Unpopular Opinions: Overheard in the Castle Leoch Kitchen

[GHScorpiosRule]

I suck at witty titles, so if anyone can come up with one, let Athena or another mod know and they will add it on.

 

I created this so as not to derail the book/tv talk and where we could post our unpopular opinions about this show within the show's forum.

 

Ahem.

 

I know one of my unpopular opinions is that I would have liked subtitles for when the Scots are speaking Gaelic. I understand that, like the book(s), it's from Claire's point of view, but I don't need to be Claire to relate to her. It's not a huge thing, but it just would have been nice.

 

A more recent one, from the most recent episode. I don't hold Jaime kissing Laoghaire against him. I don't think he was taking advantage of her at all, either. Hell, Claire was trying to play matchmaker for those two in the beginning of the episode, and it tanked.  And since Jaime saved Laoghaire from a beating for "loose behavior" (I'd like to know just what it was...was she free with her kisses? With whom? Was it more than one Scot? I would think her kissing just one wouldn't be cause to be brought for punishment), Jaime kissing her is not taking advantage. And it wasn't any passion laden embrace, either.

 

Maybe he was trying to get a reaction out of Claire.

 

Aaaand...the show getting the name of the poisonous plant/look of the plant wrong didn't take me out of the episode, either. Mistakes happen. It wasn't egregious, and I'll say that other shows I've watched, have totally fucked up things that would only take someone five minutes on Google to know what to use/not to use, so as not to look like maroons. Like religion. But since it doesn't pertain to this show, I'll leave it at that.

[NoNeinNyet]

A more recent one, from the most recent episode. I don't hold Jaime kissing Laoghaire against him. I don't think he was taking advantage of her at all, either. Hell, Claire was trying to play matchmaker for those two in the beginning of the episode, and it tanked.  And since Jaime saved Laoghaire from a beating for "loose behavior" (I'd like to know just what it was...was she free with her kisses? With whom? Was it more than one Scot? I would think her kissing just one wouldn't be cause to be brought for punishment), Jaime kissing her is not taking advantage. And it wasn't any passion laden embrace, either.

 

 

I'm so with you on this one. Claire and Laoghaire were both saying "Here, direct your sexual frustration towards this one." And so he did.

[SonofaBiscuit]

As long as they have a "translator" for the more complex Gaelic-speaking scenes, I'm OK.  When Jamie was offering to take the beating for Laoghaire, it was really useful to have Geillis there explaining what was going on.  In the first episode when Jamie was speaking to Douglas about the rocks being a possible spot for an ambush, I thought it was fine that there were no subtitles.  We could pretty much figure out what was going on there.

 

I think that the voice-overs are another controversial device.  I don't hate them, but they do sort of annoy me.  As someone else already pointed out, this is a TV show...not a book.  We should be able to tell what the characters are thinking or feeling by their facial expressions, actions, etc.  Many times the voice-overs aren't even necessary because Claire could be dialoguing with other characters instead.  I believe that there was a voice-over in the third episode when Claire was in the surgery trying to familiarize herself with the herbs and medicines in there.  Instead, she could have been muttering to herself, "What is this for?" or "They use this for what?!" etc., while Angus or whoever watched her from the stairs.  The voice-over while Claire was treating the poisoned boy could have been replaced with a quick conversation between her and Jamie.  She could have explained that she thought that she knew what was wrong with the boy, but if she was wrong it would kill him.  I just don't think that voice-overs are necessary in most TV shows, and I don't think we need them here.  I don't think that they are going away, but they do irritate me.  Possibly irrational, I know.

Edited August 27, 2014 by SonofaBiscuit

[glitterpants]

I'm not chomping at the bit for Claire and Jamie's relationship to turn physical – we all know it's going to happen sooner or later and I love a slow burn.

 

Instead, she could have been muttering to herself, "What is this for?" or "They use this for what?!" etc.

 

See, I would rather have a voice-over than Claire talking to herself for exposition purposes because that often comes off as contrived to me. So the VO works for me right now and I just hope that it will never come anywhere close later-seasons Dexter levels of bad VO.

[taanja]

 

I'm not chomping at the bit for Claire and Jamie's relationship to turn physical – we all know it's going to happen sooner

 

Do we?  ***spoilers???**** (Ok I've watched enough TV to know when two people are attracted to one another so I suppose a physical relationship is inevitable?

 

I not only LIKE the voice overs --- I NEED the voice overs to tell me what the hell is going on! Especially since this is all coming from Clair's point of view. So please TPTB --- keep them -- at least for the time being.  Someone like me who may or may not have read the book would be lost without them. Maybe as the show continues they may not be necessary anymore?

