S05.E12: Never My Love

[toolazy]

12 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

So what we’re left with the non-buik readers is them thinking Jamie and Claire made love two days after her gang rape. And comparing it to how Claire stopped Jamie from dying/brought him “back to life”.

 

 

In the book, they did have sex shortly after the rape.  He was worried that she might get pregnant and wanted to have sex so that maybe the baby would be his.  That bit actually bothered me more than the rape itself and I'm glad the show left it out.  I just wish the show had left out all of it.  

 

 

[Haleth]

That song keeps playing in my head.

How gorgeous did Cait look in her 60s era outfit?  She was made for that time. 

[Ziggy]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No, she wasn't, even though that's how Gabaldon wrote it. like @ruby24 posted, the young guy (who played Brown's nephew on the show) masturbated over Claire's dress, and then there was that other guy, who we never met on the show, who raped her while calling Claire by his wife's name; and this guy she saw years later.

That was my memory, too, so when I watched the show, I thought to myself, "Wow, I must have really blocked out the horror."

[Quickbeam]

15 hours ago, sas616 said:

Surprisingly, the after the episode bit was shown after the finale.   Left the room for a minute and almost missed it.  Just in case someone left the room like I did.  https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a32428080/outlander-season-5-finale-dream-sequence-explainer/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWELM&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3cLu_F41QrEyzkpkWglMrW3cpryLb2uo6qtDOT38tbBFLYXfPBxfIGqAg

 

Thank you got the link! I tried 4 times to catch it on STARZ and could not see it. I do know I will never watch High Town (again) 🤣.

[Cdh20]

3 hours ago, toolazy said:

 

In the book, they did have sex shortly after the rape.  He was worried that she might get pregnant and wanted to have sex so that maybe the baby would be his.  That bit actually bothered me more than the rape itself and I'm glad the show left it out.  I just wish the show had left out all of it.  

 

 

There is a few unsettling BookJamie things, that I appreciate were left out/fixed  for TvJamie. 

 

[theschnauzers]

8 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Yes!  And Claire saw the rabbit in the grass, just as Jamie did as he laid there wounded on the field at Culloden.  

I hadn’t noticed but apparently Claire’s vase from episode 101 also made an appearance. 
 

That dissonance sequence was truly remarkable. 

[Sew Sumi]

I was wondering why they kept going back to that vase! Nice callback.

[crystalball]

I was hoping they’d skip this part of the books given all the (deserved, IMO) excess of rape as plot criticism, but since they didn’t, I’ll just say I really appreciated the distance the dissociation scene provided for the viewer, too.

Though I watched the episode around 9am yesterday morning and that song is STILL firmly lodged in my brain. Thankfully, the visuals have not done the same. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by crystalball
Word choice correction

[Future Cat Lady]

I’m not a book purist, but if you’re going to change things from the books, why don’t you fix the sick shit that DG made. I always thought that Claire being raped was unnecessary crap. I hate how DG uses rape to create drama. It’s so unimaginative and repetitive at this point. It’s not normal that most of the main characters have been raped.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Future Cat Lady

[Miss chi chi]

I haven't read the books and I didn't think Jamie and Claire had sex. I thought he was comforting her with the protection of his body. She was home in the most biological sense. 

[tennisgurl]

Whenever I see criticism about how this franchise uses rape too much, as either a plot device or to throw in some quick drama, I usually have to say something like "Well, I love Outlander but...your not wrong." This one especially feels gratuitous, both in the books and in the show, it just seems very "well Claire hasn't been emotionally and physically traumatized in a bit, lets throw in some rape" to me. Its not that I dont think that rape and sexual assault cant or should never be used to tell a really well done and compelling story, and this show has done well with some of them as well, but when you just keep going there over and over again, it can start to feel needlessly cruel, and can make your audience just feel too drained to get into the drama. 

