S05.E06: Better to Marry Than Burn

[Athena]

Quote

The Regulator Rebellion reaches a boiling point, forcing Jamie to face his fear.

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.

[Haleth]

Lizzie? 😄

[anamika]

Honestly, I really hate this trope of slaves and people in forced servitude caring for their white mistresses and masters and wanting them to be happy. Like, does Jocasta care if Ulysses is happy or whether he even has a life outside of taking care of her every need? Ugh.

Still don't care about Murtagh.

It was nauseating watching Wylie chase after Claire. At least she got some information about Bonnet out of that. Though Bonnet seems to be ahead of them. Pippin was a baddie!

The show finally gave Professor Mackenzie a win.

Edited March 22, 2020 by anamika

[Eureka]

Was the backstory about Jocasta’s daughters in the book? I know the stolen gold was. Can’t remember much of her details at all. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Eureka

[DietCokeJunkie]

Sorry, Phillip Wylie, but your magnificent  horse is a Friesian, not Arabian. Outlander uses those beautiful beasts constantly. I know they probably go with the horses that are available, but then at least adjust the writing to reflect that. 
 

And I know it followed the book, but that sex scene between Jamie and Claire was just meh. When he told her to look down and watch, all I could think was that she couldn’t see anything past all those skirts, lol. 
 

What a betraying little weasel Forbes is! Did not see that coming. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Flay me alive, but I enjoyed that sex scene. Why? Because, like it or not (and this is Gabaldon’s world and fiction to boot), Jamie and Claire had/have a very active sex life, and Show has done a puir job of showing that tae me. And at least it was a moment-the rings being used in a card game, from the buik. I’m not expecting to go at it like rabbits, but I do want tae see more of them.

locusts, phocists, fast forward material for me. And why does Forbes think Jeremiah is that bastard, Bonnett’s spawn? Did he tell Forbes that he was the father? I thought Bree’s rape was only known to the family and Lizzie? Or is this another off-buik plot point?

It was lovely to see the gorgeous highlands in the opening scene though.

[CarpeFelis]

2 hours ago, Eureka said:

Was the backstory about Jocasta’s daughters in the book? I know the stolen gold was. Can’t remember much of her details at all. 

In the “Inside the Episode” video they said they made up that part so it would Jocasta turning Murtagh down would make sense. She was marrying for safety and security rather than for love.

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

2 hours ago, CarpeFelis said:

In the “Inside the Episode” video they said they made up that part so it would Jocasta turning Murtagh down would make sense. She was marrying for safety and security rather than for love.

Except they didn't make that up. Hector shooting their daughter while escaping and leaving her other daughters dying in the aftermath of Culloden is exactly what happens in the book.

They must have meant not choosing Murtagh is made up because it was.

[ruby24]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Flay me alive, but I enjoyed that sex scene. Why? Because, like it or not (and this is Gabaldon’s world and fiction to boot), Jamie and Claire had/have a very active sex life, and Show has done a puir job of showing that tae me. And at least it was a moment-the rings being used in a card game, from the buik. I’m not expecting to go at it like rabbits, but I do want tae see more of them.

locusts, phocists, fast forward material for me. And why does Forbes think Jeremiah is that bastard, Bonnett’s spawn? Did he tell Forbes that he was the father? I thought Bree’s rape was only known to the family and Lizzie? Or is this another off-buik plot point?

It was lovely to see the gorgeous highlands in the opening scene though.

I agree the show has all but erased the sex scenes that were still very prominent in the books at this point. I'm not totally sure why...maybe they think there's just no reason to justify showing them being physical anymore after being married and together for so long? 

I'd actually like to hear the answer to that. One of the points of Jamie and Claire's relationship is how sexual it is- have the producers decided it's just silly to keep having that in there or something? (I know people would much rather see them in bed than Roger and Brianna).

Edited March 22, 2020 by ruby24

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

locusts, phocists, fast forward material for me. And why does Forbes think Jeremiah is that bastard, Bonnett’s spawn? Did he tell Forbes that he was the father? I thought Bree’s rape was only known to the family and Lizzie? Or is this another off-buik plot point?

It was lovely to see the gorgeous highlands in the opening scene though.

Off book I'd say. Bonnet think Jemmy is his and all, but I don't think the books have Jocasta signing anything over to Jemmy. I don't remember Forbes working with Bonnet in the books either.

[unlfan03]

4 hours ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

Off book I'd say. Bonnet think Jemmy is his and all, but I don't think the books have Jocasta signing anything over to Jemmy. I don't remember Forbes working with Bonnet in the books either.

Jocasta wanted to sign everything over to Jemmy, but I think that Bre and Roger turned it down. I know that Wylie worked with Bonnet as did Forbes. It was all the men that were rejected by the Fraser women banding together.

