Unpopular Opinions: Overheard in the Castle Leoch Kitchen

[missmarple]

This show is rapidly becoming all about Frank and I don't give a flying fig about Frank or what he's going through- at least to extent that his storyline took up more than half the show. I personally never liked Frank and Claire as a couple. I found Frank to have more chemistry with the B&B owner (forgot her name) and Rev. Wakefield . My own personal view is that Claire didn't try very hard to escape from 1743 is because things weren't so great between her and Frank. My own take on Claire was that she was into Jamie from the beginning and had difficult time admitting it. Frank loved her but I don't ever he really got Claire the way Jamie does. I am also tired of them focusing on Frank and how Claire has to get be back because she loves him so much. I'm fine with Claire desperate to get back to 1945 for things like indoor plumbing and antibiotics. Plus she's getting nearly raped every five seconds. My fear is that Outlander will devolve into, " The journey of Frank: dealing with the loss a wife he kind of loved but didn't understand."

[ArctisTor]

she seems to be choosing a world where men don't listen to her and rape is an every day occurrence. She can't be anything but a wife and is considered property.  This alone makes me wonder about her mental health / maturity.

 

Actually, after I first read the book way back in college (and never attempted a re-read until very recently), I had automatically assumed Claire wasn't only an unreliable narrator, but unreliable because she suffered from some type of mental illness.  To the point that when I'd heard they were making a TV series out of the book, my first thought was, "It might be interesting how they handle the PTSD subject" with regard to Claire.  Its not until my attempted re-read several months back that I only realized my initial interpretation that I'd held onto for years likely wasn't the correct one.  Mostly because she doesn't display any of the more stereotypical symptoms of PTSD you see in fiction like nightmares, flashbacks, cold sweats, heart palpitations, etc.  Things they'd (Gabaldon or the TV series) probably would have made / make a lot more obvious if we are meant to view Claire as mentally unstable.

 

I think I held onto Claire being legitimately mentally ill so long because I just could not accept the possibility a rational woman from 1945 might willingly stay in 1743 and because of love wasn't ever a good enough answer for me.  And there's a big part of me that still can't let go of Claire suffering from some kind of PTSD and essentially gazed into the abyss too long until she became this person who can't exist in any other world unless it was one with horror, blood and violence.  Like being this unreliable narrator and per many mentally ill persons (in fiction and sometimes real life), she's not aware of her own mental illness or issues

, so she's not aware she makes the choice to stay in 1743 not just because she loves Jamie ever so much more than Frank, though that's what her narration is almost entirely focused on, but it's his (bloody and violent) world itself which I interpreted as possibly also an impetus.

 There's stuff in the TV series that exacerbates that interpretation in my head, like the mirroring between a blood-soaked Claire on VE Day and the blood-soaked Jamie who'd just merrily been cutting down Redcoats with a big broad sword.  Also that war-changes-people speech she gave to BJR (was she talking about herself there too?).  Again, even if I realize now the above isn't likely how I was ever meant to read Claire.

 

Though I suppose her excessive drinking,

her telling Jamie she loves him/chooses him over Frank & 1945 AFTER he beats the tar out of her (even admits he enjoyed doing it in the book)

and her lack of friends (in 1945 or 1743) could function as evidence towards PTSD maybe.... do you see how hard my mind tries to explain the 1945 vs. 1743 thing?  I just cannot wrap my head around it at all.

Edited September 30, 2014 by ArctisTor

[kieyra]

Very interesting idea. I don't think it's intentional, as you say, but it does make me wonder what a Sookie Stackhouse diagnosis would look like.

[bluebonnet]

 

 

 

cradle robbing,

Cradle robbing?  Since when is a few years age difference considered cradle robbing?  

[Constantinople]

...Frank should dump that adulterous, cradle robbing, alcoholic bigamist, who only seems to care about "Frank" when she remembers she's living in McRapeistan and Craig Na Dun is staring her right in the face.

 

 

Cradle robbing?  Since when is a few years age difference considered cradle robbing?  

 

So you admit Claire is adulterous, alcoholic bigamist who's "love" for Frank is nothing more than any port in a storm and that Frank should boot her ass pronto and call himself lucky?

[bluebonnet]

So you admit Claire is adulterous, alcoholic bigamist who's "love" for Frank is nothing more than any port in a storm and that Frank should boot her ass pronto and call himself lucky?

Uh no, not what I said or asked at all.  

 

I didn't address those other issues because it's not really the place to get into a philosophical debate about our disagreements on certain behaviors.  I don't think either one of them is good for the other, despite the fact that Frank and Claire love each other.  But that's neither here nor there.  