 

On another note: I actually like the fact that there are no subtitles for the Gaelic. It helps me identify with the character of Clair(e) and since she doesn't understand I kind of like it that I don't understand as well. Does that make sense?

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, like I said in my original post, I don't need to be Claire to relate to her, so I would have liked to have known what exactly was said in the pilot. I did appreciate the translation in the second and third episode.

 

I've read my share of historical romances, or what the books snobs refer to as 'bodice rippers', and though I only read a couple of the books from this series, I can positively state that these books are NOT bodice rippers. What it is, primarily, is a love story, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, nor do I think it's clichéd. As if having a show/series based on two people who fall in love, with time travel, historical events, etc., etc., is a bad thing. There are shows out there that glorify the mob, criminals, serial killers, about cops, drug dealers, doctors, super heroes, etc. And like I said in the pilot thread, romance shouldn't be treated as if it's a dirty secret or something to be ashamed of.

 

With all the gratuitous violence, gore and sex out there, I'm loving the slow burn of Jaime and Claire, and yes, can't wait until they finally kiss and more, have sex/make love.  And the fact that the main characters are good actors, ooze chemistry (which is subjective, I ken), love Scotland and her history, is just a plus.

 

Sue me. Not saying the naysayers aren't entitled to like what they do, but don't begrudge me what I like to watch, or belittle it.  And anyone who knows me knows I love me cop shows. So there.

[glitterpants]

Do we?  ***spoilers???**** (Ok I've watched enough TV to know when two people are attracted to one another so I suppose a physical relationship is inevitable?)

 

Haha exactly, everything points to it and it does seem inevitable.

[taanja]

glitterpants,

 I agree. And the actor playing Jamie is adorable.

But personally I am attracted to Dougal (sp?) Older...balding...the gaze of an eagle...Be still my heart! I know we as the audience are not supposed to like him (He is an antagonist I know!) but the actor is lovely and has me intrigued.

[Constantinople]

Do we?  ***spoilers???**** (Ok I've watched enough TV to know when two people are attracted to one another so I suppose a physical relationship is inevitable?

 

 

Haha exactly, everything points to it and it does seem inevitable.

Yes it does.

I haven't read the books, but I'm rather confident this show wasn't pitched as Will & Grace meet Brigadoon.

[Pestilentia]

IMO "bodice ripper" is just a misogynistic euphemism for "love story from the female point of view."

[Roseheart]

My one complaint with the casting is I definately pictured Dougal different. In the book, he has russet hair, but the actor is good. I also think he is more assertive in the castle. He is the war chieftain away from Leoch but not at Leoch. At Leoch, Collum is chief and in the book he was careful to show deference to Collum.

 

[mollybygolly]

Well I think Dougal has been deferential to Column a time or two while at Castle Leoch.  Colum was the one who told Claire she would be staying at the castle to serve as their healer rather than leave with the tinker.  I believe we only saw Dougal when Column went to leave and Dougal was standing by the door and consequently shut the door after Colum left the room.  Dougal also  stood by while Colum made the various decisions on his tenant's disagreements.  Although Dougal appeared to definitely be the one directing Rupert during the beating of Jamie. 

[DoughGirl]

My one complaint with the casting is I definately pictured Dougal different. In the book, he has russet hair, but the actor is good. I also think he is more assertive in the castle. He is the war chieftain away from Leoch but not at Leoch. At Leoch, Collum is chief and in the book he was careful to show deference to Collum.

Neither Dougal or Collum look remotely like I pictured them. Both look much older. And I like my picture better.

[DoughGirl]

I think I've figured out why I'm not liking this show, as I'm obviously in the minority here. Ron Moore. Or not him per se, just a man's viewpoint. With a very view exceptions, I do not like books written by men. Maybe I don't like their TV shows or films for the most part either. Just a quirk of mine I guess, but the flogging scene.... don't think it was necessary. I wasn't going to watch this episode but gave it another try. Ended up turning it off.

[Tif]

Did you read the book, DoughGirl?

I'm genuinely asking, not sarcastically.

[DoughGirl]

Yes, all but the last one.

[BooBear]

So, I don't want to be a Debbie Downer but I think this series will not be something I stick with for too much longer. I haven't read the book purposefully to just be TV only, but so far, the tv show isn't really grabbing me.  Now I will be around for next few weeks because that seems awsome, but, I think after that a lot of people might leave.