[Haleth]

Maria Kennedy was fantastic in her scene talking about her daughters. The angry sex scene in the stable?  Oh, please. 🙄

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

17 minutes ago, unlfan03 said:

Jocasta wanted to sign everything over to Jemmy, but I think that Bre and Roger turned it down. I know that Wylie worked with Bonnet as did Forbes. It was all the men that were rejected by the Fraser women banding together.

Yeah, I remember she wanted to sign it over, but I don't think it ever happens in the books. I remember Bonnet uses Wylie's Landing. I don't remember Forbes having  a part with Bonnet though. Oh well, not like I can remember it all.

[Quickbeam]

2 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Maria Kennedy was fantastic in her scene talking about her daughters. 

She sure was, amazing actor. 
I am finding I am forgetting some fine points of the books. And I can’t face the thousands of pages to fact check.

[Scarlett45]

9 hours ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

And I know it followed the book, but that sex scene between Jamie and Claire was just meh. When he told her to look down and watch, all I could think was that she couldn’t see anything past all those skirts, lol.

That’s what I thought too!!!!

 

My Mom (whos 72 and we watch the show together) said during the “sex in the barn scene” “They are a good match for each other, but I need indoor plumbing. Id have to live on the memories.”🤣🤣🤣

[Scarlett45]

18 hours ago, anamika said:

Honestly, I really hate this trope of slaves and people in forced servitude caring for their white mistresses and masters and wanting them to be happy. Like, does Jocasta care if Ulysses is happy or whether he even has a life outside of taking care of her every need? Ugh.

I hate it too. Of course I don’t expect Ulysses to be an ass to Jocasta (would get him killed), and I can certainly see him knowing that so many of his peers have it worse, as he’s got the “prestigious” job of all the SLAVES, but I don’t think he gives a Fuck about Jocastas happiness. A better scene would’ve been her asking him “what do you think” and him saying “it’s not my place ma’am” with a lot of subtext. Or talking about what marrying Duncan means for the security of the PLANTATION- Jocasta is rich but an unmarried woman is still vulnerable. Also historically wouldn’t have Jocasta had a female slave (older) as her head ladies maid/companion. I wouldn’t have been proper for any man (even a slave) to be in her room alone with her like that.  

[shelen]

Sex in the barn? 

Totally in character, I think, for them. 

Jamie is right, Claire is a woman.  His woman and he knows how far he can go with her (Season 3,  Episode 6, A. Malcolm, "do it now and don't be gentle").  Fuming, passionate woman, slightly inebriated, hot Scot.  Yep, sex in the barn, alright.

[Scarlett45]

9 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And why does Forbes think Jeremiah is that bastard, Bonnett’s spawn? Did he tell Forbes that he was the father? I thought Bree’s rape was only known to the family and Lizzie? Or is this another off-buik plot point?

Last Season Bree confronted Bonnet in jail let him know she was pregnant and would raise her child to be nothing like him. He inferred that the child was his. 
 

Last episode Roger and Bree had a fight about it because Bree never told Roger and she thought Jeremiah was his (I still don’t get what that was about- she can’t know!! If you say it doesn’t matter then it doesn’t matter!). 

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Last Season Bree confronted Bonnet in jail let him know she was pregnant and would raise her child to be nothing like him. He inferred that the child was his. 
 

Last episode Roger and Bree had a fight about it because Bree never told Roger and she thought Jeremiah was his (I still don’t get what that was about- she can’t know!! If you say it doesn’t matter then it doesn’t matter!). 

I know all that. But unless Bonnett is going around Wilmington and everywhere else claiming that the child that the woman he raped had is his, it makes no sense. Because he’s still a wanted man. But plot! I guess.

 

[Scarlett45]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I know all that. But unless Bonnett is going around Wilmington and everywhere else claiming that the child that the woman he raped had is his, it makes no sense. Because he’s still a wanted man. But plot! I guess.

 

Oh I see what you’re saying. Bonnets never going to admit he raped her though, he’s just being a creepy fuck who’s possessive over the idea of “his seed” advancing in the world. 

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

That’s what I thought too!!!!

 

My Mom (whos 72 and we watch the show together) said during the “sex in the barn scene” “They are a good match for each other, but I need indoor plumbing. Id have to live on the memories.”🤣🤣🤣

Like mother, like daughter!🤔😜

[anamika]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I hate it too. Of course I don’t expect Ulysses to be an ass to Jocasta (would get him killed), and I can certainly see him knowing that so many of his peers have it worse, as he’s got the “prestigious” job of all the SLAVES, but I don’t think he gives a Fuck about Jocastas happiness. A better scene would’ve been her asking him “what do you think” and him saying “it’s not my place ma’am” with a lot of subtext. Or talking about what marrying Duncan means for the security of the PLANTATION- Jocasta is rich but an unmarried woman is still vulnerable. Also historically wouldn’t have Jocasta had a female slave (older) as her head ladies maid/companion. I wouldn’t have been proper for any man (even a slave) to be in her room alone with her like that.  

