S01.E04: The Gathering

[Pestilentia]

What I'm really curious about is the very ending of the episode where we see Dougal tell Claire that he wants to bring her along on this rent collecting trip because they might end up needing a healer. (I guess they don't expect that the Castle will need a healer during that time?) But, more curious, we see the band of merry men leaving and they include Jamie who is supposedly hiding out at Castle Leoch because he's a wanted man -- someone who we all thought shouldn't chance running into the British! Now, why in the world would they want Jamie to come along under those circumstances?

There might be a reason Dougal wants him along that we don't know about yet.

 

As far as Jamie's hiding- they are going out collecting rents but will still be within the borders of MacKenzie property.

[absnow54]

There might be a reason Dougal wants him along that we don't know about yet.

But within the context of the episode, they made a big deal about Jamie's life being at stake, and Claire even suggested he just leave Castle Leoch, which was quickly shut down, so even staying within the Mackenzie borders was not an established safe place within the show universe. So to play off the seriousness of Jamie's situation, and then transition into "Let's go on a road trip!" was kind of jarring. I know we're keeping book talk separate, but I just checked that scene (which played very similarly on the show, save Jamie's not present) and Dougal says that he'll be tending the horses. That at least establishes a purpose for him coming along. His presence just seemed contradictory given the rest of the episode, and probably could have been cleared up with a 30 second conversation between Claire and Jamie as they were preparing to ride.

[thingamajig]

Well, they left the castle at the butt-crack of dawn.  Maybe Claire was too tired to ask why Jamie is coming along, and they'll have that conversation next week when the sun is actually up. ;)

[Constantinople]

I thought it was unwise for Claire to give Laoghaire a "love potion", even as a joke.  Whether they succeed or fail, "love potions" are the kind of thing that can lead to accusations of witchcraft.

[nodorothyparker]

Without getting into book talk, the audience knows as much as Claire does at this point about why Jamie's on that trip.  It doesn't make sense to her either, nor should it.

[Athena]

Speaking of Claire setting off. Check out the fur action on her coat:

 

 

We've speculated in the other episode topics that these may be Letitia's cast offs (or pilfered by Mrs Fitz as HitFix's recapper snarked). That is some serious coat porn for a "sassenach".

[aemom]

I think that you need the voiceovers because of how the books were written.  Whenever Claire is in a scene of the books, it is written from Claire's point of view.  For example: "I saw Jamie walking over to me,"  as opposed to "Jamie walks over to Claire."

A lot of information that the readers get in the books is from her thought process and not from actual dialogue or actions taking place.  There has to be some way to impart this information to the viewers and I think that the voiceovers is really the only way you can do it.

[taanja]

 

And a fine actor playing him- his subtle choices should garner him a nomination for something. That is an alpha. Folks have some very misguided ideas about what constitutes alpha behavior- it is not aggressive posturing or fighting to be top dog. It is knowing that you already are and leading those under your control with the barest glance or nod of the head.  Masterful performances from him

 

Bravo! I agree 100% !!!

 

Dougal is fast becoming a favorite of mine.  He makes me say ---Jamie who?  Seriously. A sexy "older" man makes me swoon. And the actor playing him is marvelous!

 

I liked this episode. I do not think it is filler. All the small things that happened will come back to play in future eps. Especially giving Leery ( I refuse to spell it that crazy way) that love potion. I felt the foreshadowing of that seemingly innocuous moment right through the middle of me. I mean ---they were burning woman at the stake for being witches at that time? Am I right? Watch out Claire!

 

I loved the whole voice over of Claire going over her list of how she will escape. I was rooting for her escape but dreading it because I was sure it wouldn't go very well. In a way I am glad Jamie stopped her because seriously ---it was a foolish plan. But I also want Claire to get away and go back to the stones. Hm?

 

I am looking forward to her time spent with Dougal "collecting rents" because anything that gives me more Dougal I say is a good thing.

 

[bluebonnet]

Yup, Dougal has become quite an interesting character.  Want to see more of him!

Edited September 2, 2014 by bluebonnet

[BizBuzz]

Dougal is fast becoming a favorite of mine.  He makes me say ---Jamie who?  Seriously. A sexy "older" man makes me swoon. And the actor playing him is marvelous!