 

First, I just dislike Claire.  I don't find her very smart. She continually gets tipsy in a world where people are constantly trying to rape her (and where pregnancy is downright scary); she is "opinionated" but I think smart "opinionated" keeps her mouth shut in this particular enviornment.  She just seemed really stupid to be so open about her healer abilities it seemed obvious that such a skill anyone would want to keep and not let her go. I do have a hard time getting that she really loves or misses Frank.  I just can't relate to her. I can't tell if it is the way it is acted or there on the script. 

 

I am not feeling it with Jamie. Perhaps it was the virgin thing but he strikes me as all kinds of immature, and the whole, he is in love with her seems shallow. He doesn't know her at all. They just met. Now he wants her but I don't see any sort of long term link or similarity.  He is like a puppy.

 

I find the pace  slow and I can't help but think that is because there just isn't that much there. There is never an episode of Game of Thrones where I am not uterally engrossed but this...  I am not.

 

I have looked at some of the spoilers and from what I know of what is to come either they are going to have to change the storyline from the book, likely angering book fans, or use the material and I am not exactly up for that.

[DoughGirl]

At least I'm not the only Debbie Downer. ;-)

I find the pace slower than slow and I'm bored with it, but I hate the changes and feel they are what's slowing it down. I just could not sit through BJR droning on and on and found the flogging scene unnecessary. As someone else pointed out, we've seen the scars and heard the story. Enough is enough. "Click."

Also, neither Jamie or Claire are happening for me on the TV screen.

IMHO the "love potion" scene (there's no place like love?) was cringeworthy. And the scene with the English officers....just no.

[Nidratime]

I think I've figured out why I'm not liking this show, as I'm obviously in the minority here. Ron Moore. Or not him per se, just a man's viewpoint.

 

 

Well, Ron Moore is not producing this show in a vacuum. His co-producer/partner is a woman who loves the books. His wife is a woman ;-) who works on the show and loves the books. Diana Gabaldon is a consultant and I'm sure there are other writers and, possibly, directors who are working or will work on the show who are women. 

 

With a very view exceptions, I do not like books written by men. Maybe I don't like their TV shows or films for the most part either. Just a quirk of mine I guess, but the flogging scene.... don't think it was necessary. I wasn't going to watch this episode but gave it another try. Ended up turning it off.

 

 

That's a lot of books, TV and movies not to like! TV and movies, especially. Until very recently there weren't many women producing and directing movies, that's for sure. And show runners, until recently, were usually men as well. 

[ohhellsyeah]

Although I am enjoying the show, the line for the We hate Ron Moore starts behind me. I do not trust the man.

As far as not liking Claire goes, I don't think that is as unpopular as you think.I know a lot of people who read the book hated Claire.

Edited September 18, 2014 by ohhellsyeah

[DoughGirl]

Well, Ron Moore is not producing this show in a vacuum. His co-producer/partner is a woman who loves the books. His wife is a woman ;-) who works on the show and loves the books. Diana Gabaldon is a consultant and I'm sure there are other writers and, possibly, directors who are working or will work on the show who are women. 

 

 

That's a lot of books, TV and movies not to like! TV and movies, especially. Until very recently there weren't many women producing and directing movies, that's for sure. And show runners, until recently, were usually men as well.

I said maybe to shows and movies. ;-) I hate that it was thought that shows like Dr. Quinn needed to be "violenced up" to appeal to male audiences. I think some of that is going on with the changes made to Outlander.

I still prefer books written by women.

[glitterpants]

With a very view exceptions, I do not like books written by men. Maybe I don't like their TV shows or films for the most part either. Just a quirk of mine I guess, but the flogging scene.... don't think it was necessary.

The flogging is in the books, which are written by a woman. So yes, maybe they could have just had characters talk about the flogging with no visuals whatsoever but it kind of ruins the point of this being a tv show and not an audiobook. 

Edited September 16, 2014 by glitterpants

[Pestilentia]

The flogging is in the books, which are written by a woman. So yes, maybe they could have just had characters talk about the flogging with no visuals whatsoever but it kind of ruins the point of this being a tv show and not an audiobook. 

Yay that! ^

 

As for me, I just turn on my suspension of disbelief and enjoy the purely fictional TV show.

Sometimes it is verra nice to be easily pleased.

[magdalene]

Is BJR punching Claire in the stomach and having the hapless young soldier kick her in the book too?

 

I found both this moment and the flogging hard to watch but it sure brought across for me what a sick bastard Jack Randall is. Which was the point of showing it.