That all being said, I think they probably did as well as they could with adapting this to television, even if they managed to make it even more traumatic for poor Claire here. The imaginary Thanksgiving 60s dinner that Claire was really great, I loved the non time traveling cast in their 60s wear, they all looked so great, that must have been a fun day of shooting. I cant decide what I love more, Young Ian in his uniform or the Beatles hair on Fergus. Np actually, my favorite was Murtagh. Truly, Murtagh was born in the wrong century, that man was made to wear turtlenecks. 

So after all that build up to Roger and Bri leaving, they pop back up again anyway, and just in time for more misery and trauma! I do like that they apparently came back because they both thought of the Ridge as their home, and I think that it settles where they want to end up. 

Time travelers everywhere! There are so many people from the late 60s/early 70s running around colonial America, they could have their own convention. 

[SassAndSnacks]

18 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

even if they managed to make it even more traumatic for poor Claire here.

I can't get this episode out of my mind.  I keep hearing the opening bass line to Never My Love and then snippets from the show flash before me.  I feel weird saying that I liked the episode, but I did.  The dis-association scenes (kind of an unintentional pun there) were some of the best scenes we've witnessed on the show.  But, I circle back to your point above and something I mentioned previously.  Why did they have to make it worse for her?  They usually do such a good job of fixing the books' weaker points.  Why did this need to be more traumatizing?  

So yeah, I actually really enjoyed an episode that featured a gang rape (that didn't actually need to be a gang rape). In fact, I thought it was a mesmerizing and beautiful episode, with such poignant, emotional moments that I will never forget. In facter fact, I love a series of books that continually feature rape plot points.  In factest fact, I repeatedly read said books.  Moreover, I actually feel defensive of the series when people complain about all of the rape, but for real, there's a lot of freaking sexual violence here.  

There's also a lot of sexual violence today, in real life.  And, what I think the show does well is how it handles the act and then the aftermath with a great deal of realism and sensitivity.

But, I'm still pissed they needlessly portrayed a gang rape.   

[Linderhill]

9 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I don't understand why Diana Gabaldon is so fascinated with rape and torture, and for me it's the primary drawback to her stories. You have to put up with a lot of it if you want to continue following.

I've been doing some thinking on this.  Yes, there is rape and torture in the books but the sheer volume of content Diana's books it's not as frequent of an occurrence.  How many pages are each of these books.  There is so much text and vignettes and scenes that it never seemed to me that there was an overwhelming abundance of rape, etc. outside of the first book.  

[WatchrTina]

On 5/11/2020 at 8:44 PM, Linderhill said:

I've been doing some thinking on this.  Yes, there is rape and torture in the books but the sheer volume of content Diana's books it's not as frequent of an occurrence. 

Yup. I've made this point before.  The books are HUGE.  There are enormous swaths of bucolic, slice-of-life stuff that gets cut in order to condense them into the requisite number of TV episodes (a number that keeps shrinking -- and now they've even shoe-horned bits of the next book into THIS season.)  Unfortunately the BIG DRAMATIC EVENTS all need to be kept in the show because so much of the plot hangs off them.  So (for example) the Gathering that kicks off this season's source book (which goes on for pages and pages and PAGES) was completely skipped and Brianna & Roger have a fairly uneventful wedding ceremony at the Ridge (instead of the rather complicated series of events that led to Brianna and Roger's unexpectedly Protestant wedding ceremony during the Gathering in the book). But the attack on Claire, and her rescue by Jamie & his tenants (and Roger's decision to fight alongside Jamie), is a tentpole moment in the book and it really could not be skipped any more than the kidnapping of Brianna could be skipped.  So yeah, the TV show does seem to careen from crisis to crisis to crisis while the books have a much more leisurely pace.

That said, since there is so much book material to fit in the season, the totally-off-book trip to the stones that Roger and Brianna took is really weird. The only explanation I can come up with is that they decided to get the whole will-they-won't-they-go-back issue out of the way now and (unlike the book) Roger and Brianna are now completely done with their time-travels (which would imply a HUGE amount from the books will be completely ignored.)

