S05.E05: Perpetual Adoration

[Athena]

Quote

Jamie and his militia arrive at Hillsborough to learn that Governor Tryon has proposed a rather unorthodox solution to deal with the threat posed by the Regulators and to resolve the growing political crisis.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[anamika]

The Roger-Bree scene just reinforced how supremely stupid it was for Bree to forgive Bonnet and tell him that Jemmy was his son so that she could comfort her brutal rapist. But at least she finally told Roger that Bonnet was alive. No more secrets please.

Good on Roger for apologizing to Bree for what he said about the Bree/Jemmy/Bonnet situation.

Sophie Skelton continues to have the same one expression in all her scenes whether she is talking to Roger, Claire or Marsali.

Claire's penicillin saga dragged on forever. 

I am still not too sure about this regulators plot with Murtagh. The British are certainly up to no good with their hard taxation policies, but Jamie defending Murtagh as a good man? We did see Murtagh torturing two men in the second episode and leading a mob that attacked shops and houses. Are we supposed to find him sympathetic?

Oh well, Jamie and Knox was going to end only one way and it was obvious which way that was going to be when Knox spend the entire episode being smarmy and praising Jamie. Though Jamie did cover it up rather cleverly with the fire.

Adso!

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by anamika

[Quickbeam]

Overall, I liked this episode. I happen to really like the flashbacks and the period work was well done. Having had many things thrown at me in my career as an RN, good to see nurse abuse made the cut. 
 

Every scene with Sophie consists of the other actor having to do the heavy lifting. She’s really dreadful. Still great chemistry with Jamie and Claire. I loved Marsali’s enthusiasm for penicillin. 

Edited March 15, 2020 by Quickbeam

[nodorothyparker]

So Jamie's just going to go around killing someone for convenience's sake every episode or so now?  Sure, you could see the ending with Knox coming, but it makes all the handwringing over putting Mr. Beardley down last episode feel kind of pointless.  I'm also kind of curious what the thought process was here on the writing end, inventing a killing for Jamie that didn't exist for his book character that felt like a much blunter solution than might be expected of him while moving the story of Graham Menzies from Voyager and changing it from a physician-assisted suicide to a totally not Claire's fault, no really!, freak medication error.  That story in the books is also the precursor in the chain of events that gets Claire and Bree to England and then Scotland to the hunt for Jamie, but there's an underlying note in there that the hospital basically deadended her career over it, making it a when one door closes, another opens kind of thing that made book Claire so receptive to finding Jamie.  There's no sense of that in this version, but show Claire and Bree could barely be bothered to look for him anyway and left it entirely up to Roger.  I still wonder if anybody's thought to mention that to him.

I think the thing that bothers me about it is the terrible sense of disconnect it gave me when he rode home smiling to present Claire with Adso.  I know they were going for a sentimental fan service kind of moment there that we were all supposed to squee over, but all I could imagine was Jamie saying "yeah, took longer than I expected because I had to stop to kill a man.  But hey, here's a cat."

The Roger-Bree scene was tough, and not just for the acting.  No, Roger really shouldn't be telling Bree how she should have made peace with what happened to her, but I also get that he was just incensed to learn that he went through everything he's went though in this time period, including the wedding and swearing himself to Jemmy, only to learn that at some point before that he told the other who's the daddy contestant that he's the father.  Not having Ye Olde DNA testing available, of course she can't possibly really know.  But again, all any of this really does is remind that while I know the scene of Bree visiting Bonnet in jail, forgiving him, and naming him daddy is one of those scenes writers love to write, it was stupid stupid stupid from a practical standpoint.  

So yay, penicillin.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

So Jamie's just going to go around killing someone for convenience's sake every episode or so now?  Sure, you could see the ending with Knox coming, but it makes all the handwringing over putting Mr. Beardley down last episode feel kind of pointless.  I'm also kind of curious what the thought process was here on the writing end, inventing a killing for Jamie that didn't exist for his book character that felt like a much blunter solution than might be expected of him while moving the story of Graham Menzies from Voyager and changing it from a physician-assisted suicide to a totally not Claire's fault, no really!, freak medication error.  That story in the books is also the precursor in the chain of events that gets Claire and Bree to England and then Scotland to the hunt for Jamie, but there's an underlying note in there that the hospital basically deadended her career over it, making it a when one door closes, another opens kind of thing that made book Claire so receptive to finding Jamie.  There's no sense of that in this version, but show Claire and Bree could barely be bothered to look for him anyway and left it entirely up to Roger.  I still wonder if anybody's thought to mention that to him.