 

What I actually asked was "since when is a few years age difference considered cradle robbing"?  I'm guessing I just missed the snark and sarcasm of your earlier post.  

[BooBear]

, " The journey of Frank: dealing with the loss a wife he kind of loved but didn't understand."

 

It probably will because they hired an actor who is too big for the role of Frank.  Typically a fatal flaw of show producers. I am sure they thought that TM would be great for BJR and want to give him more work. But it doesn't really work because if Frank is a pretty decent interesting guy, why would Claire want to stay in the past? 

[lucindabelle]

Fascinating wrt PTSD, and spot on. As this is a place for unpopular opinions, I do wish people wouldn't counter them.

Jamie is being played like a teenager, Claire like a mature woman. Don't know what age difference is meant to be but it's reading very very wide.

[Constantinople]

So you admit Claire is adulterous, alcoholic bigamist who's "love" for Frank is nothing more than any port in a storm and that Frank should boot her ass pronto and call himself lucky?

 

 

Uh no, not what I said or asked at all.  

 

I didn't address those other issues because it's not really the place to get into a philosophical debate about our disagreements on certain behaviors.

 

Just a little friendly teasing. Sorry.

 

As for my cradle robbing comment, I made it because I agree with lucindabelle that

 

 

Jamie is being played like a teenager, Claire like a mature woman. Don't know what age difference is meant to be but it's reading very very wide.

[DoughGirl]

Lots of interesting comments here. I particularly agree with this:

It probably will because they hired an actor who is too big for the role of Frank.  Typically a fatal flaw of show producers. I am sure they thought that TM would be great for BJR and want to give him more work. But it doesn't really work because if Frank is a pretty decent interesting guy, why would Claire want to stay in the past?

And this:

Jamie is being played like a teenager, Claire like a mature woman. Don't know what age difference is meant to be but it's reading very very wide.

I think the books did a much better job of showing that Claire felt more "at home" in the eighteenth century, whether it's believable or not. Right at the start, the show went wrong by changing her enjoying and embracing working in Davie Beaton's surgery to her being held prisoner and compelled to do so. Then all the Frankification and overkill of BJR shifted the focus of the story in a major way. Because it IS essentially a romance.

[absnow54]

I agree. I know it's controversial to throw around the romance word with Outlander, but the first book especially is dependent not only on the romance between Jamie and Claire, but the romance of the 18th century. I think the show is trying too hard to shake off the stigma of being considered a romance novel that they're focusing on everything but. I think this show would greatly benefit from a Claire-centric episode. We've had a BJR episode, a Jamie episode, and a Frank episode. I know we're inside Claire's head, but I don't understand her motivations because she's really just being bounced around a few plots that have nothing to do with her.

[lucindabelle]

Good points. If we could see some of the charm of huge 18th century I'd accept it better. All were seeing is lack of modern conveniences and appalling thigns like flogging, rape, boy whipped for stealing, what charm?

[annlaw78]

When was the Jamie ep? I feel he is most woefully underdeveloped, which is a shame. To quote the great Aurora Greenway, "pretty isn't everything." We need to know more about him, rather than the broad strokes we've gotten so far (Chivalrous! Brave! Gallant! Dreamy! Human Golden Retriever!).

[absnow54]

I got a much better hold on Jamie's character in the Wedding episode alone than I've gotten from Claire's through all 8 episodes. I can see where Jamie and Claire's relationship has been woefully underdeveloped, but to me Jamie has been developed just fine for this stage of the story. I understand why he does things without him having to tell me, like Claire's voice overs constantly have to do.

[ArctisTor]

Jamie is being played like a teenager, Claire like a mature woman. Don't know what age difference is meant to be but it's reading very very wide.

I do agree in the sense I think she is portrayed as more mature than Jamie in ways, but other aspects of Claire?  Like what Boobear was pointing out on the last page, Claire doesn't really seem to know what she wants in life and not just even with the love triangle.  This was actually a big frustration to me reading the book and now I see it in the TV series.  Like how Claire keeps going on and on about how desperate she is to get back to the 20th century and to Frank and yet, using an example from the TV series, in "Rent" she's upset because these people she's about to ditch without a by-your-leave are excluding her from the conversation?  I'm going to leave you Scottish Neanderthals without a second thought the first chance I get..... but why don't you LIKE me?!  It came off like something from about any typical YA hero or heroine's mindset, how contradictory they are and they somehow don't see it.  You let it slide because they're usually teenagers, so of course that's why they're so clueless in everything up to themselves. 