It makes me angry to see stuff like this.

It's already hard to ignore that Jocasta is a slave owner and that 20th century time travelers like Claire, Bree and Roger now seem comfortable with the slavery they see and live with, but then the show has to go and add nonsense like this about the slave only wanting their owner to be happy. Absolute trash which undermines the real degradation and brutality that was the actual reality for these slaves in those time periods.

Dear white people, here's something to remember when one writes shows like this - the slaves and the people whose countries were colonized did not like their oppressors, care for them or love them. They just wanted to be free.

[SassAndSnacks]

Throughout the episode, I thinking “Wow! I like this so much. I can’t wait to tell everyone how much I like this!”

And then the end happened. The barn sex scene was disappointing. The book set the tension much better - Sleeping Claire being touched by someone and being confused about who is was, leaving her room, seeing Jamie, and them needing to have each other. Because that’s who they are and what they do. They are passionate for and about each other. Which brings me to these gems -

10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Flay me alive, but I enjoyed that sex scene. Why? Because, like it or not (and this is Gabaldon’s world and fiction to boot), Jamie and Claire had/have a very active sex life, and Show has done a puir job of showing that tae me. And at least it was a moment-the rings being used in a card game, from the buik. I’m not expecting to go at it like rabbits, but I do want tae see more of them.

And...

7 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I agree the show has all but erased the sex scenes that were still very prominent in the books at this point. I'm not totally sure why...maybe they think there's just no reason to justify showing them being physical anymore after being married and together for so long? 

I'd actually like to hear the answer to that. One of the points of Jamie and Claire's relationship is how sexual it is- have the producers decided it's just silly to keep having that in there or something? (I know people would much rather see them in bed than Roger and Brianna).

On some of these threads, I’ve seen people miffed at the continued sexual activity of Jamie and Claire into their 50s and 60s. It’s actually a compelling part of the whole book series to me. Why shouldn’t they go at it? I want them to go at it! I’m in my 30s, have 3 small kids, a job, a mortgage, and a husband who means everything to me. And damn right, I hope we’re still that interested in each other at that age. I love that they still need and want that physicality with each other. It’s inspiring, frankly, and in the books truly speaks to their oneness.

But because the show hasn’t shown us this, and, at best only slightly alluded to it, we’re left with the awkward barn scene.

Anyway...tangent over.

- Maria Doyle Kennedy is incredible. 

- Yay, Roger!

- Phaedre? 

[WatchrTina]

LAST THINGS FIRST

Gerald Forbes tells Steven Bonnet that “Your son is now the proud owner of Riverrun. What?  Wait WHAT?  How? HOW did Gerald Forbes know that Brianna thinks her baby is Bonnet’s?  She would NEVER have told him that.  And who else COULD have told him?  Only Jamie, Claire, and Roger know about the rape.

 

THE GOOD

Ooooh that opening credit was brilliant.  We see the kind of mask that a fop like Philip Wylie would use while his hair was powdered but that pointy mask also looks a LOT like a plague mask from the middle ages, which is appropriate in an episode in which a plague (of locusts) appears.

Cue the flashback!  How nice to be back in Scotland for a moment, even for a tragic event.  (BTW, I strongly suspect that one of the beautiful black horses pulling Jocasta and Hector Cameron's carriage is the same horse we see playing Wylie’s prize horse 30 years later.)  I also liked that Hector was as skilled with a blade as Angus in Season 1. Remember when Angus coached Claire on how to drop a man with one strike from a short blade?  Hector Cameron is equally effective.  And I thought this was a great way to bring the existence of the Stuart gold to the attention of the TV audience in a clear and concise manner.

The relationship between Jocasta and Ulysses continues to be complicated.  There is surprising candor between them when they are alone – an intimacy that is hinted at but never clearly shown – and yet it is clear that Jocasta gives not the slightest thought to how Ulysses might feel about her marrying Duncan (or taking Murtagh as a lover). 

The whole off-book plot with the locusts is terrific.  I think it was a great way to demonstrate Roger saving the day (via his book-learning and knowledge of history) and earning the respect of the people of the Ridge in a plausible and swift manner.

And of course everything having to do with Murtagh is off-book now.  As a reader that should bug me but I love Murtagh so much I’m open to see how the show-runners adapt the series to feature him.  He and Jocasta had almost as much screen time in this episode as Jamie & Claire and that is fine with me.

Glad to see that the reputation of “Dr. Rawlins” continues to grow.  I feel certain that plot line is going to bear fruit.