Edited May 14, 2020 by WatchrTina

[theschnauzers]

Diana’s well known penchant for historical accuracy even in the historical time traveling series of Outlander, means you have to be authentic to the reality of rape as a control device. As to the time travel will they or won’t they, that didn’t come to a head in the books until a yet to be born chid of Brianna and Roger has a medical necessity for having to do so. We’re not there yet. And then there’s that return. 
While I suspect we’re to see the chain of events more directly connected to the  oncoming American Revolution, we’ve also got the Stuart/MacKenzie/Fraser gold plot hanging there and that involves Aunt Jocasta. And we’ve still to meet the adult William with Lord John Gray (but I suspect that would be season 7, assuming that is a go at some point.

[jmnf19]

I’m confused at which book this episode (and this season, for that matter) covered. I haven’t read the books for several years. I had stopped mid way through book 4, Drums of Autumn. I couldn’t get through it so gave up. I tried Fiery Cross and had the same problem. So I decided to give them a rest but now I’d like to try getting back to them. I don’t want to bother with Fiery Cross, but I thought I’d start on the next one in preparation for next season. 

I thought each season covered each corresponding book in the series. But it seems that Claire’s abduction and rape were from A Breath of Snow and Ashes, is that right? So did this season cover Fiery Cross and A Breath of Snow and Ashes, or did they just dip into A Breath of Snow and Ashes a little? Should I start with A Breath of Snow and Ashes or has most of it (all of it?) been covered in season 5 and I should go on to An Echo in the Bone?

[Noneofyourbusiness]

On 5/11/2020 at 1:54 AM, ruby24 said:

after Lionel does it he calls for who else "wants their turn," and they show two other guys coming over from the fire before fading out again. And then Claire says "I don't know" when Jamies asks how many, so I thought they were implying that even more men raped her.

Exactly.

On 5/11/2020 at 12:32 AM, ruby24 said:

And unless they've decided never to send Bree and Roger back to the future at all, I don't know what the last episode with all those goodbye scenes was about. What a waste of time.

Because that's what would logically happen if they were leaving, and it shows how much they will miss everyone and vice versa, reinforcing the fact that they think of the Ridge as home when we see they're still in the past. When they finally go back to the future, they can skim the goodbyes now, and it'll have been established that they'd only do so because of an emergency. All made perfect sense.

[Ziggy]

7 hours ago, jmnf19 said:

I’m confused at which book this episode (and this season, for that matter) covered. I haven’t read the books for several years. I had stopped mid way through book 4, Drums of Autumn. I couldn’t get through it so gave up. I tried Fiery Cross and had the same problem. So I decided to give them a rest but now I’d like to try getting back to them. I don’t want to bother with Fiery Cross, but I thought I’d start on the next one in preparation for next season. 

I thought each season covered each corresponding book in the series. But it seems that Claire’s abduction and rape were from A Breath of Snow and Ashes, is that right? So did this season cover Fiery Cross and A Breath of Snow and Ashes, or did they just dip into A Breath of Snow and Ashes a little? Should I start with A Breath of Snow and Ashes or has most of it (all of it?) been covered in season 5 and I should go on to An Echo in the Bone?

This season was mostly from the Fiery Cross.  They did introduce a little bit of a Breath of Snow and Ashes but not much.  I will probably begin rereading it in the next couple of months.

[theschnauzers]

Unless I’m forgetting something, there were three events moved up from the books. Young Ian’s return, Stephen Bonnet’s kidnapping of Bree, and his execution by drowning, the revelation to Ian concerning time travel, and Claire being gang raped. Everything else was basically season 5.

Season 6 will mostly be A Breath of Snow and Ashes, but the EPS are admitting some things from the Fiery Cross could come forward, and some things might be pulled from book 7 if they need to.

[AD55]

19 hours ago, Linderhill said:

I've been doing some thinking on this.  Yes, there is rape and torture in the books but the sheer volume of content Diana's books it's not as frequent of an occurrence.  How many pages are each of these books.  There is so much text and vignettes and scenes that it never seemed to me that there was an overwhelming abundance of rape, etc. outside of the first book.  

