoying things Americans do, I got annoyed myself. We're great. Americans are great, dammit. We're friendly, and we'll help anyone. We believe in people. We're optimistic, and yes, we're always looking forward, and I freaking love it. See previous comment about assholes being everywhere, and yes, we have a ton of those too. We do like new things (which admittedly, can be irritating because it can be incredibly wasteful, blah). <steps off soapbox apologetically>
Personally, I love the old and I'm so passionate about history and learning from it and applying to today. If we were better at that, we could perhaps actually learn from previous mistakes and oh you know...avoid them.
There is a great line in the Outlander books, and this isn't spoilery. Frank says, "Americans think 100 years is a long time, and the English think 100 miles is a long distance." I feel like it so perfectly sums up the different mind-sets and really where we both are in terms of the life-spans of our nations.
8 hours ago, gingerella said:When Claire awoke after giving birth and was panicking about where her baby was, nice touch back to the Faith episode...
On 5/8/2021 at 10:47 PM, Anothermi said:And poor Claire! Having to give birth the “modern” way where the mother was just an obstacle for the male doctors to overcome—literally. But Frank got a few moments of feeling like he'd finally gotten his heart's desire—until the spector of the red hair came up.
I was surprised that they were so awkward about it. Both my parents had dark brown hair, but they had a passel of blond and red haired children with only a couple of brunettes thrown in and all they did was trot out the old joke that it must have been the milkman! (They only had 8 children over a 20 year period but I think that counts as a passel.) I suppose the observation came too soon for either of them to have thought of how to respond to it.
Yes, this was so brilliantly portrayed. When she awakes and her hands immediately go to her stomach in panic... The doctors were appalling, and I'd like to say that things are dramatically better now, but not so much on the whole. (Ok, so yes, that is a bad thing about America.)
People have a thing with red heads, particularly when the parent doesn't have red hair. Hubs and I are both brunettes. We have a redhead, a blonde, and a brunette. All have blue eyes. Not a one of them looks anything like us. Genetics are crazy. We field constant comments about our children's looks, especially our redhead. With us, we laugh obligingly at the comments and make a crack about recessive genes. Claire and Frank have the recent past weighing on them, so the remark made in passing was certainly a barb for them.
-
1
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, gingerella said:
Rewatch it again and tell me what you think.
For you and your thought-provoking analyses, I will. You've changed my mind before.
13 hours ago, Cdh20 said:One thing I liked was going back & forth in time throughout the episode.
13 hours ago, Anothermi said:Makes me think of a patchwork quilt where the story of each piece relates in some fashion to the pieces around it—not just aesthetically but by what they represent.
Yes! I think that was really smart. The Culloden scenes were so intense, and it was necessary to break those up a bit with the 1960's scenes. I like your patchwork quilt analogy, and as I was watching, I felt like it was a puzzle that we were placing together, one piece from this time and then one piece from the other time, to create a fuller picture.
-
4
-
-
19 hours ago, gingerella said:
The thing that threw me a bit in this and really the entire episode, was Brianna's accent and mannerisms.
Same. I won't say anything about the actress. Ok, I will. The others are so good that they highlight shortcomings in those that aren't.
19 hours ago, gingerella said:It was as if step by step, Culloden's Clan Fraser memorial stone, a decaying Lallybroch, the dragonfly in amber - all the things that she knew had been but were no more - they all pointed to the cosmos telling her that Jamie had died at Culloden and everything she had loved went downhill from there
Seeing Lallybroch was my undoing. The joy of that house and the pride the family took in it. The love that was shared there. My mind was racing - it had to have fallen out of the family, what happened to the Frasers/Murrays, did the redcoats come after them, how long has it been like this, and so on.
19 hours ago, gingerella said:As she turns to the Stones and they are aglow, when they pan back to Claire and her face is bathed in a golden light, to me that again was a mirror scene to The Wedding, when Jamie describes seeing her on their wedding day and say's 'it was as if the clouds parted and the sun suddenly came out', and there we are, circling neatly right back to the day these two crazy kids got hitched and took a blood oath. Nice, satisfying story telling, that!
Interestingly, I actually don't like this part that much. Though beautifully shot, it borders on cheese for me. But I do really like your take on it, and I think I need to go back and rewatch that with Jamie's wedding day comment in mind. I do think the symbolism of it is powerful. Her world was dark when she thought he was gone, but now there is hope, possibility, he lived, and there is light again.