 

Definitely not to say 20-somethings should have all the answers either, but the degree of unawareness I see in book/TV Claire?  She does come off a much younger person in some respects, despite being very adult in other ways. 

 

I've wondered how different Outlander, book and TV series, would be if all the characters were all actually teenagers or just younger and it was geared more towards the YA crowd.  Probably with the rape toned down, if perhaps not necessarily the violence.  Would the story and characterization seem more consistent?  Would the book have been more palatable to me?  Sometimes I think it would.

Edited September 30, 2014 by ArctisTor

[missmarple]

BooBear "It probably will because they hired an actor who is too big for the role of Frank. Typically a fatal flaw of show producers. I am sure they thought that TM would be great for BJR and want to give him more work. But it doesn't really work because if Frank is a pretty decent interesting guy, why would Claire want to stay in the past? "

She stayed for Jamie. Part of Claire's struggle is that she's fallen in love with Jamie and (since she’s a decent person) she has to deal with the ramifications of stepping out on Frank. (“That’s why you always leave a note”) J. Walter Weatherman.
But again I personally was never impressed with Frank as the one and only spouse for Claire. More like first husband material. I also personally never thought Frank was that entirely in tune with her and kind of dismissive. As for their second honeymoon he spent an awful lot of time with the Rev. She married Frank on whim at eighteen and spent five years apart-wherein Frank had affairs and she flirted. On their second honeymoon he passive aggressively questions her fidelity because he wasn't faithful during their time apart. I just see them as a rocky couple who are trying too hard reconnect. The TV show emphasis Frank all the friggin time- to the point where the romance (yes this is-even though they keep denying it) has almost disappeared and you could question why she's not escaping at every moment. When I think of Jamie and Claire I think of a line from the movie Orlando, “perhaps for love.”

Edited September 30, 2014 by Athena
Book talk.

[absnow54]

Moving my response to the Book Comparison thread since the topic is veering towards not so unpopular opinions...

[Athena]

Please ease up on with the book talk and references. This topic is about the show. If you have book and show unpopular opinions, you are free to discuss them in Books vs Show or the Book 1 topic. Thanks. 

[Phoenix911]

As a rule I tend not to like female lead characters and knowing that I tried really hard to let Claire benefit from the doubt, but I'm afraid I just can't stand her for some reason.
I love that she's a strong woman and managed to use her healing skills in her advantage (and overall not get herself killed), but some of her actions are plain stupid.
She's supposed to be a sophisticated world traveler and a former soldier as well and yet sometimes she acts like a child.
Really, what happened to common sense?

 

Another thing that bothers me is that the books

cover several decades.
I haven't read any of them and can't say how many, but I understood that the characters in the last book are considerably older than in the first book.
I'm wondering exactly how this is going to translate in the show.
I like Claire and Jamie, but I'm shallow and like them as they look NOW. I don't particularly want to see middle aged couple on TV, epic love story or not.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Athena
book talk

[Missy Vixen]

*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.

Fun fact: Diana Gabaldon was one of the keynote speakers for Romance Writers of America's national conference in 2011. It's interesting that she doesn't like romance; she's made a hell of a lot of money off of romance readers over the years.

 

I wish there was an option for subtitles while the characters speak Gaelic. I understand the director probably wanted to highlight Claire's isolation, but it's frustrating. IMHO, of course.

[mizkat]

I really like this series, but my unpopular opinion is that I think they've made two serious mistakes--giving Frank a POV and not giving Jamie a POV. We got a little of him in the wedding episode, but there needs to be more. I realize he doesn't have a POV in the book, but neither did Frank. It seems the writers are falling into that terrible trap of making secondary characters more interesting than the leads. That ends up giving less time to the leads, which gives less time to show motivations, which leads to questions like "why is Claire so dumb" and "why does Jamie act like a schoolboy?"

 

Another possible unpopular opinion--I think Sam is fantastic in this role, and would totally kill it if Jamie had a POV. I don't find TM that great of an actor--he's not convincing to me as a loving husband and he's only a shade better as BJR. Playing someone bad to the bone isn't that hard, especially when there are no shades of gray involved. Now, if he'd have made Frank even a fraction more appealing than any of the 18th century men, I'd have a different opinion. I got the sense from the show that he had one foot out the door of the marriage already, and only when Claire disappeared did he start realizing what he had. He'd have to be as sociopathic as his ancestor not to care about what happened to her.

 

Fun fact: Diana Gabaldon was one of the keynote speakers for Romance Writers of America's national conference in 2011. It's interesting that she doesn't like romance; she's made a hell of a lot of money off of romance readers over the years.