 

Not quite ready to admit it, but I did want you to know that I squealed with delight and nodded my head up and down quite rapidly when I read this.  ::giggle::

[nara]

What I'm really curious about is the very ending of the episode where we see Dougal tell Claire that he wants to bring her along on this rent collecting trip because they might end up needing a healer. (I guess they don't expect that the Castle will need a healer during that time?) But, more curious, we see the band of merry men leaving and they include Jamie who is supposedly hiding out at Castle Leoch because he's a wanted man -- someone who we all thought shouldn't chance running into the British! Now, why in the world would they want Jamie to come along under those circumstances? Is Dougal operating on the old dictum, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," seeing as he looks on Jamie as a potential rival? But why would Colum or, of all people, Jamie agree? (Unless, of course, Jamie agrees because Claire is going ... and *now* I can see why Dougal might want Claire to come in the first place!)

 

Jamie seems to be under Dougal's training/command so I think it's natural that he would travel with Dougal.  For example:

• Jamie mentions during the game/brawl that Dougal taught him how to play it.
• When Jamie is sent to work in the stables, Dougal is the one who gave him that assignment.  Dougal even challenged Collum to overrule his decision, which Collum did not do.

 

I don't think this goes against the idea of keeping Jamie out of sight because the people paying the rent may not realize who he is (he's just one of Dougal's men, Jamie McTavish, to them) and therefore, cannot give him up.  It's only if he's recognized for who he really is that it's dangerous.

 

I am looking forward to the Dougal-Claire-Jamie tension that is clearly building up!

[rozen]

But within the context of the episode, they made a big deal about Jamie's life being at stake, and Claire even suggested he just leave Castle Leoch, which was quickly shut down, so even staying within the Mackenzie borders was not an established safe place within the show universe. So to play off the seriousness of Jamie's situation, and then transition into "Let's go on a road trip!" was kind of jarring. I know we're keeping book talk separate, but I just checked that scene (which played very similarly on the show, save Jamie's not present) and Dougal says that he'll be tending the horses. That at least establishes a purpose for him coming along. His presence just seemed contradictory given the rest of the episode, and probably could have been cleared up with a 30 second conversation between Claire and Jamie as they were preparing to ride.

 

I think it makes some sense. Dougal is taking his crew of hard bruisers and their healer. I think it's fair to say he's taking the best fighters in the clan if it's worth removing Claire from her duties at the castle. Which means they'll be best equipped to protect Jamie, rather than his hiding under a pile of hay the entire time. And I suppose having him already on the move gives Collum plausible deniability if they get invaded by the English (though at that point they might be screwed either way)? It sure as heck would be easier to send Jamie into hiding if he's already packed up, with his horse, out on the Highlands or whatever.

[nara]

Dougal is fast becoming a favorite of mine.  He makes me say ---Jamie who?  Seriously. A sexy "older" man makes me swoon. And the actor playing him is marvelous!

 

I do like what they did with Dougal, because they are making him more worthy of becoming laird and courting Claire.  I won't repeat my other comments too much, but I am convinced that a triangle is in the offing.  It had to be someone who would reasonably think he could marry her (i.e., not someone like Geillis's husband).

 

But come on, Dougal is no Jamie.  Jamie could read the tax code out loud and still be sexy.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I won't repeat my other comments too much, but I am convinced that a triangle is in the offing.  It had to be someone who would reasonably think he could marry her (i.e., not someone like Geillis's husband).

 

Oh Good God, no! I hope that doesn't come to pass. I'm so sick and tired of practically every show having a frickin' frackin' "triangle"!  I remember, even if I don't recall all the details, that this series is about the love story of Jamie and Claire, primarily. I dinna want any triangles* o' any sort. Please, Show, don't let this happen.

 

*The fact that Claire is torn between Frank and Jamie nothwithstanding.

[nara]

Oh Good God, no! I hope that doesn't come to pass. I'm so sick and tired of practically every show having a frickin' frackin' "triangle"!  I remember, even if I don't recall all the details, that this series is about the love story of Jamie and Claire, primarily. I dinna want any triangles* o' any sort. Please, Show, don't let this happen.