The set for the wedding was terrific.  Great use of the outdoor views of Jocasta’s estate.

Did you notice that Wylie’s faux beauty mark ended up stuck on Claire’s neck (either she or Jamie plucks it off).  That was funny.

Unless I am mistaken the co-mingling of the Wylie plot and the Bonnet plot is entirely new.  In the book I think they merely sell a jewel to Wylie.  And I don’t think Jamie’s distillery enters into the matter in the book.  It’s a long book and it needs to be condensed for television so I’m impressed (so far) with how they’ve distilled things down.  (Heh.  “Distilled.”)

In the book Jamie asks Claire for her gold ring (Frank’s ring) so that he can gamble at a tavern and she gets mad and give him both.  I always hated that plot point.  I think it’s better that he asks for the ring in the episode not as a first resort but as a last resort – because Wylie demands it if they are to gamble (and Wylie does that to punish Claire for rejecting him.)  TVClaire is still mad at Jamie for agreeing to that, but Wylie is the real villain.

Jocasta thinks her blindness is a punishment from God for leaving Morna dead on the road. That’s so sad and, alas, it is realistic. I knew an elderly woman who thought her mentally r******* son was a punishment from God for her having had a miscarriage earlier in her life.  (Such a sad, misguided belief – but that’s what she really believed.)

Not gonna lie . . . I cheered during the sex in the stables.  Though that line, “Look down. . .   Watch while I take ye.” was a bit much.

 

THE BAD

That hoard of gold was just sitting on a shelf underneath the carriage not secured in any way?  Not tied or belted on?  Okay, I know they did that so that the scene could move quickly but that beggared belief.

When Brianna (who is an engineering genius in the book) said she had an idea about how to spread the smoke I’ll admit I was expecting something a bit more elaborate than “wave a piece of cloth at it.”  We saw one slightly more elaborate fan but that was it.  The women might just as well have flapped their aprons – no need to sacrifice a perfectly good bed sheet.

The courtship of Jocasta and Duncan Innes is not so much bad as sad.  I preferred the book (in which Duncan's offer of marriage saves Jocasta from the persistent attentions of an aggressive Redcoat officer.)  Jocasta’s decision to marry in the TV show makes much less sense, especially when you take her love affair with Murtagh into account.  And the way she dismissed Duncan’s declaration of devotion (the speech about two streams joining) was . . . sad. (But then again, anyone who thinks Jocasta is the kind of woman who needs a lavender sachet to sooth her nerves really doesna know the woman.)

I’m not very comfortable with the new, bloodthirsty Jamie we’re seeing these days.  He strangled a man in the last episode (not in the book) and in this episode he is quite up-front with Claire about his plans to kill Bonnet (in the book he also plans to kill Bonnet but he does not discuss that with Claire.)  Because I love the book characters so much it is hard for me to see them changed like that.

I was confused by the conversation between Jamie and Governor Tryon in the tent.  Was it the Governors’ plan that the Regulators should just surrender themselves to be hanged (and was he really surprised that none took him up on that offer?)  Or was it his intention to pretend to offer pardons to get them to surrender than THEN hang them anyway?  I watched twice and never really got the gist of what he was up to.

Jamie “threatens” Wylie by saying that the Governor’s wife, “hasn’t heard the things I have to say about you.”  What?  What could he say?  Wylie just admitted that she already knows he is a rake and a generally nasty piece of work.  What more could Jamie tell her that would matter to Wylie?

As much as I loved the stable sex, the segue from post-coital bliss to plotting murder was so abrupt it gave me whip-lash.  And since I’m devoted to the book I kind of hated Claire asking Jamie to, “Promise me that Stephen Bonnet will never take anything from us again.”  Is that really the Claire we’ve come to know in the past four seasons?  Isn’t the need for vengeance more of a Jamie trait?

 

THE UGLY

Philip Wylie.  Maybe the actor looks good out of make-up but in that wig, with that powder and giant beauty mark?  Ugh.

 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 

I love Lord John but why was he even IN this episode?  I guess he’s there just to remind us that he’s around and also to indicate the prestige of the wedding. After all, if the Governor can show up then Lord John should show up too.  And I guess that also adds heft to Roger’s insult by choosing to NOT attend the wedding.

 

OTHER

So . . . back to Gerald Forbes telling Bonnet that his son is the “proud owner of Riverrun.  My first thought was HOW would Forbes know that Bonnet thinks Brianna’s child is his son?  Brianna (alas) told Bonnet that when she thought he was going to be hanged, but why would Bonnet tell ANYONE, least of all Gerald Forbes?   They didn’t seem to be particularly close (what with Forbes clearly being afraid of Bonnet).  And if Brianna told Forbes who her BabyDaddy was during their short courtship, I sure don’t remember it.  