I think the thing that bothers me about it is the terrible sense of disconnect it gave me when he rode home smiling to present Claire with Adso.  I know they were going for a sentimental fan service kind of moment there that we were all supposed to squee over, but all I could imagine was Jamie saying "yeah, took longer than I expected because I had to stop to kill a man.  But hey, here's a cat."

The Roger-Bree scene was tough, and not just for the acting.  No, Roger really shouldn't be telling Bree how she should have made peace with what happened to her, but I also get that he was just incensed to learn that he went through everything he's went though in this time period, including the wedding and swearing himself to Jemmy, only to learn that at some point before that he told the other who's the daddy contestant that he's the father.  Not having Ye Olde DNA testing available, of course she can't possibly really know.  But again, all any of this really does is remind that while I know the scene of Bree visiting Bonnet in jail, forgiving him, and naming him daddy is one of those scenes writers love to write, it was stupid stupid stupid from a practical standpoint.  

So yay, penicillin.

10000% agree with this.

My memory is fuzzy about this buik, but glad to have it confirmed that they brought Menzies was from Voyager, and I was 😒😒😒at Matt Roberts for leaving that out in the after show.

I also thought Claire would have picked up on that “something must have happened” when Jamie returned, but nope. 

And I also wish the show would have Marsali call Claire ”Mother Claire” as she does in the buiks.

Not impressed with this season thus far. Mainly because once again, too much Bree with her flat affect, and not enough of Jamie and Claire.

[Haleth]

And we need more Marsali. 

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

but all I could imagine was Jamie saying "yeah, took longer than I expected because I had to stop to kill a man.  But hey, here's a cat."

You know those cat food commercials where the human is mesmerized by the cat?  Jamie just killed that guy oh look a cute kitten!

I can’t blame Roger for being disgusted by Bree saying she wanted to give Bonnet some comfort before he was hanged. 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Haleth

[Nidratime]

Quote

So Jamie's just going to go around killing someone for convenience's sake every episode or so now?  Sure, you could see the ending with Knox coming, but it makes all the handwringing over putting Mr. Beardley down last episode feel kind of pointless. 

Well, it is two different kinds of killing. With Beardsley -- despite how he treated his "wives" and bond slaves -- it was a mercy killing and I'm not Catholic, but I don't think they go for that. So, Jamie had to come to terms with his God over that.

With regard to Knox, Jamie made it clear that he will stand against anyone who threatens his family and Knox would not only be hunting down Jamie's Godfather, but he would have known that Jamie was in Arsdmuir and go after him as well, which threatens his family's well-being. No matter how much Jamie appeared to be cozying up to the British, I can't imagine he sees killing a British soldier who was threatening his life and liberty the same way he sees killing a helpless stroke victim who did nothing to him.

My only side-eye went towards how fast Knox got that information sent to him.

[Scarlett45]

One of my cats Charlie died Sunday night/Monday morning, and all though he looked nothing like Asdo, my heart was warmed by a new kitty getting a home. 
 

I haven’t read the books but enjoy the book readers perspectives. I was terrified one or both of the twins was going to die from a penicillin allergy and mirror Graham, but that wasn’t the case. I thought Claire’s 1960s makeup was very on point. 

[rwlevin]

Okay, not a fan. I know Jamie’s killed before but never like that. He’s never been a murderer before. He’s only ever killed out of mercy or out of necessity. And don’t tell me that was necessity. He could have figured out a different way to hide his connection to Murtaugh, like intercepting the papers beforehand. That was just so...out of character.

[Clawdette]

I hadn't read any of the books until Season 1 of Outlander began to air and then I read all eight in the 2014-2015 time frame.  Boy, it shows.  Other than the first volume, I haven't gone back and re-read any of them and, while I remember the overarching story line, the details escape me.  (Not to mention the several Lord John books that were squeezed in there, too.)

For instance, I remembered very well the bigamist plot but not the name of the bigamist.  I did remember where he was from - Granite Falls - because it's about five miles from where I live.  But even though I heard his name several times before the big reveal, I didn't have a clue he was the bigamist.  It's probably a combination of passing time and increasing age.  I should probably search out a good Wiki to review going forward.