19 hours ago, gingerella said:Fergus being sent back to Lallybroch with the deed to the house in wee Jamie's name, and both Jamie and Claire calling him their son, Hey, I'm not crying, you're crying! That kid is such a wonderful actor.
This broke me. Sobs. "I love you like a son." "Like OUR son." That sweet, brave, wonderful child.
18 hours ago, Anothermi said:Then they started with a bunch of characters we've never met—not in a form we would recognize. AND we're back in Inverness!
I loved this. Just when you think you know where they are going with the story, WHAM. I really appreciate how it pans around and you see all of these strangers, and then wait, was that...no...can't be...was that Claire?!
18 hours ago, Anothermi said:I liked:
Yes to all of these.
18 hours ago, Anothermi said:Jamie apparently had put a lot of thought into his likely death. 1) He'd drawn up a document giving Lallybroch to Jenny and Ian's 1st born son, Jamie Murray. AND he dated it a year previous—before BPC's letter branded him a traitor. (Now I forget what happened to the document I thought he'd signed giving his Fraser grandfather that property. Was that when Claire faked her “vision”?) 2) Plus—from how Claire reflected Frank to him—he believed in his heart that she would be safe and well cared for if he sent her back to Frank. 3) That he'd included saving Fergus in his plans and charged him with not only delivering the deed, but being a witness to the history that was unfolding. 4) That he fulfilled Colum's belief in why he would be a good guardian for Hamish and sent his clan off to safety before the battle started (the Lallybroch Frasers; as Rupert was the only Mackenzie living who followed Dougal into the rebellion). 5) And that he was observant enough to know that she was pregnant—using a more scientific basis than I did—being the timing of her periods (courses). (I based mine on one scene of Claire cradling her belly!) Always one to impress, that JAMMFraser!
If you didn't love Jamie Fraser before... It really highlights his intelligence and foresight. He knew what he was doing was dangerous and if his Paris plan didn't work out, it would be traitorous. The deed of sassine was actually his last resort, and it broke my heart. It was so hard watching him put those final motions into place - the deed, Fergus, telling Murtaugh to lead the men away from the battle, taking Claire to the stones. He had such purpose, he knew exactly what needed to happen, and Claire stumbled along confused and in denial. I hurt for both of them and the way they had to process what was happening.
When Claire is telling him that he is her home, and he says "This home is lost." Have I ever felt more empathetically bereft for someone than in that moment?
18 hours ago, Anothermi said:Roger W remembered Frank Randal as being very kind!!!?? Hummm. I don't remember seeing that in their interactions.
THANK YOU! Um, Rog...he trashed your father's shed in anger...just sayin'.
6 hours ago, gingerella said:I have to believe that Colum would have been very okay with Jamie killing Dougal under the circumstances, and might even have been relieved the same way Murtagh was!
I agree. Colum recognized that Jamie would do what needed to be done. There would have been some comfort in knowing that Dougal wouldn't have been there to screw things up for the Clan. Not that it mattered anyway because Culloden.
3 hours ago, Anothermi said:I wasn't implying that they spoke of Frank together, but that Jamie saw how much Claire didn't want to do anything that might harm Frank or prevent him being part of her world. That's why I used the phrase "reflected to him". Claire may have just been protecting her path to Jamie, but it could be taken as enough for Jamie to have confidence in Frank. Enough confidence to entrust Claire to him again—and possibly for the rest of her life. On reviewing that scene I noticed Jamie asks her to speak to Frank:
Tell him what you will about me... About us. It's likely he'll no want to hear, but if he does... Tell him I'm grateful. And tell him I trust him, and tell him I hate him to the very marrow of his bones.
Jamie saw Claire weeping over Frank at Leoch. He knew she loved him. I think he realized that she loved him more, obviously she chose him over Frank. He's secure enough to know that Frank wasn't a bad guy and that he offers Claire and his child a safe haven away from what he feels is certain death for him.
I also love that he astute enough to know that Frank wouldn't to hear about it, because he knows what he and Claire have and that Frank will surely sense that too. And of course, Jamie would hate him. How awful to think that someone else is going to live the life that you want for yourself with the people you love more than anything.
2 hours ago, Cdh20 said:my first wave of tears comes at the realization that Claire has been gone for 20 years, so I am on about round 3 by the time she says goodbye to the Fraser stone at Culloden.