I respectfully disagree. Even while I was reading the books the number of rapes and attempted rapes struck me as excessive (I've said this before: DG needs a gutsier editor, though I would not want to be the person to tell her large swaths of text should be cut). Besides Roger, practically every major character and many secondary characters have, as nodorothyparker pointed out up thread, been raped.

Quoting theschnauzers (sorry, I haven't entirely mastered quoting from different posts):

"Diana’s well known penchant for historical accuracy even in the historical time traveling series of Outlander, means you have to be authentic to the reality of rape as a control device."

Sexual assault has always been, and continues to be, a means of control. Whether it was more prevalent in the C18th is arguable, and I find it troubling that Diana uses it as a plot device as often as she does. I obviously haven't been so disturbed by it that I've stopped reading the books, but I also don't think that her proclivity for making her characters the victims of sexual assault can be attributed solely to her commitment to historical accuracy. Authors are responsible for the choices they make, and it's fair to wonder why Diana makes the ones she does.

[jmnf19]

8 hours ago, Ziggy said:

This season was mostly from the Fiery Cross.  They did introduce a little bit of a Breath of Snow and Ashes but not much.  I will probably begin rereading it in the next couple of months.

Thank you. I’ll start with A Breath of Snow and Ashes then. 

[jmnf19]

2 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

Unless I’m forgetting something, there were three events moved up from the books. Young Ian’s return, Stephen Bonnet’s kidnapping of Bree, and his execution by drowning, the revelation to Ian concerning time travel, and Claire being gang raped. Everything else was basically season 5.

Season 6 will mostly be A Breath of Snow and Ashes, but the EPS are admitting some things from the Fiery Cross could come forward, and some things might be pulled from book 7 if they need to.

Thanks for the added info. 

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

7 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

Unless I’m forgetting something, there were three events moved up from the books. Young Ian’s return, Stephen Bonnet’s kidnapping of Bree, and his execution by drowning, the revelation to Ian concerning time travel, and Claire being gang raped. Everything else was basically season 5.

Season 6 will mostly be A Breath of Snow and Ashes, but the EPS are admitting some things from the Fiery Cross could come forward, and some things might be pulled from book 7 if they need to.

Young Ian returns and they tell him about time travel in book 5 (Jemmy breaking the opal or is it an emerald in the book? Either way happens about the time when they tell Young Ian). He just doesn't return until the mostly the end of the book. After the snakebite and all.

Forbes is still running around in book 6. Also, the tar and feathering isn't really talked about until book 6. Jamie is holding people off to try and save someone the crowd wants to tar.

[Quickbeam]

In reading the books, I felt there was too much rape. What I miss most (and did not mind hundreds of pages devoted to) is the lovely detail of women’s work and lot in day to day life. Diana writes that so wonderfully from a women’s history point of view.

this is one of my favorite episodes of the season. I like the lack of super cliff hanger too. 

[SassAndSnacks]

3 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

What I miss most (and did not mind hundreds of pages devoted to) is the lovely detail of women’s work and lot in day to day life. Diana writes that so wonderfully from a women’s history point of view.

Yes!  I'm a big history nerd, and I love the historical vignettes in the books.  I deeply appreciate how much research DG puts into everything (granted, SOME things could be less elaborate).  We see so much of history from a male perspective, simply because for generations academics and historians were male.  I love that Herself shows it through a female lens.  

Personally, I love the back half of the book series, particularly Book 8 with its many Revolution references and plots.  I'm really hoping the show makes it that far and we get to see Monmouth.  

[AD55]

5 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

What I miss most (and did not mind hundreds of pages devoted to) is the lovely detail of women’s work and lot in day to day life. Diana writes that so wonderfully from a women’s history point of view.

this is one of my favorite episodes of the season. I like the lack of super cliff hanger too. 

Ditto. Those are also my favorite parts of the adaptation. I love the scenes in which Claire interacts with other women, as when she's waulking wool or training Marsali. I don't need the series to be all Sturm and Drang.