 

[DietCokeJunkie]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

With regard to Knox, Jamie made it clear that he will stand against anyone who threatens his family and Knox would not only be hunting down Jamie's Godfather, but he would have known that Jamie was in Arsdmuir and go after him as well, which threatens his family's well-being. No matter how much Jamie appeared to be cozying up to the British, I can't imagine he sees killing a British soldier who was threatening his life and liberty....

Why would it matter if Knox knew Jamie was in Ardsmuir? Jamie did his time and was released. It’s not as if he could arrest or even harass him for that. The only thing he could do is pressure Jamie for info on Murtaugh. Why couldn’t Jamie just plead ignorance to having seen him or knowing his whereabouts? I’m not really understanding the motivation for killing Knox. 

[theschnauzers]

1 hour ago, Clawdette said:

I hadn't read any of the books until Season 1 of Outlander began to air and then I read all eight in the 2014-2015 time frame.  Boy, it shows.  Other than the first volume, I haven't gone back and re-read any of them and, while I remember the overarching story line, the details escape me.  (Not to mention the several Lord John books that were squeezed in there, too.)

For instance, I remembered very well the bigamist plot but not the name of the bigamist.  I did remember where he was from - Granite Falls - because it's about five miles from where I live.  But even though I heard his name several times before the big reveal, I didn't have a clue he was the bigamist.  It's probably a combination of passing time and increasing age.  I should probably search out a good Wiki to review going forward.

 

Perfect way is to read Diana’s own summaries in both volumes of the Outlandish Companion, which also includes bio blurbs of every character in the book series.

 

[theschnauzers]

31 minutes ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Why would it matter if Knox knew Jamie was in Ardsmuir? Jamie did his time and was released. It’s not as if he could arrest or even harass him for that. The only thing he could do is pressure Jamie for info on Murtaugh. Why couldn’t Jamie just plead ignorance to having seen him or knowing his whereabouts? I’m not really understanding the motivation for killing Knox. 

IIRC Knox told Jamie he’d report him to th Governor for treason for anything he had done once his militia arrived in Brownsvile, even though Knox had killed a prisoner in cold blood. So it was self defense of his family even if you excluded Murtaugh, and he was protecting his godfather for the war he knew was to come.

[Haleth]

The document had Murtagh's last name as Fraser.  Although probably not an uncommon name, the coincidence would be too much for the governor to ignore.

I only vaguely remember the incident that put Claire's career in jeopardy, but was the character's name in the book really Menzies?  I thought the writers were maybe tipping their hats to Tobias.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Haleth

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

 

I only vaguely remember the incident that put Claire's career in jeopardy, but was the character's name in the book really Menzies?

Yes.

[Cdh20]

10 hours ago, rwlevin said:

Okay, not a fan. I know Jamie’s killed before but never like that. He’s never been a murderer before. He’s only ever killed out of mercy or out of necessity. And don’t tell me that was necessity. He could have figured out a different way to hide his connection to Murtaugh, like intercepting the papers beforehand. That was just so...out of character.

Quote

 

I don't think it was out of character-Jamie will kill to protect his family, his first oath is to them. However in this instance, I thought he would have tried to intercept the letter instead first.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Cdh20
spelling

[Nidratime]

12 hours ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

Why would it matter if Knox knew Jamie was in Ardsmuir? Jamie did his time and was released. It’s not as if he could arrest or even harass him for that. The only thing he could do is pressure Jamie for info on Murtaugh. Why couldn’t Jamie just plead ignorance to having seen him or knowing his whereabouts? I’m not really understanding the motivation for killing Knox. 

Knox clearly said that he was going to arrest Jamie. 

Diana talks about the differences between some of the killings Jamie has done in this Parade article:

Jamie Just Killed Another Man on Outlander–Author Diana Gabaldon Explains Why That Was 'Matter of Necessity' 

https://parade.com/1008905/paulettecohn/outlander-season-5-episode-5-diana-gabaldon-jamie-kills-lieutenant-knox-traitor/

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Nidratime

[Trillian]

What year was the flashback to the church supposed to be?  I couldn't tell from the setup of the church, which appeared to have kneelers but no altar rail (too cheap to modify the church set?), but it looked like mid-60s, judging from the clothes and the hair.  Claire should've had her head covered in church.  And even today, a priest doesn't walk up and chat with you during Adoration, which is an incredibly solemn and sacred thing.

