absnow54

Yes, I've heard it's only available in the US. Hopefully it'll pop up on YouTube somewhere!

I just watched the first episode. 7-10 minutes is not enough! I love Ryan Hansen so much, and his dynamic with Kristen Bell is hysterical. I hope they find the time to continue producing these things during their down time.

And in the one episode she doesn't get tipsy, her orchestrated plan relies on getting everyone else tipsy and making bad decisions for once.

I also noticed that Claire isn't wearing Frank's wedding ring during the love scene montage, while we see her wearing both rings in some BTS footage, so I'm wondering how that will play out.

The most disturbing part of the flogging scene was they way BJR was almost describing it like a love scene. Knowing what's to come, they really lay the groundwork for Jamie's final capture. And it's going to be rough to watch.

Wow. Tobias Menzies is going to have a really strong Emmy reel. That was so painful to watch, but only because the actors sold it so well. The curious wonder on her face at the revelation was even better than the reveal.

I agree that it's a different time, but Claire is coming from a time where feminism is an active movement, and she's married to a man who views her as her equal. I think they have to skate very carefully around how Jamie treats her (which beyond the two instances I mentioned, is also a relationship built on mutual respect) because Claire has a choice between the two worlds, and she chooses the one where men treat women very harshly, to stay with a man who has been physically threatening and harsh towards her (although at this point it all pales in comparison to the whole burning her at the stake thing.) I don't view Jamie and Claire's relationship as abusive, but I question their actions and behavior a lot in those scenes, and I feel like they become almost caricatures in a romance novel script to play up the passion, which is a detriment to the relationship that had been built up so carefully. As for Claire making Jamie reflect on how he treats her, I feel like more time is spent having Jamie force Claire to reflect on how he treats her. Chapters and chapters are dedicated to him and his family glorifying all the beatings they used to get, and Claire's POV against it is essentially scrapped. It's the only form of justice that Jamie understands, and I get that, but I wish Claire had more of an opinion outside of "Don't do it, okay?" because Jamie never takes her stance seriously up until the point he's forced to strap Fergus, and even then it's like "Even though that was terrible, I still get off on that time I had to strap you... I really wish you never made me promise not to hit you again." Jamie never gets to the point where he understands why it's awful to beat your wife, and that still enrages me to this day because a. it's an awful character trait, and b. it goes against everything else we know about Jamie.

With all the Ray Rice controversy right now, I'm wondering if that will effect some of the episodes around the strapping scene. The strapping in itself is a form of justice, and as some people already pointed out, Claire as an unreliable narrator exaggerates the scene. What troubles me is the scenes after where Claire tells him to never raise a hand to her again and his response is basically "LOL, okay, but I still really want to." I get that Jamie and Claire's relationship is very passionate and volatile, but for a show that's mostly targeted towards women and it sends mixed messages about abuse (a very hot button issue,) especially when Claire chooses to stay with Jamie rather than get back to Frank. The scene I really hope they retool is when Jamie goes to get Claire's ring and Claire thinks he's off with Loaghaire and tells him he can see whomever he wants as she has no claim on him. Jamie's reaction where he goes off on a "I am husband, hear me roar!" tirade and basically tells her that he owns her and can do what he wants with her (like rape her, which he plans to do) seemed so incredibly out of character (especially the rape part) and out of place in the scene, because five minutes later he's all sheepish and telling her that she can keep his name and protection, but he won't get in the way of her life is she doesn't want him. The rough sex after is fine, because I think Claire's struggle has more to do with admitting that her feelings for Jamie are more real than she realized, and surrendering herself to that, but I think the earlier part of that scene is dangerous waters for this show to tread in, because it really does a number to Jamie's character, and not in an "ugh, Jamie's character is so perfect, he needs some flaws!" kind of way, but a "ew, Jamie's gross, go back to Frank, at least he respects you" kind of way.

Politicians line up round the block to get on Saturday Night Live during election seasons for this exact reason.

I understand why Jamie was first in line to get it, but I was under the impression that if Jamie died before marrying, Lallybroch would go back to the Frasers, when Jenny was still a living issue of Ellen. This would make sense though, that if the last male heir died, they would simply find another male Fraser heir to pass it along to, meaning not a part-MacKenzie.

And Castle Leoch is the merry merry town of rape-ville after a few swigs of whisky (an exaggeration, I know, but she's experienced uncomfortable sexual situations with both camps.) I think that both options have a rather long cons list. I think if Claire were with anyone other than Dougal, she'd probably stay with the clan, but she's with Dougal right now, and they've had a power struggle going for weeks, and Claire's proven that her stubbornness often outweighs her reason, and this is her first big chance to really stick it to him, and finally escape the MacKenzies, which she's been planning to do for weeks now. That's why I liked the cliffhanger, because her choice could really go either way.