 

I can't speak for the books and how much violence is in them but as somebody who has watched other programming on STARZ, in particular SPARTACUS, the violence and gore and sexual content in OUTLANDER so far is restrained and not pornographic.

[absnow54]

Is BJR punching Claire in the stomach and having the hapless young soldier kick her in the book too?

In the book he forces a soldier to hold Claire for him while he punches her in the gut, but it's a one and done thing.

 

While some of the gore on the show is excessive, the two scenes -- Gordy's death and Jamie's flogging -- where it took center stage, I didn't find it to be gratuitous. I think simply showing blood and guts for the "hell yeah!" moment is one thing. Outlander chooses to linger on it past the point of comfort, because these are things that shouldn't be easy to watch. Yes, Gordy was a random character who we knew nothing about, but that didn't mean his life didn't matter.

 

With Jamie, I think showing how brutal his flogging was important because he's such a glamorized hero. He'll get right in the thick of it, get beat to a pulp, and walk out standing tall with a smile on his face like we've seen several times through out the season, but this flogging was not like that at all. It makes me think of the discussion they had earlier about Jamie not being comfortable with Alec seeing his back because he'd look at him differently. I found that seeing the scars on his back was one thing, but after watching the flogging scene, when Jamie appeared at the end of the episode, I looked at him as an entirely different character. So while it was hard to watch, the scene was very effective. 

[DoughGirl]

The flogging is in the books, which are written by a woman. So yes, maybe they could have just had characters talk about the flogging with no visuals whatsoever but it kind of ruins the point of this being a tv show and not an audiobook.

Yes, it was in the books, as are many other violent and bloody scenes, (don't want to spoil anything but one scene gave me nightmares) so why add more? Or amp up what's there already? Since it's already been mentioned, it wasn't enough for BJR to punch Claire, she had to be kicked too. And heck, let's throw in an amputation while we're at it, and a beheading, and some crucifixions too.

[justmehere]

With Jamie, I think showing how brutal his flogging was important because he's such a glamorized hero. He'll get right in the thick of it, get beat to a pulp, and walk out standing tall with a smile on his face like we've seen several times through out the season, but this flogging was not like that at all. It makes me think of the discussion they had earlier about Jamie not being comfortable with Alec seeing his back because he'd look at him differently. I found that seeing the scars on his back was one thing, but after watching the flogging scene, when Jamie appeared at the end of the episode, I looked at him as an entirely different character. So while it was hard to watch, the scene was very effective.

 

 

 

This, very much.

-----

I thought the story of the beheading (thankfully not shown) was an odd addition and seemed "out of character." Not that I know 18th century Scottish behavior well by any stretch of imagination, but even though they aren't above killing -- they went after the British patrol in the pilot episode with no remorse whatsoever and even with an element of fun -- they don't seem to have the level of deliberate brutality that beheading implies (I realize it wasn't the MacKenzies who did it; I'm projecting out to a general style of behavior). They are about honor and code. After seeing the crucifixions, Dougal didn't set up a raid to murder every Redcoat he could find, he used it as fuel to fund what they'd see as an honorable rebellion. The beheading just seemed out of place. I could be entirely wrong in terms of historical accuracy of course.

 

The amputation, while unpleasant to watch (I turned away, in fact), didn't bother me as much. It was a frequent occurrence to avoid infection and death, and while it was ugly, it was also realistic.

 

As for having the corporal kick Claire on top of the gut punch... not that it necessarily needed reinforcing, but it added another layer to Black Jack's sadism.

Maybe it better prepares an uninitiated audience for what comes later -- (shudder). This was nothing compared to it.

[BooBear]

In the book he forces a soldier to hold Claire for him while he punches her in the gut, but it's a one and done thing.While some of the gore on the show is excessive, the two scenes -- Gordy's death and Jamie's flogging -- where it took center stage, I didn't find it to be gratuitous. I think simply showing blood and guts for the "hell yeah!" moment is one thing. Outlander chooses to linger on it past the point of comfort, because these are things that shouldn't be easy to watch.

 

I have to say I am not so much bothered by the gore.  I watch GOT. The thing is, everyone says it is unnecessary but I would say "boring".  I feel like I have seen Jamie's back and whatever did that has to be messed up. Not to mention that BJR saw Clarie out in the woods and immediately went to rape her. Clearly that is a seriously dangerous sexual predator. Not even a moment to consider if she was important / lost - plus she had a British Accent. He just didn't care at all.  So to see him here waxing on about it didn't seem to advance much... it felt like a rehash. I truely felt like it was unreasonable for Claire to hold out hope that he had a good bone in his body at all...   I kind of thought for a second there it was BJR's way of testing her as no one who was savvy or a spy would have been so foolish to buy what he was selling -- but she did, so maybe, she isn't a spy.