 

When I started in the business fifteen years ago, Outlander was the "romance standard"--the buzz about her in the romance writing community was unbelievable. And when I see the poster for this show, I think romance. She may deny she's not a romance fan and the series may say it's not "romance" but a "love story" and more focused on the time travel conundrum and the immersion into 18th century life, but I'm not buying it. At all. Romance = love story = this series. The fact that Claire and Jamie weren't always sniping at each other while trying to deny their attraction (romance trope) or that attention is give to other characters and the politics of the setting doesn't cancel out that this story is a romance. My opinion is that part of the problems that are raised by book readers and series watchers is that the creators are fighting against the true center of this story, instead of letting it play out organically and allowing the story to be what it really is. 

[absnow54]

I really like this series, but my unpopular opinion is that I think they've made two serious mistakes--giving Frank a POV and not giving Jamie a POV.

I'm super nit-picky about narrative, and the fact that they broke first person to follow Frank for half an episode drives me bonkers. Up until episode 7, they had chosen to solely follow Claire's POV. She narrated, we heard her inner thoughts, she was the anchor to every scene, if she didn't understand something, we didn't understand it either. It was a very intimate POV, and breaking to Frank's or even Jamie's POV is incredibly jarring, and sloppy story telling to me. If something's important, we should be able to intuit it from Claire's perspective. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm not familiar with Tobias Menzies, so I'm perfectly content to hate him as Black Jack Randall, and not give two figgedy fucks about his Frank, considering that the show decided to only show his positive attributes and none of his negatives, well, except for his asking Claire if she had had any affairs during their time apart during the war.

 

And the latter I saw more of his deflecting--that I suspect he did have an affair.  

 

I understand the need to flesh his character out, but please, show everything, warts and all. Which the show failed to do, as far as I'm concerned.

[ulkis]

I don't envy the writers when it comes to Frank, honestly. Make him too good of a husband and Claire looks kind of like a jerk for forgetting so completely about him. Make him too bad of a husband and you risk annoying viewers over having basically a pointless romantic obstacle against Jamie and Claire.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't envy the writers when it comes to Frank, honestly. Make him too good of a husband and Claire looks kind of like a jerk for forgetting so completely about him. Make him too bad of a husband and you risk annoying viewers over having basically a pointless romantic obstacle against Jamie and Claire.

 

I agree, but I just wanted a fair portrayal of him; here? they made him too "good", and they totally should have (spoilering just in case non-book readers venture in here)

shown how he shut Claire down when she broached the subject of adoption; how he wanted his child to be of his blood, blah, blah, blah. Of course later on, he does accept Brianna as his own, but still.

[ulkis]

I agree, but I just wanted a fair portrayal of him; here? they made him too "good", and they totally should have (spoilering just in case non-book readers venture in here)

shown how he shut Claire down when she broached the subject of adoption; how he wanted his child to be of his blood, blah, blah, blah. Of course later on, he does accept Brianna as his own, but still.

 

I do think they should have pointed out that Claire was also just 19 when she got married to him as well. Of course maybe that would just it look like she falls in love rather impetuously. So maybe not.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I do think they should have pointed out that Claire was also just 19 when she got married to him as well. Of course maybe that would just it look like she falls in love rather impetuously. So maybe not.

 

Well, that conversation took place a day or two before she "fell" through the Stones and ended up in 1743, so...

 

And true, but weren't most folks more mature back then? At least, that's what I'd heard/been told anyway!

[bluebonnet]

I hate Jamie's hair.  Hate hate hate it.  It's the hairstyle of every annoying male student I've ever encountered, from kinder straight up to high school and beyond.  Ok, maybe no literally every male student, but there are enough.  It spawned from the Justin Beiber hair stage.  Mostly, I just want to comb the hair.  Often I also want to wash it.  I feel like they could have made Sam H look young without going the route of ugly, unkempt hair.  

[AD55]

I hate Jamie's hair.  Hate hate hate it.  It's the hairstyle of every annoying male student I've ever encountered, from kinder straight up to high school and beyond.  Ok, maybe no literally every male student, but there are enough.  It spawned from the Justin Beiber hair stage.  Mostly, I just want to comb the hair.  Often I also want to wash it.  I feel like they could have made Sam H look young without going the route of ugly, unkempt hair.  

 

Proceeding under the assumption that in the unpopular opinion thread, you can respond with a counter opinion to the unpopular opinion, I will say that I like Jamie's hair, especially in the Lallybroch episode. If I object to anything, it's that it's not ugly and unkempt enough for the period. Claire's hair and her flawlessly clean face in the Search bothered me even more. My hair doesn't look that good after I've showered and blown it dry in the morning. Admittedly, I suck at blowing my hair dry, but still.