[theschnauzers]

21 minutes ago, Trillian said:

What year was the flashback to the church supposed to be?  I couldn't tell from the setup of the church, which appeared to have kneelers but no altar rail (too cheap to modify the church set?), but it looked like mid-60s, judging from the clothes and the hair.  Claire should've had her head covered in church.  And even today, a priest doesn't walk up and chat with you during Adoration, which is an incredibly solemn and sacred thing.

IIRC, it was in 1968 or 1969

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Trillian said:

What year was the flashback to the church supposed to be?  I couldn't tell from the setup of the church, which appeared to have kneelers but no altar rail (too cheap to modify the church set?), but it looked like mid-60s, judging from the clothes and the hair.  Claire should've had her head covered in church.  And even today, a priest doesn't walk up and chat with you during Adoration, which is an incredibly solemn and sacred thing.

Given Claire wasn’t catholic I can see why her hair wasn’t covered in the Church. She probably went last minute and didn’t have a scarf on her. 
 

Brianna and Roger’s pillow talk- no Brianna you can’t teach math at a university you’re a woman.....:.did you forget? Best case she could start a finishing college for young ladies. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

So Jamie's just going to go around killing someone for convenience's sake every episode or so now? 

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about Jamie committing cold-blooded murder. His family would survive if he went to jail. They might lose their land but it's not exactly self defense. 

Cute kitten though.

I'm so tired of Roger and Bree fighting over everything. They are both hot tempered and quick to over react. They do not make a good couple. 

The tonsillectomy was gross.

[Haleth]

51 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Given Claire wasn’t catholic

As far as I remember, Claire is Catholic. 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Haleth

[toolazy]

44 minutes ago, Haleth said:

As far as I remember, Claire is Catholic. 

She was baptized but didn't really practice because she was always running all over with her uncle.  

By the late 60's, it's reasonable that she didn't have her hair covered in church. 

[SassAndSnacks]

I had high hopes for this one after the cold open (which usually signifies a great episode) and the flashback montage at the beginning (oh, my heart). Overall, it was a little “meh.”

Maybe it’s just everything going on over the last several days or maybe it’s way too much Bree and Roger. I found myself checking to see how much time was left during the first Bree and Roger scene. 

That said, a meh hour of Outlander is better than anything else on tv.

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

She was baptized but didn't really practice because she was always running all over with her uncle. 

She wasn't practicing when she was with Uncle Lamb.  When she and Jamie were at the Abbey, she had conversations with one of the priests there who invited her to come to adoration with him.  He also heard her confession, where she spoke of time travel (and he took her seriously).  It had a profound affect on her, and in Voyager she talked about how she has an hour every week where she goes to adoration.

[unlfan03]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

She wasn't practicing when she was with Uncle Lamb.  When she and Jamie were at the Abbey, she had conversations with one of the priests there who invited her to come to adoration with him.  He also heard her confession, where she spoke of time travel (and he took her seriously).  It had a profound affect on her, and in Voyager she talked about how she has an hour every week where she goes to adoration.

I think that is the big difference between book Claire and TV Claire, and even book Jamie and TV Jamie. Dianna made it a point to show Jamie as devout as he could be given the general dislike of Catholicism in England and the Colonies, remember in the books it was a cloak and dagger operation to get the kiddos baptized Catholic and Jocasta's marriage was postponed during the gathering because of this antagonism. But Claire was more nominally Catholic, drawing closer to her faith during the 20 years that Bre was growing up because it brought her closer to Jamie. However in the show, they have drawn back from the religious sides of all the characters, which will be interesting given Roger's book story line. 

I wasn't as happy with this episode as the previous block of episodes. I think that the Knox/Jamie conflict was odd and is going to be an issue in the future, If nothing else the messenger that brought the dispatches about Ardsmuir knew that Knox had company when he delivered the dispatches which happened just before the "fire."

Adso was so cute, and those poor twins, I too was worried that one of the twins was going to end up having a reaction (that would be one way to side step future issues). Otherwise the episode felt like a lot of exposition, and almost a waste of an episode. Maybe it will be better on re-watch after the season is done and I can see how they end up wrapping it up and I am not so worried about getting to the end of the story I know is coming.  