[shelen]

On 5/11/2020 at 6:37 PM, theschnauzers said:

I hadn’t noticed but apparently Claire’s vase from episode 101 also made an appearance. 
 

That dissonance sequence was truly remarkable. 

Loved the references from Dragonfly in Amber with Germain playing with a paper dragonfly, Claire grabbing the orange, and the dress she was wearing.   I admit it took me a while to draw the parallel from the '60s red dress and the daring red dress she wore at Versailles. 

Well done, Toni and Matt.

[toolazy]

30 minutes ago, shelen said:

Loved the references from Dragonfly in Amber with Germain playing with a paper dragonfly, Claire grabbing the orange, and the dress she was wearing.   I admit it took me a while to draw the parallel from the '60s red dress and the daring red dress she wore at Versailles. 

Well done, Toni and Matt.

I completely missed the vase because I was too busy lusting after those cool bar glasses. 

[SassAndSnacks]

On 5/15/2020 at 8:19 PM, toolazy said:

I completely missed the vase because I was too busy lusting after those cool bar glasses.

As well as the floor to ceiling windows, the sideboard, her dress, her desk, the artwork, etc.  Claire's fantasy home is the jam (you know, dissociation aside).  

Contemporary Claire is pretty fabulous.  From ascot-wearing and heal sliding, to rocking the F out of a cobalt sweater and tweed skirts, she's a mid-century icon.  Then again, she basically kicks ass and takes names in any century.

[ruby24]

I finally found an interview with the producers and Gabaldon where they bring up why they decided to make the rape even worse than it was in the book. Apparently the original idea was to do the dreamscape and have the audience get a feeling that Claire was raped but not know exactly how. And that was nixed by Sam and Cait, who wanted to really show the assault. 

They still don't explain why they changed it from being one man to multiple though. And Diana Gabaldon says the reason she wrote the rape scene the way it was in the book was because she didn't want Claire to be internally damaged, and if you're penetrated by multiple men it's bad for your insides and can cause hemorrhaging, etc. So she had it be one guy who did it but in a "non-violent" way. 

I STILL don't understand why it was important that Show Claire be gang raped by all those men rather than do what they did in the book (which was still horrible and traumatizing!). And I can't find an answer explaining the reason for that particular change. I guess no one has asked them that specific question.

Also, do they ever tell Fergus in the books about the time travel? Does anyone remember? I know that Lord John is told eventually, and I think he doesn't believe it (or I thought that's what happened but maybe I'm remembering that wrong).

[SassAndSnacks]

7 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I STILL don't understand why it was important that Show Claire be gang raped by all those men rather than do what they did in the book (which was still horrible and traumatizing!). And I can't find an answer explaining the reason for that particular change. I guess no one has asked them that specific question.

Also, do they ever tell Fergus in the books about the time travel? Does anyone remember? I know that Lord John is told eventually, and I think he doesn't believe it (or I thought that's what happened but maybe I'm remembering that wrong).

I'm fine with Sam and Cait showing the assault, but I 100% agree with your statement above.  I think I read the same interview with Diana, and the reason she wrote it the way she wrote it made sense to me.  I've read and thought about this episode more than what should be a reasonable amount over the last week.  I think it is one of my favorites of the series, but saying that actually makes me feel uncomfortable because how could I possibly enjoy something that features a gang rape?  

Regarding Fergus, he doesn't know about the time travel.  Lord John is told and mentions some things during his sham marriage, but he doesn't seem to actually believe it.  If I recall correctly, people who know outside of the immediate family are Young Ian, Lord John, and then Claire tells all of the Murrays at Lallybroch but it's unclear whether or not they understand or actually believe her.  