 

I feel sick to death of Jamie and his scars. Got it from the second episode.   Then I got to see them dragged out every 3 minutes last episode.

 

On the amputation... that also seemed like a rehash and unnecessary.  I really don't see what it did to advance the plot. It could have been another medical issue just as easily and did we really need to see it in such *look I am on pay cable* detail?  Yes Claire is a medical person.. got it.. lets move on. 

[Nidratime]

I feel sick to death of Jamie and his scars. Got it from the second episode.   Then I got to see them dragged out every 3 minutes last episode.

 

 

I understand you haven't read the books, but I'm afraid Jamie's treatment by Randall, including the flogging-almost-to-death and the scars, are a huge deal in the first book. So, yes they are referenced a number of times.

 

 

On the amputation... that also seemed like a rehash and unnecessary.  I really don't see what it did to advance the plot. It could have been another medical issue just as easily and did we really need to see it in such *look I am on pay cable* detail?  Yes Claire is a medical person.. got it.. lets move on.

 

 

The English are at war, basically, with the rebelling Scots so you're going to see war/occupation type injuries in this show. The fact that Claire was a combat nurse in the 20th Century and is now thrust back into a war-like conflict in the 18th Century is a part of the story. She's a "healer." That's her job. We're going to see her doing that job throughout the season, and onward, for as long as this show is on.

[Tif]

Not to mention those scars and how they were administered shaped a good measure of Jamie is and the brutality by BJR needed to be shown to see how truly evil he is. I don't think that just being told really had the same impact as BJR reminiscing about the beauty he thought it was juxtaposed over how horrific it actually was.

[Nidratime]

And, not to spoil anything, but it's leading to something. That relationship, as it's being established, is there to further the plot that unfolds later on in the season.

[Athena]

Everyone is allowed to express their opinion here whether they like or dislike aspects of the show. We do not want any posters to feel unwelcome to disagree with others. You can state your opinion and move on. Please also ease up on the book talk. Thank you!

[peacefrog]

I think Caitriona Balfe is beautiful but I really don't think she looks good in the 1940's scenes. Maybe that's intentional.

I also hate 1940's women's clothes and hairstyles. Way to formal and structured. I thought her wedding suit and hat was really ugly.

Edited September 21, 2014 by peacefrog

[TidalCreek]

I think Caitriona Balfe is beautiful but I really don't think she looks good in the 1940's scenes. Maybe that's intentional.

 

I also hate 1940's women's clothes and hairstyles. Way to formal and structured. I thought her wedding suit and hat was really ugly.

 

I love the 40s style, but in this case I think the intention is to make Caitriona *comparatively* not as gorgeous in the 40s as she is back in the 18th century -- perhaps as a way to show that she's "meant for" that time. Must be difficult to do, because the woman is really beautiful.

Edited September 21, 2014 by TidalCreek

[glitterpants]

Waaat? I think Cait looks lovely as ever in the 40s scenes (especially in the first episode and also the goodbye scene at the train station when she was in uniform). The hat in ep. 6 was kind of awful, I'll give you that.

Edited September 21, 2014 by glitterpants

[kieyra]

Regarding the graphic violence: I can't watch most of it, but in RDM's defense, isn't this the first time he's been on premium cable? He's probably still finding his footing with his new parameters of what he can film.

I'm also guessing he was influenced to take on this project by women in his life, and I don't mind if he brings some masculine energy to it, as the source material seems awfully romance-tropey. It's clear a lot of care and attention to detail is being put into the show, and at episode 7 that is sufficient for me.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm also guessing he was influenced to take on this project by women in his life, and I don't mind if he brings some masculine energy to it, as the source material seems awfully romance-tropey. It's clear a lot of care and attention to detail is being put into the show, and at episode 7 that is sufficient for me.

 

And again, I don't see what is so wrong about the source material being based on a romance. It is a romance. Everything, every show has some kind of "trope" that has been used before. Not to sound argumentative, and all due respect to Ms. Gabaldon*, but this is a love story.

 

*I remember reading how she said she didn't like romances, and this was one of the reasons why I didn't read this series for a long time.