That's the nature of any television show. You know how many episodes are left in a season, and the pace of the story, and most likely nothing extremely relevant is going to happen until the last few episodes. What I agree with you on is that I think Claire's struggle lacks intrigue. She needs to get to some stones. Everything else is just an obstacle set between point a and point b. Sure there's mystery behind how the stones work, but that's largely hand waved and it's assumed that she'll touch the stones and magically be delivered back to her former life. I think it's sloppy story telling, and while Claire's desire to get back to her own time is the catalyst, the Jacobite uprising and MacKenzie drama is the actual beef of the story, which is why it's annoying when Claire constantly has to remind us that she's trying to get home, because, yes, we know that already, and nothing has happened to make us question your motives. That said, I really liked the cliff hanger, because why wouldn't Claire turn on Dougal and go off with the red coats? She's friendly with some of the clansmen, but she's still being held prisoner by a bunch of people who couldn't care less about a life she's desperate to return to. Here comes a friendly Englishmen who seems genuinely concerned for her safety and has the means to free her. Why wouldn't she spit in Dougal's face and say peace out? I thought it was an interesting test of her loyalties. And even though there's still a large number of episodes left in the season, could just be an introduction to another leg of the journey.

Question about Lallybroch. Jamie says that the land is to go to Ellen's issue only. I understand why Jamie, as her only surviving son, is first in line, but what was the nonsense about the land going back to the Fraser's if he died. Wouldn't Jenny inherit the land?

This is the most perfect description of this guy that I've seen yet. He's even got a poor Joey Potter producing partner, who most of the time, looks completely over his shit.

Only if it works well with a sassy comeback. I still love her "I guess you don't ken everything!"

That's how I feel about Lallybroch too. Claire loses her POV and is just a passive observer. Even when Jamie challenges her upbringing -- her uncle using reason instead of a good strapping -- she doesn't have much of an opinion of it, which seemed very out of character for her. There are little moments like Claire explaining some of her own time to Jamie that Diana sort of plows through without thought that I hope the show takes the time to explore, even if it's just a quick scene. I think Jamie's complicated dilemma dominates the second half of the book and Claire gets lost in the shuffle. I always felt the "Oh, by the way, you're married to a time traveler" didn't have quite the dramatic impact one would expect.

I thought he was making an effort, but Claire was being a brat because she'd already decided that everyone was excluding her (let's be honest, we've all been there.) I thought him bringing her bread was a peace offering, she got snappy, he told it like it was, and then he left.

I disliked this change too. I also disliked that Jamie was attacking the tree on his own, when in the book, Claire was the one to suggest it to him. He had a lot of pent up frustration that he unleashed at the bar fight, and Claire's advice was a way for him to cool down without getting into trouble. It was a small change, but I thought it really changed the dynamic. I worry that they're painting Jamie as too perfect on the show, when in the book, even before the wedding, he slips up at times. In this episode he was the quiet, stoic hero, when it would have been understandable that he was lashing out.

I know it wasn't funny, but I laughed towards the end when Dougal went to rip his shirt, and Jamie was like "Please, I can take it off myself. No need to be so dramatic!" and took the shirt off himself.

I thought this episode was a bit slow, especially in the middle half where they repeated the war collections over and over again. Drunk Claire trying to rescue a goat, sweet scandalized Jamie at Claire's invitation into her bedroom, and Claire's boys defending her at the tavern made it all worth it though. Rupert's "I've never heard a woman make a joke before" was the line of the night.

I agree. I have a large disconnect between Sam and Jamie. He looks so different in and out of character, and his demeanor changes a lot too. The only consistency I see is that he has a very dry, self deprecating sense of humor. I definitely prefer him sweaty, dirty, and covered with blood though.

I'd say they were just enforcing the sort of victim blaming standards that aren't too uncommon from today's society. On a dark night, it's better for a woman to stay in and not travel about alone, than for a man to simply not feel inclined to rape/attack them. I'm not saying this mentality is right. I think quite the opposite. But if this exact same scene took place in the 21st century, it'd most likely happen the same way. I don't think it's just a commentary on historical times, but on a rape culture that's endured centuries.

I thought Alex also strongly resembles Jamie. And isn't he younger than Claire (I can't remember if both him and Mary were younger, or just Mary.) I mean if they cast Tobias as Alex too, they may as well put Sam in a wig and have him play Brianna.

On another, slightly related note, I always found it super contrived that Claire was left alone to hide in the gully in the first place. She and Jamie had just been attacked in a place where they thought they were safe and then, suddenly, the entire group had to go off to talk to Jamie's mole... for reasons. I know he sends Murtagh back to check on her eventually, but the whole setup seemed kind of ridiculous.

I think the strapping scene and the rougher bedroom scenes will be a fine line for the show runners to skate around. This show has been celebrated for its treatment of women, and when Claire's presented with the opportunity to go home to Frank, who respects and adores her, it's not going to send the best message that all a strong willed woman really needs is a big, strong man to fuck her into her place. Jamie short circuits for a bit and is all about marking his territory (he's an 18th century formerly converted-non-virgin so it's ingrained in him) but at the end of that dubious consent scene in Castle Leoch he comes to the understanding that he can't own her without her owning him and they sort of regain that intimacy as equals thing. I think that's going to be hard to display without some controversy, but so far, the show has done a good job at presenting 18th century lifestyle, while at the same time preserving Claire's modern day values with every relationship she's developed.