My theory is that the writers thought that Bonnet’s later decision (in the book) to kidnap Brianna & Jemmy was out-of-character for Bonnet.  He’s a selfish, murderous monster and a pirate to boot (with no fixed address).  Why would he want to drag a woman and a child behind him given his peripatetic life?  So I think the writers decided to make Bonnet’s decision more about coveting Riverrun than about wanting “his” son.

Edited March 23, 2020 by WatchrTina

[Cdh20]

We’ve seen Jamie & Claire have sex twice this season so far. I think they (showrunners, actors, writers) want to show it to us, but they are out of ways to make it different, or count! Remember part of Ron’s explanation in season 1 was all about how the sex had to mean something, from an emotional place, it wasn’t just about gratification? Now that they are happily married ( since she’s been back), we are to assume they have a lot of sex ( if you read the book, you know it, if not you would guess it anyway ). We are never again getting sex like The Wedding or The Reckoning! No doubt the actors would rather stay clothed than be naked. I do miss their more passionate  kissing, but don’t think their chemistry is lacking- they can heat up the screen just looking at each other (312), & I like the afterglow talks & touches! 

[Scarlett45]

7 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I’ve seen people miffed at the continued sexual activity of Jamie and Claire into their 50s and 60s. It’s actually a compelling part of the whole book series to me. Why shouldn’t they go at it? I want them to go at it! I’m in my 30s, have 3 small kids, a job, a mortgage, and a husband who means everything to me. And damn right, I hope we’re still that interested in each other at that age. I love that they still need and want that physicality with each other. It’s inspiring, frankly, and in the books truly speaks to their oneness.

Why would people be miffed at a married couple having sex???

I also think a lot of 21st century people forget that before electricity, television etc EVERYONE had more sex. You just did- there wasn’t as much to do after the sun went down and if you DID have a spouse you chose for love (compared to purely an arranged marriage) yeah you would still be having sex regularly. Even for rich people it took time to get new books! And for women menopause meant sex of all kinds without fear of pregnancy. 

7 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

HOW did Gerald Forbes know that Brianna thinks her baby is Bonnet’s?

Bonnet told him. Bonnet knows who Bree is. 

[cardigirl]

31 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Why would people be miffed at a married couple having sex???

I also think a lot of 21st century people forget that before electricity, television etc EVERYONE had more sex. You just did- there wasn’t as much to do after the sun went down and if you DID have a spouse you chose for love (compared to purely an arranged marriage) yeah you would still be having sex regularly. Even for rich people it took time to get new books! And for women menopause meant sex of all kinds without fear of pregnancy. 

Bonnet told him. Bonnet knows who Bree is. 

I also don't think a lot of 18th century people were having romantic-novel type of lovemaking though. Even without other forms of entertainment available to them, most people were working hard just to survive. It wasn't all pretty clothes and wigs and colonial masterpieces of houses. We are seeing a very prettified version of the 18th century.  🙂 

[Scarlett45]

8 hours ago, anamika said:

It's already hard to ignore that Jocasta is a slave owner and that 20th century time travelers like Claire, Bree and Roger now seem comfortable with the slavery they see and live with, but then the show has to go and add nonsense like this about the slave only wanting their owner to be happy. Absolute trash which undermines the real degradation and brutality that was the actual reality for these slaves in those time periods.

Claire, Bree & Roger are all white. They may “feel badly” for enslaved persons, but because they don’t own slaves themselves I’m not surprised that they can just shrug their shoulders at it. Most humans don’t spend a lot of emotional energy thinking about things that don’t effect them directly. Jaime was more adamant about not owning slaves than Claire was because of his personal experiences with being a prisoner of war and time at Adsmuir.(spelling)

I would have to research but I’m assuming there are no black writers on this show (even if they are British and not American Descendants of Slavery). I’ve noticed in historical dramas it’s really rare to have enslaved persons be complex characters*- they are either background set pieces or there to “prop up” the white characters. I’m not suggesting we go for some DJango Unchained revenge fantasy type stuff, but if you’re going to have Ulysses as a character please give him some dignity- which isn’t just about looking sharp in nice clothes. 
 

Also- Ulysses is a MAN. Where is Jocasta’s head ladies maid?? 

*the Roots 2016 remake did this really well, but that’s a piece based on a book by a black author. There were complex relationships between enslaved persons and their owners but you didn’t think it was unrealistic.

1 minute ago, cardigirl said:

I also don't think a lot of 18th century people were having romantic-novel type of lovemaking though. Even without other forms of entertainment available to them, most people were working hard just to survive. It wasn't all pretty clothes and wigs and colonial masterpieces of houses. We are seeing a very prettified version of the 18th century.  🙂 

Well yeah. But if you were a well to do couple who partnered for love, you’d have lots of time for sex. Rich people always have more time for leisure. 