 

Since I'm in this thread, I may as well go all in and say that The Search may be my favorite episode so far. I pretty much loved everything about it, including the road trip, which didn't feel too long to me. I thought it told us a good deal about Claire and Murtagh and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. In retrospect, if there's an episode that wasted time that could have been devoted to other things, I think it was The Wedding. Sure, it was great to see Jamie and Claire get it on repeatedly and I enjoyed Jamie's 3 conditions -- 4 if you count Murtagh locating a kilt with the Fraser colors -- but if it had been shorter, there would have been time to develop Jamie and Claire's relationship post-wedding. I think that would have helped those, esp. non-book readers, who felt that the show didn't do a good enough job of showing the development of their relationship prior to the first rape scene.

[CatMack]

To be fair, Sam's hair was short when they started filming and he's been growing it out a lot longer. As anyone who's gone from short to long hair knows, most people have an unavoidable awkward stage during a grow out. It's different for everyone, but there's always that point where it just looks awful no matter what you do but you really want the long hair so you just soldier through and hope it stops looking like ass soon. I think the current hair, which will be the season 2 hair, looks better.

[Nidratime]

Since I'm in this thread, I may as well go all in and say that The Search may be my favorite episode so far. I pretty much loved everything about it, including the road trip, which didn't feel too long to me. I thought it told us a good deal about Claire and Murtagh and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. In retrospect, if there's an episode that wasted time that could have been devoted to other things, I think it was The Wedding. Sure, it was great to see Jamie and Claire get it on repeatedly and I enjoyed Jamie's 3 conditions -- 4 if you count Murtagh locating a kilt with the Fraser colors -- but if it had been shorter, there would have been time to develop Jamie and Claire's relationship post-wedding. I think that would have helped those, esp. non-book readers, who felt that the show didn't do a good enough job of showing the development of their relationship prior to the first rape scene.

 

 

I would not have wanted to give up parts of the wedding episode for anything. My favorite scene(s) from the series are from the episode, although not from inside the bridal chamber. I loved the scene where Jamie comes out to the church yard in his wedding finery and watches as Claire's gown is revealed. Then, when they go into the church and she slips her gold ring down her bodice and finally, the ceremony itself. All of that was so beautiful.

 

But as for "The Search," I found that middle section bizarre and goofy,

but having the read the book,

I expected it to be and it was supposed to be that way, since that was how they were going to grab Jamie's attention -- by drawing attention to themselves.

 

What I like about Outlander is that you don't know what you're going to get. We've had episodes that have been "all over the map" from week to week, i.e., on the road, at a gathering, at a witch trial, on a hunt, in a prison, at a wedding, in the surgery, etc. and this is only the first season. The ability to bring all that to the small screen and make it as gorgeous as a movie is quite an accomplishment.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Nidratime

[AD55]

I would not have wanted to give up parts of the wedding episode for anything. My favorite scene(s) from the series are from the episode, although not from inside the bridal chamber. I loved the scene where Jamie comes out to the church yard in his wedding finery and watches as Claire's gown is revealed. Then, when they go into the church and she slips her gold ring down her bodice and finally, the ceremony itself. All of that was so beautiful.

 

But as for "The Search," I found that middle section bizarre and goofy,

but having the read the book,

I expected it to be and it was supposed to be that way, since that was how they were going to grab Jamie's attention -- by drawing attention to themselves.

 

What I like about Outlander is that you don't know what you're going to get. We've had episodes that have been "all over the map" from week to week, i.e., on the road, at a gathering, at a witch trial, on a hunt, in a prison, at a wedding, in the surgery, etc. and this is only the first season. The ability to bring all that to the small screen and make it as gorgeous as a movie is quite an accomplishment.

 

I liked all the scenes in The Wedding as well, especially the one between Jamie and my man Murtagh. My primary reason for wishing it had been shortened is that it would have made room for other scenes showing the development of J&C's relationship. Mileage definitely varies for this series when it comes to which parts could be cut or shortened to free up time for other scenes such as Claire's choice at the stones. I think my opinion of it may also be swayed a bit by accusations from non-book fans that the show is mainly a protracted love affair. I don't feel that way and frankly, wouldn't care if it were. There are few enough shows that portray the arc of a relationship between two mature adults. Surely we can have one.