[Cdh20]

2 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I had high hopes for this one after the cold open (which usually signifies a great episode) and the flashback montage at the beginning (oh, my heart). Overall, it was a little “meh.”

That said, a meh hour of Outlander is better than anything else on tv.

Agreed!

Edited March 17, 2020 by Cdh20

[WatchrTina]

Well, I finally watched the episode.  On Tuesday.  Which says so much.  I used to get up on Sunday, watch it twice on demand (taking notes the second time) then write a lengthy commentary and then revel in the back-and-forth on these boards all day long.  Now . . . not so much.  I’m trying to figure it out and I think the problem is that the Bonnet storyline is my absolute least favorite plot line of the whole book series.  It just makes me edgy and uncomfortable.  (And I’m actually angry that the show-runners decided to show us that particularly horrible scene in the “Previously“ section.  We get it show-runners – he’s fucking evil. I didn’t need to see that again.)

The Jamie story was interesting and – unless I’m forgetting something – completely off-book.  But then, the whole Murtagh story-line is off-book, right?  In the books Murtagh is dead at this point.  So I guess I think it’s interesting, as a reader, to not know where things are going.  But on the other hand, I found Jamie’s murder of the Redcoat officer pretty damned disturbing.  I guess you can call that self-defense since Jamie was trying to preserve his freedom (which the British took from him once before all those years ago.)  And of course that officer called the memory of Ardsmuir to all our minds (Jamie’s and the audience’s) with that damned list.  But still . . . it was hard to see our hero Jamie commit murder.  Now I think about it – Jamie’s situation (having to work for the Redcoats, knowing full well there is a revolution coming and that he’s going to eventually have to break his oath and change sides if he wants to be on the winning side) is another aspect of this book that I always hated. He has to walk this fine line, not alienating either side too much, never letting on what his true feelings are.  Maybe that's good drama but it stresses me out. So, yeah, this season is going to be a rough road for me.

Aaaaand now we’re flashing back to 20th century Boston and Claire is still a doctor.  I guess I get what they were doing . . . giving us insight into the history that is both driving Claire to find penicillin in the past but also haunting her with the possibility of a bad outcome for the twins (i.e., a fatal allergic reaction).  Okay, I can work with that.  What I CAN’T work with is that they named her patient Graham Menzies  -- as in Graham McTavish (the actor who played Dougal MacKenzie) and Tobias Menzies (the actor who played Frank and Jack Randall).  That actually bugged the crap out of me.  And is Menzies even a Scottish name?

So anyway, very mixed feelings about this one.  But Jamie found Adso so there’s that.

 

Why would it matter if Knox knew Jamie was in Ardsmuir? Jamie did his time and was released. It’s not as if he could arrest or even harass him for that. The only thing he could do is pressure Jamie for info on Murtaugh. Why couldn’t Jamie just plead ignorance to having seen him or knowing his whereabouts? I’m not really understanding the motivation for killing Knox. 

Jamie's been pretending to hunt for Murtagh, on the king's behalf.  The discovery that Murtagh is actually Jamie's godfather -- information that Jamie has not shared with anyone in the British military -- is pretty damning evidence that Jamie has NOT really been looking for Murtagh and has NOT been fulfilling his duty to the King. It's evidence of duplicity at the very least and treason at the very worst. And treason is a hanging offense.  So yeah, Jamie was highly motivated to not be publicly accused of that.

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by WatchrTina

[sas616]

I know that in the book, the patient that Claire treated was named Menzies.  Not sure if his 1st name was Graham...though I think the event actually took place in Voyager (and he did not die from a penicillin allergy).

Edited to add:  Apparently his 1st name WAS Graham in the book.

  https://cartermatt.com/397217/outlander-season-5-episode-5-the-graham-menzies-book-connection/

Edited March 18, 2020 by sas616

[WatchrTina]

7 minutes ago, sas616 said:

 I know that in the book, the patient that Claire treated was named Menzies. . .  Apparently his 1st name WAS Graham in the book.

Huh.  Fancy that.  And here I thought the show-runners were just being too clever by half by sprinkling in the names of key actors from the first season.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

What I CAN’T work with is that they named her patient Graham Menzies  -- as in Graham McTavish (the actor who played Dougal MacKenzie) and Tobias Menzies (the actor who played Frank and Jack Randall).  That actually bugged the crap out of me.  And is Menzies even a Scottish name?