[cardigirl]

4 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Well yeah. But if you were a well to do couple who partnered for love, you’d have lots of time for sex. Rich people always have more time for leisure. 

Maybe if you were French.  🙂  Most people used sex for procreation in marriage. If they wanted more from it, they went elsewhere.  Not being cynical, but with religion being the driving force in society that it was, I think many women endured sex, so to speak. 

Most marriages were not for love, but for property, in the 18th century, but our story is not dealing with that reality.  And sure, an arranged marriage can lead to love and respect between the couple, but for the woman, it was often not something she desired at all. 

However, we're not watching Outlander to be reminded of the true realities of 18th century marriage.  Are we?  

[Scarlett45]

10 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

Maybe if you were French.  🙂  Most people used sex for procreation in marriage. If they wanted more from it, they went elsewhere.  Not being cynical, but with religion being the driving force in society that it was, I think many women endured sex, so to speak. 

Most marriages were not for love, but for property, in the 18th century, but our story is not dealing with that reality.  And sure, an arranged marriage can lead to love and respect between the couple, but for the woman, it was often not something she desired at all. 

However, we're not watching Outlander to be reminded of the true realities of 18th century marriage.  Are we?  

You mean the lack of legal personhood or bodily autonomy for women (no matter their race)? No we aren’t. 
 

I just don’t see Jaime & Claire’s sexual relationship as unrealistic or Jocasta’s & Murtuagh’s for that matter. Did people really think rich widows with no risk of pregnancy REALLY slept alone all the time because they weren’t married? Or men like Lord John didn’t have sex because it was illegal?? Human beings are always having sex even if they aren’t “supposed to be” (as a group I mean not each individual person).

 

Yes religion and culture do influence choices but human behavior is human behavior. Of course individual people can make choices but that drive for partnered sex is strong within our species well outside the purpose of reproduction. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

48 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

However, we're not watching Outlander to be reminded of the true realities of 18th century marriage.  Are we?  

I'm certainly not because this show is a fantasy. Not a documentary, or a series whose premise is based in reality. Sure, we have some real historic events, such as Culloden, and now the American Revolution, but it's Jamie and Claire's story that keeps me watching.

[Scarlett45]

From a costume design perspective- I thought Claire’s dress was a little bland? Yes it was a day time dress, but the dark navy among all the color, she wasn’t at the Ridge working she was at a society party in celebration of Jocasta’s wedding. Anyone else notice that?

[Haleth]

20 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

From a costume design perspective- I thought Claire’s dress was a little bland? Yes it was a day time dress, but the dark navy among all the color, she wasn’t at the Ridge working she was at a society party in celebration of Jocasta’s wedding. Anyone else notice that?

It just seems Claire’s style. Remember her red dress in France?  While scandalous it was still pretty simple. Claire doesn’t like fussy ruffles and lace and prints. 

[Scarlett45]

9 minutes ago, Haleth said:

It just seems Claire’s style. Remember her red dress in France?  While scandalous it was still pretty simple. Claire doesn’t like fussy ruffles and lace and prints. 

That’s true. I think it just looked too much like her “everyday” clothing at the Ridge. We only knew it was a party because her hair was done and she had earrings on. 

[Cdh20]

34 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

From a costume design perspective- I thought Claire’s dress was a little bland? Yes it was a day time dress, but the dark navy among all the color, she wasn’t at the Ridge working she was at a society party in celebration of Jocasta’s wedding. Anyone else notice that?

I like her in blue with her dark hair & blue eyes, my daughter has that coloring & her eyes look extra blue in navy!

[aemom]

19 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I agree the show has all but erased the sex scenes that were still very prominent in the books at this point. I'm not totally sure why...maybe they think there's just no reason to justify showing them being physical anymore after being married and together for so long? 

I'd actually like to hear the answer to that. One of the points of Jamie and Claire's relationship is how sexual it is- have the producers decided it's just silly to keep having that in there or something? (I know people would much rather see them in bed than Roger and Brianna).

I think that because Cait and Sam are producers now, they have a lot more control over episode content. I would think that Cait especially is taking advantage of that fact not to have to do all the nude scenes - which really can't be very pleasant when you think about it.

[Atlanta]

IIRC, per the book, Duncan gave her the lavender pillow because she tended to get headaches.

Spoiler tag just in case:

Spoiler

And doesn't it come out in a later book that Ulysses is actually free?

 

[SassAndSnacks]

Instead of getting more sleep last night, I woke up early and rewatched this episode (as one does), and I liked the barn scene much better the second time around.  Maybe I was tired and cranky last night?  

11 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

We are never again getting sex like The Wedding or The Reckoning! No doubt the actors would rather stay clothed than be naked. I do miss their more passionate  kissing, but don’t think their chemistry is lacking- they can heat up the screen just looking at each other (312), & I like the afterglow talks & touches! 