[bluebonnet]

Proceeding under the assumption that in the unpopular opinion thread, you can respond with a counter opinion to the unpopular opinion, I will say that I like Jamie's hair, especially in the Lallybroch episode. If I object to anything, it's that it's not ugly and unkempt enough for the period. Claire's hair and her flawlessly clean face in the Search bothered me even more. My hair doesn't look that good after I've showered and blown it dry in the morning. Admittedly, I suck at blowing my hair dry, but still.

 

I have a lot of problems with how greasy they make hair look on tv in order to reflect a lack of product and washing.  In reality, when not using product and not regularly washing, one's hair is more likely to look like Claire's than to look like Jamie's or Ians or Murtaugh's.  I'm one of those who doesn't 'wash' my hair.  I don't use any product nor do I use any typical shampoos.  Only water and rarely a little something extra like vinegar.  No, my hair is not greasy.  No, it's never been described as dirty.  The only time it is greasy or described as dirty is when I've recently used product.  Nothing makes hair more nasty than modern day products.  

 

Jamie's hair being unkempt when they are on the road, especially when they've just run off with nothing but their saddlebags, is believable.  Being unkempt when dealing with his tenants is totally unacceptable.  

To be fair, Sam's hair was short when they started filming and he's been growing it out a lot longer. As anyone who's gone from short to long hair knows, most people have an unavoidable awkward stage during a grow out. It's different for everyone, but there's always that point where it just looks awful no matter what you do but you really want the long hair so you just soldier through and hope it stops looking like ass soon. I think the current hair, which will be the season 2 hair, looks better.

Yeah, it's likely the awkward phase and when it's longer, it will be a lot more realistic because then they can just tie it back.  This bangs in the face super annoys me.  The Beiber look just seems so anachronistic.  

Edited May 12, 2015 by bluebonnet

[tcay]

I think of Jamie's hair as hobbit hair. I'm hoping they tie it back eventually too. 

[ulkis]

I have a lot of problems with how greasy they make hair look on tv in order to reflect a lack of product and washing.  In reality, when not using product and not regularly washing, one's hair is more likely to look like Claire's than to look like Jamie's or Ians or Murtaugh's.

 

That depends on what kind of hair you have. My hair is very thin and gets greasy in about a day.

[bluebonnet]

That depends on what kind of hair you have. My hair is very thin and gets greasy in about a day.

Do you use product?  Do you use typical shampoo and conditioner.  The stuff that these things deposit on the hair causes the greasy buildup look.  Without it, hair doesn't do that.  But it does take some time for the deposits from modern products to be stripped away.  I think it was a week and a half before I felt like my hair was no longer looking and feeling greasy.  I timed a camping trip with my switch from shampoo to no washing.  

[Keeta]

I think of Jamie's hair as hobbit hair. I'm hoping they tie it back eventually too.

Based on how Sam's hair looks in a man bun (compared to the hobbit hair), I'm hoping that they tie it back as well.

[WatchrTina]

Okay, unpopular opinions thread, here we go.  I think that Diana (and the show runner on Black Sails) take too much heat over the amount of sexual assault in their shows.  George RR Martin slaughters entire families at a freaking wedding and the only back-lash is along the lines of "Oh no he didn't!" and people posting YouTube videos of readers and non-readers watching together so you can contrast their reactions.  I cannot recall anyone seriously criticizing GRRM for killing so many people in such wanton orgies of violence in his books. It's mostly the punchline for jokes.  But I have seen people get all up in my grill because I dared to criticize a character on Black Sails who also happened to be a rape victim (at least we think she was raped, it's never actually shown or discussed).  It's as through murder, including mass-murder is okay as long as it moves the story forward but sexual assault freaks people out.

 

Let's be clear:  I am not in favor of sexual assault.  Sexual assault is awful.  I hope never to be touched by it.  But murder is also awful.  Lashing people nearly to death is awful.  Tossing a child out a window in order to keep your incestuous relationship with your sister a secret is awful.  Yeah, two depictions of near-sexual assault in one episode is a lot but to that I say two words:  Red Wedding.  I'm not looking for people to get all up in arms the next time murder happens on the show, I just wish the reactions to depictions of rape and murder and other awful events were more equivalent.

Edited May 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[ulkis]

I think the difference is I think people are worried that they are just adding in sexual assault for titillation. Is it worse than throwing in murder/graphic violence for shock value? I guess that depends on who you ask.

I haven't really minded the assaults on Outlander because I don't think any of the rape attempts have presented as sexy/titillating at ALL.* Maybe the scene in episode 2 where Randall rips off Jenny's bodice. The most problematic thing for me is probably the spanking, and that was less because it was presented as kinky and more because it was presented as wacky hijinx.