10 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Huh.  Fancy that.  And here I thought the show-runners were just being too clever by half by sprinkling in the names of key actors from the first season.

For SHAME, Watchrtina! As a buik reader, that you didna remember that tidbit!😝

But Aye, all that Knox stuff is off-buik, because as you stated, Murtagh is dead at this point. But since Show decided to keep him alive, anything and everything that is Murtagh related as regards to the Regulators, isn't from the buiks. And here I thought I'd read with Sam and Cait as producers now, that the show would follow the buiks more closely.

I just want more of Jamie and Claire, dammit.

 

[iMonrey]

Quote

  I used to get up on Sunday, watch it twice on demand (taking notes the second time) then write a lengthy commentary and then revel in the back-and-forth on these boards all day long.  Now . . . not so much. 

I'm not finding this season as engaging as some in the past either. For me, part of the problem is that this is the first season that hasn't taken place in a different location than the previous season. Season 1 was Scotland, Season 2 was France, Season 3 was the Caribbean, and Season 4 was North Carolina. Now we're just stuck in North Carolina, and it's not as interesting. Also? No Young Ian.

[SassAndSnacks]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I just want more of Jamie and Claire, dammit.

Shout it louder for the producers in the back!

I'm actually really enjoying this season, just wasn't blown away by the last episode.  But, the meh episodes help us to appreciate the brilliant episodes even more, right?  

Side thought - have we ever done a poll of what we think are the best episodes?  For instance, if you could only re-watch 10 episodes, what would they be?  I must ponder...

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Shout it louder for the producers in the back!

I'm actually really enjoying this season, just wasn't blown away by the last episode.  But, the meh episodes help us to appreciate the brilliant episodes even more, right?  

Side thought - have we ever done a poll of what we think are the best episodes?  For instance, if you could only re-watch 10 episodes, what would they be?  I must ponder...

Love this, a poll!  I am thinking of mine now...will be back.

 

I think we all miss Scotland but we know we aren’t going back there. I think season 5 so far is actually better than season 4. 

I also find that book readers/lovers are increasingly dissatisfied compared to non readers, & have given up the show.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Cdh20
Added a thought

[GHScorpiosRule]

55 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

I also find that book readers/lovers are increasingly dissatisfied compared to non readers, & have given up the show

I suppose I'm a buik reader, but I pretty much zoomed through all of them after Season One, and am not a fan of Gabaldon's writing style. That said, I'm in here until the end, because, 💘SamasJamie💘 and Jamie and Claire.

[Cdh20]

21 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Shout it louder for the producers in the back!

I'm actually really enjoying this season, just wasn't blown away by the last episode.  But, the meh episodes help us to appreciate the brilliant episodes even more, right?  

Side thought - have we ever done a poll of what we think are the best episodes?  For instance, if you could only re-watch 10 episodes, what would they be?  I must ponder...

Sassandsnacks-maybe make a new thread for the favourite episodes, so it doesn't get lost in  this epi thread. Since most of the world is staying home these days, it could get a good response, & I'd love to see the answers! 

[SassAndSnacks]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

Sassandsnacks-maybe make a new thread for the favourite episodes, so it doesn't get lost in  this epi thread. Since most of the world is staying home these days, it could get a good response, & I'd love to see the answers! 

Oooh...do I know how to do that?

I'll try to start it tonight.  This whole social distancing/work from home/home-school three little kids lifestyle is really interfering with my Outlander time.  😊

[Cdh20]

4 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Oooh...do I know how to do that?

I'll try to start it tonight.  This whole social distancing/work from home/home-school three little kids lifestyle is really interfering with my Outlander time.  😊

I don't envy you 3 small kids- mine are uni students at least.  

Putting my list together now!

[ruby24]

Sadly I think this season has been pretty boring, but the book wasn't very exciting either. I don't think the show has improved on it much.

I think as the books go on your interest depends on a lot of the new characters and subplots they bring in regarding them, and I wonder how well that will translate to the screen.

[cardigirl]

I may be in the minority, but I like when the show reminds us about the time-traveling aspect of Claire's life. I enjoyed the Boston scenes, which I think they did a better job of portraying this episode, and seeing Claire and Bree in 1968 (or thereabouts).