 

*The fact that Claire is torn between Frank and Jamie nothwithstanding.

LOL.  I definitely think the story is about Claire and Jamie.  Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that she will be torn between Jamie and Dougal, but that she will add an extra layer of animosity between the two men.  I could be wrong, but that does appear to be where the show is heading.

[Sakura12]

Really? I didn't get that impression from Dougal. I got that he has found respect for the way Claire took care of his dying friend and now finds her useful. But I also think that it made her even more distrustful. He knows even more that she's hiding something because she's seen and knows more than the average woman. It makes her look more like a spy. (Although that Hitflix review was right to point out, that if you think someone's an assassin why in the world would you put them in charge of your entire castle's health?)

 

The only triangle I see is between Frank and Jamie and well Frank is "not alive" where she's at.

[taanja]

 

But come on, Dougal is no Jamie.  Jamie could read the tax code out loud and still be sexy

 

I guess? Sure. Jamie is cute and it's obvious from just reading here and from the "looks" the show has given us that Claire and Jamie are meant for one another.

 

But IMO Jamie is young ---too young to consider anything but boyish.

 

Now. Give me a man ---a real man---like Dougal any day and I'd be a happy camper! I haven't had a TV boyfriend in a good long time. I haven't seen anyone worthy. But Dougal (and by extension the actor who plays him!)  is most definitely worthy!

 

I kind of like the idea of a love triangle.

 

[Pestilentia]

I'm good with a triangle if it exists only in Dougal's mind.

He's already feeling overly competitive with Jamie, and if he thinks that Claire is into him (Jamie) too (or vice versa) it would be only natural for Dougal to try and insert himself into her good graces.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The word and definition of triangle, as I know it, implies that the person being fought over has feelings for both men or women, depending on the triangle.  No one will ever convince me that Claire wants Dougal in any shape or form based on what we've seen so far.

 

I so wish that particular trope would go verra, verra, verra far awayyyyyy.

[doesntworkonwood]

According to TV Tropes there are 13 types of Triangles

 

I think, if there were to be a love triangle, it would fall under number four (with Bob being Claire, and Claire being Jamie, and Alice being Dougal (sorry, it amused me))

 

That said, as long as they don't make a massive deal out of it, it would be fine with me. 

[Insomnia]

mybabyaidan and Pestilentia: Since the significance has not been spelled out in the show, please keep it to Book Talk topics for now. It's probably not a big spoiler in the big scheme of things, but better safe than sorry. Thanks!

 

I disagree! The significance has been spelled out on the show, but you need a really keen eye to see it. This isn't a spoiler, since it's in plain sight, but unless you know to look for it, you might not. and also, well, some people just like to be surprised:

 

Jaime and Murtag have tartans that are different than that of Clan McKenzie. They are similar enough that it doesn't stand out if you don't know to look. But they are different.

 

Of course it's something Claire would likely never notice much like she doesn't understand the language and there are no subtitles, so we are Outlanders with her.

 

It's the nice subtle touches like this among so many other things is why I love the show. I'm really, really happy with it. When I was reading the books, I wanted it to be a movie (because books weren't done on TV as series' then) But now I'm glad it is a series and not just a short movie. There's no way a movie could do it justice.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Insomnia

[nara]

I actually think that Claire yelling at the first injured man makes sense for her as a war nurse.  If she yelled at and generally gave a hard time to the boys she was treating they no doubt knew they were going to be alright.  If she was nice to them they might think it was because they were dying or at least really seriously injured. She was letting the man know that he was going to be fine by being kind of bitchy to him, or least that's how I interpreted the scene-YMMV of course.

Exactly. She was very kind to the man who actually was dying...

[annlaw78]

Now. Give me a man ---a real man---like Dougal any day and I'd be a happy camper! I haven't had a TV boyfriend in a good long time. I haven't seen anyone worthy. But Dougal (and by extension the actor who plays him!) is most definitely worthy!

Dougal's hallway groping of Claire sort of puts him out of the "real man" category for me. It's not like he was just trying to steal a "gratitude kiss" from Claire for "saving" her from the other drunken clansmen (which even then would be an insensitive and crappy way to treat a woman who was just in fear of gang-rape). He was trying to get under her skirt, which is gross. The only thing that separates him from Black Jack Randall in that regard is that he didn't pull a sword on her (though he likely had one on him).