I think this interpretation of their intimacy is what hasn't fully translated over from the books.  I don't need to see skin, but I want to see more of the touching, kissing, affection that they have for each other.  It warms my cold little heart, I tell ye!

Their chemistry is still <insert explosive sound effect here>.  That look he gave her after she slugged him, Woo! I think also my problem last night is that I had the sound down too far, making it hard to hear a lot of that dialogue, which adds so much to those scenes.  

Anyway, I stand corrected!

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

but it's Jamie and Claire's story that keeps me watching.

And reading through the occasional walk through peanut butter that these books can give us!

5 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Why would people be miffed at a married couple having sex???

Precisely!  But when we took the 20 year jump in Season 3, there was criticism on these threads about witnessing people in their 50s and 60s having sex.  I'm not going to swim back through all of the episode threads (though sometimes I do when I rewatch an episode) but there were definitely viewers who were critical of that portrayal.

12 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

The relationship between Jocasta and Ulysses continues to be complicated.  There is surprising candor between them when they are alone – an intimacy that is hinted at but never clearly shown – and yet it is clear that Jocasta gives not the slightest thought to how Ulysses might feel about her marrying Duncan (or taking Murtagh as a lover). 

I'm assuming that since Jocasta has (or had) a physical relationship with Murtagh that we won't see her physical relationship with Ulysses in the show.  I'm guessing they won't go there.

14 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I hate it too. Of course I don’t expect Ulysses to be an ass to Jocasta (would get him killed), and I can certainly see him knowing that so many of his peers have it worse, as he’s got the “prestigious” job of all the SLAVES, but I don’t think he gives a Fuck about Jocastas happiness.

This.  His comment last night about wanting Jocasta to be happy seemed to be so contrived.  I'm really enjoying the discussion on race happening on this thread.  Some interesting perspectives that you all are sharing. 

[Scarlett45]

7 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I'm assuming that since Jocasta has (or had) a physical relationship with Murtagh that we won't see her physical relationship with Ulysses in the show.  I'm guessing they won't go there.

Like how they had Lord John getting it on with another guy at Jocasta’s dinner party, not going to the slave quarters.....

Yes I’m glad we got her and Murtagh instead. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Jocasta, in the buiks, was a very Machiavellian character. Just as with Frank, she's been made more...likeable in the show. That's my recollection anyway.

[ruby24]

Actually, I do wonder if they'll do the Jocasta/Ulysses thing anyway. I'm wondering about Phaedre though- she's been pretty non-existent so far.

[Sew Sumi]

Yeah, where's Pheadre? Are they choosing not to tell her story?

[Haleth]

38 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

Yeah, where's Pheadre? Are they choosing not to tell her story?

I checked imbd and the actress has been working on other projects so maybe she was unavailable for this season if Outlander. 

[toolazy]

On 3/22/2020 at 1:06 PM, ruby24 said:

I agree the show has all but erased the sex scenes that were still very prominent in the books at this point. I'm not totally sure why...maybe they think there's just no reason to justify showing them being physical anymore after being married and together for so long? 

I'd actually like to hear the answer to that. One of the points of Jamie and Claire's relationship is how sexual it is- have the producers decided it's just silly to keep having that in there or something? (I know people would much rather see them in bed than Roger and Brianna).

Maybe the actors don't want to do the sex scenes?  Maybe it makes them uncomfortable? I don't expect them to make themselves uncomfortable for my own titillation. 

17 hours ago, anamika said:

It makes me angry to see stuff like this.

It's already hard to ignore that Jocasta is a slave owner and that 20th century time travelers like Claire, Bree and Roger now seem comfortable with the slavery they see and live with, but then the show has to go and add nonsense like this about the slave only wanting their owner to be happy. Absolute trash which undermines the real degradation and brutality that was the actual reality for these slaves in those time periods.

Dear white people, here's something to remember when one writes shows like this - the slaves and the people whose countries were colonized did not like their oppressors, care for them or love them. They just wanted to be free.

It doesn't look like the show is going to include it, but in the book Jocasta and Ulysses  were lovers. 

[Biggie B]

When the inhabitants of the Ridge came to Roger to ask what they should do - how come they couldn't think for themselves? Why did they demand that Roger give them a plan of action right on the spot? Jeez - some of those griping at him were older than Roger, you'd think they'd have been through more crises than he has and would have at least some ideas as to how to handle problems. It sort of pissed me off that they were so paralyzed. I guess the concept of 'brainstorming' was centuries away - instead, they just expected Roger to magically have a solution without a moment's hesitation. What a bunch of sheep they seemed to be. 

I don't care about  seeing Jamie and Claire having sex. I don't begrudge their active sex life - bless their hearts - but I don't need to see it to understand that. 