I guess I hadn't realized that Claire went to England after Frank's death because her status as a surgeon was in jeopardy from the allergic reaction and death of her patient. That was new information. 

I was not as enamored of Jamie murdering the British soldier, even if it was self-defense. It just seemed very uncharacteristic of him.  He usually figures another way out of such situations, but this just felt very false and not natural to the character. Jamie has killed before, but not like this. 

Adso is very cute. 

 

[Scarlett45]

16 hours ago, cardigirl said:

 

I may be in the minority, but I like when the show reminds us about the time-traveling aspect of Claire's life. I enjoyed the Boston scenes, which I think they did a better job of portraying this episode, and seeing Claire and Bree in 1968 (or thereabouts).

I guess I hadn't realized that Claire went to England after Frank's death because her status as a surgeon was in jeopardy from the allergic reaction and death of her patient. That was new information. 

 

I didn’t take it that Claire’s status as a surgeon was in jeopardy. She didn’t do anything wrong. She took a leave of absence- aka used her PTO in 21st century terms. She likely hadn’t had more than a few days off since she graduated in medical school (or maybe a week) and she wanted the chance to travel and spend time with Bree after seeing a patient die unexpectedly. 

[Cdh20]

On 3/19/2020 at 10:43 AM, SassAndSnacks said:

Oooh...do I know how to do that?

 

Do you want me to figure out how to start a thread? 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Cdh20

[SassAndSnacks]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

Do you want me to figure out how to start a thread? 

Ha! I’m so sorry. I’ve been busy with work and kids. I actually started a post but then someone needed something and away it went.

By all means, start away! I’ll be more than happy to throw in my two cents ten dollars worth of thoughts. Thank you!

[Cdh20]

41 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Ha! I’m so sorry. I’ve been busy with work and kids. I actually started a post but then someone needed something and away it went.

By all means, start away! I’ll be more than happy to throw in my two cents ten dollars worth of thoughts. Thank you!

Ok, I am just hanging around wanting to fill the boredom. I made a long list of things to do around the house, but this is more fun. What do we want - Top 10 episodes?  10 episodes you could watch over & over, but they are THE only 10 you get??  I can't wait to see your $10 worth!

[SassAndSnacks]

16 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

Ok, I am just hanging around wanting to fill the boredom. I made a long list of things to do around the house, but this is more fun. What do we want - Top 10 episodes?  10 episodes you could watch over & over, but they are THE only 10 you get??  I can't wait to see your $10 worth!

Hmm, clean or talk Outlander...  I know what I would choose, too!

At first, I thought a poll would be fun, interesting to see how people ranked each episode, but having to type out every single episode seemed like way too much work and maybe wouldn't foster a discussion.  I like your "Only 10 Episodes You Get" idea, kind of like picking an All Star Season of Outlander.  

(I'm probably more excited for this than I should be.)

[Cdh20]

38 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Hmm, clean or talk Outlander...  I know what I would choose, too!

At first, I thought a poll would be fun, interesting to see how people ranked each episode, but having to type out every single episode seemed like way too much work and maybe wouldn't foster a discussion.  I like your "Only 10 Episodes You Get" idea, kind of like picking an All Star Season of Outlander.  

(I'm probably more excited for this than I should be.)

Me too!!! My boss called before I could get mine all written up, so now I am going to do it!

[Kim0820]

On 3/22/2020 at 4:22 PM, cardigirl said:

 

I was not as enamored of Jamie murdering the British soldier, even if it was self-defense. It just seemed very uncharacteristic of him.  He usually figures another way out of such situations, but this just felt very false and not natural to the character. Jamie has killed before, but not like this. 

 

 

Murtaugh wanted to kill Bonnie Prince Charlie right off, and Jamie wasn't having any of that.  Then after months of effort, Jamie and Claire were reduced to trying that right before Culloden.  Dougal overheard and disrupted that plan.  Maybe Jamie could have neutralized Knox with his own misconduct, but prior experience may have hinted that he'd have to kill him someday and things could be much worse by then.

On 3/16/2020 at 9:02 AM, Cdh20 said:

I don't think it was out of character-Jamie will kill to protect his family, his first oath is to them. However in this instance, I thought he would have tried to intercept the letter instead first.

Yes, wasn't that Fergus' area of expertise?