*I admit though I've probably been desensitized a bit. Whenever I'm watching a show on cable my response is usually, "sigh, something gratuitous I have to get through to get back to the plot". But it happens on network tv too I guess. I didn't watch the episode but a character on Reign was raped and people said it was pretty graphic and unnecessary.

Edited May 13, 2015 by ulkis

[AD55]

Okay, I'm here armed with a pillow to second those who think Claire is a Mary Sue character. My understanding of the term is that it has to do with the author's creating a character who is an idealized version of herself. I think that's what Gabaldon has done here. Claire is beautiful, resourceful, and good at practically everything. Sure, she sometimes makes mistakes, but even these tend to be attributed to her being impulsively heroic or brave. It's sort of like those job interviews where the interviewer asks you to describe your worst failing and you reply, “If I must admit a flaw, it's that my commitment to excellence means that I sometimes work too hard for my own good.” I've read a bunch of interviews with Gabaldon in which she said that the character of Claire insisted on taking over the narration and wouldn't stop talking like a twentieth-century woman. Gabaldon introduced the time travel to account for this. I personally think this happened because Claire is a stand in for the author. Like CatMack, I've stopped reading interviews with her or visiting her twitter feed as it drives me nuts how un-insightful she is about herself. Like Claire, she can do anything. If someone dares to talk about not having enough time to write, she always declares she has no patience with that. After all, she wrote a novel while taking care of three small children, holding down a demanding full-time academic position, publishing articles in scientific journals, and having frequent sex with her husband. And yes, she does regularly talk about her robust sex life. (Gee, who else has frequent sex, complete with vaginal orgasms?) I like Claire due to Cait's stellar performance and the chemistry between her and Sam Heughan. As Ron Moore said, “you can see Caitriona thinking.” I can't, however, criticize those who wish that Jamie and Claire were more complex characters. I go to other shows for that, but if you're someone who isn't into escapism or wants your pleasure viewing to be accompanied by character development, you are probably going to ditch the series.

 

Edited to remove references to the books.

Edited May 19, 2015 by AD55

[Athena]

Please remember this is a No Book Talk thread about the show. You are free to create a Book Talk: UO about the books and the show, but please keep this thread only about the show. Thank you.

[SpiritSong]

Okay, I'm here armed with a pillow to second those who think Claire is a Mary Sue character. My understanding of the term is that it has to do with the author's creating a character who is an idealized version of herself. I think that's what Gabaldon has done here. Claire is beautiful, resourceful, and good at practically everything. Sure, she sometimes makes mistakes, but even these tend to be attributed to her being impulsively heroic or brave. It's sort of like those job interviews where the interviewer asks you to describe your worst failing and you reply, “If I must admit a flaw, it's that my commitment to excellence means that I sometimes work too hard for my own good.” I've read a bunch of interviews with Gabaldon in which she said that the character of Claire insisted on taking over the narration and wouldn't stop talking like a twentieth-century woman. Gabaldon introduced the time travel to account for this. I personally think this happened because Claire is a stand in for the author. Like CatMack, I've stopped reading interviews with her or visiting her twitter feed as it drives me nuts how un-insightful she is about herself. Like Claire, she can do anything.

You can put down the pillow. I don't think Claire is a Mary Sue (but then maybe I've read too many REALLY bad fanfics with Mary Sue characters), but I thought this critique was really well reasoned and I understand what you mean. I would consider the unseen Ellen MacKenzie Fraser more of a traditional Mary Sue. Did that woman have a single flaw? Was there any man who didn't love her?

I'm not that impressed by Gabaldon as a person or writer. I like the story idea of Outlander, but the execution could have been better. I mainly started reading because I love Scotland and am a sucker for men in kilts, and I did get engrossed in the story. I pretty much lost interest after the 3rd or 4th book, which I attribute to DG's shortcomings as a writer.

I met Gabaldon once at a book signing and she was snippy and not particularly friendly. And she is infamous in fanfic circles for her over the top rant about fan fiction, a post she quickly removed after receiving a lot of backlash. So I can definitely see your point about her writing an idealized version of herself. It's just that I like Claire whereas I don't like Diana.

[Nidratime]

I met Gabaldon once at a book signing and she was snippy and not particularly friendly. And she is infamous in fanfic circles for her over the top rant about fan fiction, a post she quickly removed after receiving a lot of backlash. So I can definitely see your point about her writing an idealized version of herself. It's just that I like Claire whereas I don't like Diana.

 

 

I met Gabaldon at a book signing too and she was pretty nice to me. No one in our group seemed anything but delighted by her.