I loved the outfits everyone wore at the wedding. The men's coats were so finely embroidered with flowers and the like - really lovely. 

The Murtagh/Jocasta scene was well done. It was quite sad and poignant. Both actors really sold it. 

[CarpeFelis]

23 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

 

When Brianna (who is an engineering genius in the book) said she had an idea about how to spread the smoke I’ll admit I was expecting something a bit more elaborate than “wave a piece of cloth at it.”  We saw one slightly more elaborate fan but that was it.  The women might just as well have flapped their aprons – no need to sacrifice a perfectly good bed sheet.

I may be remembering this wrong, but I think when she looked at the flapping sheets and said “I have an idea about that”, it was in response to the question of how they’d know which direction the wind was blowing at any given time. I figured she was thinking of a windsock.

[tennisgurl]

I love Maria Doyle Kennedy so dang much, the whole scene where she talked about her losing her children and that she wants to marry for security because she cant handle any more pain brought about by war and ideals was just so heartbreaking. I have really mixed feelings about Jocasta as a character (I like her interactions with her family and find her interesting, but its hard to really like a slave owner, especially as the show has kind of glossed over that increasingly) but I always love Maria Doyle Kennedy so dang much. It was also nice to see Scotland again, even if it was just for a flashback. I love that we have gotten to travel so much and see so many cultures and parts of the world, but I do get nostalgic for Scotland and the first few seasons. 

Everyone looked great at the wedding, especially Jamie and his tailored coat. I also kind of cracked up at Claire jumping into this conversation with the two random women, social awkwardness at parties never changes no matter the decade. Lots of great expressions, like Claire's "dont say anything Claire dont say anything....damn it gotta say something!" looks, and two the women being like "Ummm A B conversation, please C your way out of it." 

Come on, in front of the horses?! This show/books have always had a lot of sexy sex stuff in it, so I am cool with Claire and Jamie getting it on. Maybe not in a public space, and the sex was so quick that it didn't do much for me, but you do you Jamie and Claire. 

Hard to blame Jamie for wanting to kill Bonnet, all things considered. Not only is he the sack of shit who raped his daughter, but rape and sexual assault is probably a pretty sore spot for him in general, considering their whole family is just constantly dealing with being assaulted by the creepiest creeps in the world. 

Roger finally got a win! Glad to see he won the respect of their neighbors by using his skills (knowing stuff!) and that he and Bree got to have some nice times after all of the angst. They looked so happy!

[Cdh20]

On 3/23/2020 at 11:07 AM, SassAndSnacks said:

Instead of getting more sleep last night, I woke up early and rewatched this episode (as one does), and I liked the barn scene much better the second time around.  Maybe I was tired and cranky last night?  

I think this interpretation of their intimacy is what hasn't fully translated over from the books.  I don't need to see skin, but I want to see more of the touching, kissing, affection that they have for each other.  It warms my cold little heart, I tell ye!

Their chemistry is still <insert explosive sound effect here>.  That look he gave her after she slugged him, Woo! I think also my problem last night is that I had the sound down too far, making it hard to hear a lot of that dialogue, which adds so much to those scenes.  

Anyway, I stand corrected!

 

 

I must watch it again! I think watching on my i-pad with headphones is my favourite way! ( but the new season is on tv)

[SassAndSnacks]

5 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I love Maria Doyle Kennedy so dang much, the whole scene where she talked about her losing her children and that she wants to marry for security because she cant handle any more pain brought about by war and ideals was just so heartbreaking.

Yes, I wasn't a Jocasta fan in the books at all, but I find that I have almost warm feelings for her in the show 1) Because they've made her more likable and 2) Maria Doyle Kennedy.  Which is all very odd because they did the same thing for Frank, making him more likable than in the book, and Tobias Menzies is wonderful, but I still loathe Show Frank as much as I loathe Book Frank.  Book Frank has probably just tainted me and there was nothing Tobias Menzies could ever do about it.

Alas, I digress...

3 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I think watching on my i-pad with headphones is my favourite way! ( but the new season is on tv)

I need to get back to doing this.  You capture so much more sound nuance with headphones and it really adds to the quality of the show. 

[Cdh20]

On 3/22/2020 at 10:03 PM, WatchrTina said:

Not gonna lie . . . I cheered during the sex in the stables.  Though that line, “Look down. . .   Watch while I take ye.” was a bit much.

This line did not translate to Tv well!

I did two things, since this scene seemed to miss the mark: I read the chapters, & rewatched it. What was missing on the show was how Jamie was watching Claire & horny all day waiting to find a way to get her alone! At first I couldn't believe he said "You are JUST a woman", but then he smirked after she slapped him, & I realized he did it to rile her up, knowing the outcome.