[FnkyChkn34]

I skimmed this topic looking to see if this was mentioned, and I didn't see it but I apologize if I've missed it...  Why is Jaime the only one not wearing 1960s clothes in the dream sequence?  Do people think it's because Claire could never picture him as anything but a 1700s highlander?  Because all of the other 1700s characters got "modern" makeovers in her dream - why not him?  (And if you think he did, then I'm going to politely disagree and say that the wardrobe department could have done a much better job.  He should have worn something like Murtaugh, because the plain white shirt and dark pants looked nearly exactly like what Jaime always wears.)

[Ziggy]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I skimmed this topic looking to see if this was mentioned, and I didn't see it but I apologize if I've missed it...  Why is Jaime the only one not wearing 1960s clothes in the dream sequence?  Do people think it's because Claire could never picture him as anything but a 1700s highlander?  Because all of the other 1700s characters got "modern" makeovers in her dream - why not him?  (And if you think he did, then I'm going to politely disagree and say that the wardrobe department could have done a much better job.  He should have worn something like Murtaugh, because the plain white shirt and dark pants looked nearly exactly like what Jaime always wears.)

I noticed that, too.  Also, he looks like he did in Season 1.  I don't really know why.  The scenes from the '60's were Claire's way of escaping her horrible situation.  My guess is she remembered how she felt when they first met and fell in love.

[SassAndSnacks]

8 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I skimmed this topic looking to see if this was mentioned, and I didn't see it but I apologize if I've missed it...  Why is Jaime the only one not wearing 1960s clothes in the dream sequence?  Do people think it's because Claire could never picture him as anything but a 1700s highlander?  Because all of the other 1700s characters got "modern" makeovers in her dream - why not him?  (And if you think he did, then I'm going to politely disagree and say that the wardrobe department could have done a much better job.  He should have worn something like Murtaugh, because the plain white shirt and dark pants looked nearly exactly like what Jaime always wears.)

I read (or maybe I saw it) an interview about the cast's "glow-up" into the 70's, and the costume folks said that Jamie's look actually was from that era.  

Ok, so I had to hit pause on this comment and find the interview to make sure I wasn't imagining it.  Here is the link - 

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/g32410782/outlander-trisha-biggar-claire-season-5-finale-interview/

I think Jamie was intended to be how Claire views him, as he is her anchor.  

2 hours ago, Ziggy said:

My guess is she remembered how she felt when they first met and fell in love.

Agreed!

[WatchrTina]

This may be old news but today I stumbled across a fan-made music video homage to this episode by the VERY talented Julie LeBlanc.  Here's the link. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7sbXpsEaQ0

(Note some of the footage is from prior episodes but the second half of the video -- the most visceral part -- all comes from this episode, so I guessed this was the most appropriate place to post this.)

Gosh I miss this show . . . and our online discussions.

Edited October 30, 2021 by WatchrTina

[Jul 68]

How are Brie and Roger going to explain their abrupt (for that era) return?

Because it never happened in the book, will the writers ignore it?

Nah. They'll just do a minor time jump on the show (1 year later...) and it will never be spoken of again until the new baby comes along. 

[Noneofyourbusiness]

20 hours ago, Jul 68 said:

How are Brie and Roger going to explain their abrupt (for that era) return?

Explain to whom?

[WatchrTina]

On 5/10/2020 at 8:07 AM, morgan said:

do wish we had heard the drum over and over before we saw Jamie et al taking everyone out. loved all the men in her life taking up for her.  And while in theory/in real life I am not for vigilante justice, in this scene I cheer every single death. And Marsali for the win.  The actress is amazing!   

I just re-watched this episode in prep for tonight's return and boy do I second the motion!  Highlander-style vengeance for the win!  I thought they did a good job translating the book to film but I, too, missed the drum.  I have have such a strong mental image of Book!Roger terrifying the kidnappers with his war drum that I was surprised not to see it in the episode, even though I'm sure I've seen this episode at least three or four times in the past.   It's described as terrifying in the book.  Maybe the show runners just didn't think they could live up to that description.  And like Morgan, I found myself cheering tonight when Claire's rescuers attacked.  I was downright bloodthirsty to see Fergus avenge the assault on his pregnant wife; and seeing Young Ian in full warrior mode was thrilling.