[ennui]

Okay,  I freely admit that I have not read the books and I am not emotionally invested in the show or any of the characters. Yes, Jamie is handsome, but I don’t tune in every week.

I am sad that the whole thing devolved to porn. There is so much historical material to work with and so many possible story lines, and yet the season finale was just sex. Really? That’s all they could find? Sex? I changed the channel after 40 minutes. I don’t even know how it all ended. I don’t care.

[WatchrTina]

Ennui that's a completely legitimate reaction.  As a reader, I've wondered all along how this episode from the book was going to be handled and I knew it would cost the show some viewers, so I'm not at all surprised it hear someone have this reaction.  I am emotionally invested in the show and in the character of Jamie, which is what makes this episode even harder for me to watch.  But because I'm invested it also makes me eager to see how his journey back from this will be handled.  This is a no book talk thread but I think it's okay for me to say that BookJamie doesn't just "get over" what happens in this episode.  He is forever changed by it and the consequences of this episode resonate throughout the following 7 books.  That to me is one of the keys of realistic drama.  Very bad things sometimes happen to people we care about and then they are forced to cope with the aftermath.

 

That being said, not everyone is going to be engaged in the same way as me and I'll bet we lose a lot of viewers after this season-ender.  I think it's a shame because I love this story, but I totally understand why it is going to happen.

Edited May 31, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Archery]

My Unpopular Opinion:  Just because Claire can do some things well, does not make her a Mary Sue.  And it irritates (angers) me that people look at this smart, capable woman -- who has interests in medicinal botany and was a damn capable combat nurse -- and find it unbelievable that she can cope as well as she does. 

 

and another:  it is pointless to criticize what got cut, what got kept, and how things were translated to the screen when adapting an 800+ page book.  If I wanted to present the story as I saw it in my head, I should have bought the rights, raised the money, written the script, cast it, and produced it on my own dime.  I didn't.  RDM and company did.  They get to tell it the way they want. 

[jaytee1812]

I'm still on the early episodes, I'm up to episode 5, but i have to say I really hate Clare. I don't understand why they made her English. It makes her look like a complete snob looking down on those savage scots. Also a decent actress might help. Kelly MacDonald would've been perfect. 

 

Same goes for Jamie, Sam Heughan is like pretty wallpaper. 

 

The feel of the show is what I imagine Americans think of Scotland. I think any resemblance to actual history stops at the date, the names of the armies, and the settings. 

[bluebonnet]

I'm still on the early episodes, I'm up to episode 5, but i have to say I really hate Clare. I don't understand why they made her English. It makes her look like a complete snob looking down on those savage scots. 

 

To be fair, the fact that she is actually looking at her 18th century hosts as savage scots until at least the next episode is probably why she looks like a 'complete snob looking down on those savage scots'.  This would be true even if she were another nationality.  Simply being from the 20th century is what makes her initially see the 18th century inhabitants as scary and savage.  Of course, this changes, starting from the end of episode 5.  

[Nidratime]

I'm a little taken aback at how often the acts in these latest episodes are being referred to as porn or torture porn -- so it must be an unpopular opinion to not find it so. Maybe I should look up those words and make sure I understand what they mean. When I think of porn, I tend to think of consensual sex -- if not loving -- not assault and abuse using sex as a weapon. Randall was assaulting and abusing Jamie. Even if Jamie agreed to stop fighting, it was still nonconsensual in that Jamie was coerced and threatened by way of using Claire's safety as a weapon. When a dramatization of a woman being raped occurs, do we call it porn instead of assault?

[Hybiscus]

I'm a little taken aback at how often the acts in these latest episodes are being referred to as porn or torture porn -- so it must be an unpopular opinion to not find it so. Maybe I should look up those words and make sure I understand what they mean. When I think of porn, I tend to think of consensual sex -- if not loving -- not assault and abuse using sex as a weapon. Randall was assaulting and abusing Jamie. Even if Jamie agreed to stop fighting, it was still nonconsensual in that Jamie was coerced and threatened by way of using Claire's safety as a weapon. When a dramatization of a woman being raped occurs, do we call it porn instead of assault?

Don't bother looking up a definition of "torture porn."  It's one of those terms, regardless of what the dictionary says, where everybody's got their own definition.  For me, rape is a form of torture, and Jamie was raped, even when he responded to Jack.  "Porn" is something I consider gratuitous, graphic sex for no other sake.  This wasn't porn, to me.  It was graphic, it was damned uncomfortable, but it was necessary to the story.  Had they not been included it, I wouldn't have truly understood why Jamie wanted to die, how Jack had "ruined" Jamie for Claire.