Oh my goodness, yes. 20 YEARS!! To be away from that man, part of herself, for 20 years!
1 hour ago, gingerella said:She can drown herself and her sorrow, her and longing, her emotional pain , in healing others and at the same time feel closer to Jamie and that life, even if only in her mind.
Agree with this completely. You can tell in the 1968 scenes, she is more subdued, she's still holding on. This is the Claire we saw with Frank in episode 1 of this season. This isn't the Claire that feels alive as she did with Jamie. She would naturally try to find something that makes her feel useful, needed, important, and more like how she felt at her happiest.
-
3
-
-
People!!! Of all freaking days! OF ALL OF THE DAYS! I had to leave the sanctuary of my home office and actually go to a real office and interact with people and then I had to shuttle children and then I had to sit in a night-time Teams session for three hours (would rather watch BJR draw a portrait of me, that's how freaking painful it was) and then my computer decided to update for 45 minutes. MISSING OUT ON THIS DISCUSSION because of normal adult things and hating how real life interrupts my Outlander obsession.
The horror of it all.
But I'm here now. Let me read and digest the glorious things you've likely said about this incredible episode.
-
3
-
-
On 4/30/2021 at 7:42 PM, gingerella said:
Claire who has helped Jamie to grow into the man we now see.
Love that you said this. I've read people ogling over Jamie, about his character, the man that he is and so on, but Claire is so seldom mentioned as a contributing factor in making that man. She is. There's no way around that. She doesn't go through the stones, Jamie isn't Jamie. Her impact on him is profound and multi-faceted. Without her, he is either captured by the British or dies in the ensuing ambush from his gunshot wound in Episode 1. That's the first glimpse, but it's other things too from thinking about his future more clearly, making plans, or even dental hygiene and germs. She takes care of this man and he her. Jamie is Jamie because Claire is Claire. If not for Claire, would he still be crashing in the Leoch stables?
Didn't that snit Annaliese say something to the effect of "He was a boy when I knew him, but you have made him a man"?? Well, yes, and it was a good thing.
On 4/30/2021 at 7:42 PM, gingerella said:okay yes, the story tellers are skilled enough to know that by flipping the script, literally, and showing us where Claire ends up at the end of this season, creates a sense of anxiety and dread that is akin to what Jamie, Claire and Murtagh are all feeling right now. Tomorrow is the day. Shit is real. People will die en masse. And Claire will be sent back to her time to save her life no doubt. I get it now. Well done Show, well done!
On 5/2/2021 at 7:46 AM, Pallas said:And I think that our knowledge raised the stakes in every decision that the couple made, and sharpens the poignancy of their time together before Culloden. It enabled us to see their child who survives in the 20th century. And pragmatically, for the storytellers, it avoids our ending the season and entering the hiatus with shock and dashed hopes adding too much grievance, too much sense of betrayal, to the pain from the loss and parting that we've long known is in the winds.
I agree with both of you. It had to be done this way. Doesn't mean I have to fully like it (but really, I wouldn't have liked the inevitable separation either way so...) It does create a greater attachment to their story.
-
3
-
-
Just popping in to say Happy 300th Birthday to our JAMMF!!
-
1
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, gingerella said:
this season we see Dougal so emotionally brittle
Yes and actually, this season has given us a glimpse at everyone's emotional breaking points, Dougal included.
I awoke this morning thinking of Outlander, as one does. There were times in Paris where we "lost" our favorites. Who were those people? And if you doubted your love for them in Paris, surely the back half of this season has swung them back into your favor. For me, Jamie has grown so much in the previous 3 episodes, which I believe is why those 3 are among my favorites of the entire series. He's dynamic, caring, fearless, a leader, cunning, empathetic, determined...seriously, we're just scratching the surface. Over this few episode arc, he has been endeared to me in a different way than in Season 1. I absolutely feel for him and hurt for him. His desperation and his resolve really settle into me, and it sticks with me long after I get off the treadmill, turn off the show, and go about my day.
And not to keep harping on this, but I believe that sentiment is due, in large part, to the fact that we know his efforts to prevent Culloden don't work. Claire goes back. Culloden is lost. They failed. Instead of rooting for him, I hurt for him, and I wonder how that feeling would be different had the season not opened up the way it did.
-
4
-
S03.E07: Crème De Menthe
in Outlander
Annoying is a great way to sum up this episode. Honestly, I think it is one of the weakest, if not THE weakest, of the entire series.