Edited September 22, 2014 by GHScorpiosRule

[kieyra]

Sorry, no offense to romance fans. I suppose it keeps coming up because the structure for a classic romance novel usually isn't enough to sustain a lengthy "prestige" scripted TV drama, which needs a lot of moving parts.

[thingamajig]

If there's one thing the Outlander series doesn't lack, it's moving parts, lol.

[Nidratime]

I don't know about that. There's a number of prestige scripted dramas that have had a central romance and some of them are geared towards guys! Even superheroes have a girl!

[Pestilentia]

Sorry, no offense to romance fans. I suppose it keeps coming up because the structure for a classic romance novel usually isn't enough to sustain a lengthy "prestige" scripted TV drama, which needs a lot of moving parts.

If that is true then I'm betting that Outlander will change that notion.

But then I don't consider Outlander to be merely "a classic romance novel."

[GHScorpiosRule]

If that is true then I'm betting that Outlander will change that notion.

But then I don't consider Outlander to be merely "a classic romance novel."

 

I agree. I think in the pilot episode I said as much, that I don't understand why romance is such a dirty word or a dirty secret or something, and that this series is a romance, but also is infused with Scottish history...action...adventure...betrayal...drama...or words to that effect. But at its base, it's a love story. ye ken?

[kieyra]

Well...this was, I thought, the unpopular opinions thread. :) 

[Meredith Quill]

And again, I don't see what is so wrong about the source material being based on a romance. It is a romance. Everything, every show has some kind of "trope" that has been used before. Not to sound argumentative, and all due respect to Ms. Gabaldon*, but this is a love story.

 

*I remember reading how she said she didn't like romances, and this was one of the reasons why I didn't read this series for a long time.

 

 

I agree. I think in the pilot episode I said as much, that I don't understand why romance is such a dirty word or a dirty secret or something, and that this series is a romance, but also is infused with Scottish history...action...adventure...betrayal...drama...or words to that effect. But at its base, it's a love story. ye ken?

 

This^

Which is why reading comparisons to the sex scenes of GoT seem rather odd to me; GoT is definitely not a romance and has never pretended to be (the only truly romantic sex scenes were between Robb and Talisa and they were done well enough imo but that was a very small part of a very large show/story/cast). I love GoT for what it is, not what it isn't. I'm enjoying Outlander a lot but I don't compare it with GoT, The Tudors, The White Queen etc, they were/are all enjoyable to varying degrees but I feel no compulsion to berate one over another, there is enough love to go around :)

[WaltersHair]

Don't hate me, but I think Jamie looks better with the short tousled  hair. With it slicked back, he bears a small resemblance to the kid from Mask.

Runs....

[absnow54]

Don't hate me, but I think Jamie looks better with the short tousled  hair.

I prefer the shorter hair too. Every week I get nervous as it gets longer and longer. I hope that if they commit to having him really grow his hair out, they grow out the bangs too before it looks like a mullet.

[BooBear]

Does this show run the danger of making Claire that girl.. you know... the one... every man wants her... everyone is secretly in love with her, though, she really isn't that great.  Does it also kind of remind anyone of Snow White? Her little Highlanders are like dwarfs... Dougal is grumpy... BJR is the evil queen.

[WatchrTina]

Well Rupert thinks she asks too many questions and it wasn't until just the day before that he had ever heard her make a joke, so while he may be warming up to her, I don't think Rupert is completely a fan.  And Angus -- he's been well and truly angry with her on more than one occasion.  Yeah he threw the first punch when the louts in the bar called her a whore but he was really defending the clan's honor more than hers (no matter what Murtaugh said.)  Angus has been rather awful to Claire on more than one occasion so I think he's definitely not a card-carrying member of the fan club.  As Jamie said, he hates everybody.

[justmehere]

Well Rupert thinks she asks too many questions and it wasn't until just the day before that he had ever heard her make a joke, so while he may be warming up to her, I don't think Rupert is completely a fan.  And Angus -- he's been well and truly angry with her on more than one occasion.  Yeah he threw the first punch when the louts in the bar called her a whore but he was really defending the clan's honor more than hers (no matter what Murtaugh said.)  Angus has been rather awful to Claire on more than one occasion so I think he's definitely not a card-carrying member of the fan club.  As Jamie said, he hates everybody.

 

Yet they still wouldn't mind having a go at her!

[WatchrTina]

Eh, that was just them being louts at the wedding after-party.  It was expected.  Like the "shivaree" in the musical Oklahoma or the stripping and bedding of the wedding couple in Game of Thrones.  I have an Irish friend who would say they were "All huff, no puff."

Edited September 23, 2014 by WatchrTina