But I also think that it made her even more distrustful. He knows even more that she's hiding something because she's seen and knows more than the average woman. It makes her look more like a spy. (Although that Hitflix review was right to point out, that if you think someone's an assassin why in the world would you put them in charge of your entire castle's health?)

The 1740s are well before Florence Nightengale and the beginning of battlefield nursing, and I don't recall any battles in mainland Britain in that time period, where she would have gotten battlefield nursing experience, anyway (I think the last war would have been sometime before Charles II, right?). Dougal, grossness aside, is smart enough to query where/how a well-bred Home Counties gal would come by such experience. Edited September 3, 2014 by annlaw78

[taanja]

 

Dougal's hallway groping of Claire sort of puts him out of the "real man" category for me. It's not like he was just trying to steal a "gratitude kiss" from Claire for "saving" her from the other drunken clansmen. He was trying to get under her skirt, which is gross.

 

I had no problem with that scene. On the contrary --- Claire held her own when she walloped him over the head.

 

[annlaw78]

I had no problem with that scene. On the contrary --- Claire held her own when she walloped him over the head.

Sure, that was great character development for Claire, that she can hold her own. But at the sacrifice, in my opinion, of the Dougal character. The onus is not on a woman to "fight off" or "try hard enough" not to get sexually assaulted. Claire has a right, to my modern eyes, to walk down a hall, unmolested. Whether what happened was period-appropriate, well, I don't know, except to say that I don't think all men in 1743 went around thinking it was cool to rape women (and indeed, Colum, Jamie, and even in the first ep Dougal seemed to reject that view). I'll just say that to my modern eyes, what went down between Dougal and Claire was uncool, and makes me think a lot less of Dougal. In my estimation, he's not too far above BJR, the sadistic, mustache-twirling villain of the piece.

Put another way: just because Claire "saved" Dougal from sexually assaulting her doesn't negate what he was trying to do. Just because Jamie and Claire laugh it off in the stables doesn't negate what Dougal was trying to do.

Edited September 3, 2014 by annlaw78

[Constantinople]

Colum loses the beard for a ceremony in which an untold number of men pledge him their swords.

 

Am I reading too much into this?

[bluebonnet]

Most people try to look their best at a 20 year reunion.

[BizBuzz]

Dougal's hallway groping of Claire sort of puts him out of the "real man" category for me. It's not like he was just trying to steal a "gratitude kiss" from Claire for "saving" her from the other drunken clansmen (which even then would be an insensitive and crappy way to treat a woman who was just in fear of gang-rape). He was trying to get under her skirt, which is gross. The only thing that separates him from Black Jack Randall in that regard is that he didn't pull a sword on her (though he likely had one on him).

 

I am with you in spirit.  I can't get that out of my head.  I am finding myself more and more attracted to him, more so than Jamie, however, this scene wont let me go all the way, yet.

 

Not that it makes it right, but in my head, his one redeeming moment is that he was terribly drunk.  Didn't Jamie even say that he wouldn't remember the wollup?  I know I am not the only one that has ever done something stupid when imbibing, even out of character.  And the fact that this is a period piece, and whether I like it or not, according to history, women were not treated fairly. 

 

Anyway, totally get where you are coming from ... and as much as I hate seeing men treating women in that way, in the sense of the time period I am watching, I feel comfortable that in time, he can be redeemed.

[annlaw78]

 

Not that it makes it right, but in my head, his one redeeming moment is that he was terribly drunk.  Didn't Jamie even say that he wouldn't remember the wollup?  I know I am not the only one that has ever done something stupid when imbibing, even out of character.  And the fact that this is a period piece, and whether I like it or not, according to history, women were not treated fairly.

He did seem to "give up" pretty easily, and by the time Claire got around to smacking him over the head, he'd told her to go.  So perhaps it was just a momentary, drunken lapse.  But it still puts him pretty firmly in "gross old lech" territory for me.  What dude sees a young woman being attacked, and his immediate response is to make her "pay a penalty" like he was doing?  Grody.

 

I figured the scene was a set up to have Jamie come in and swoon-inducingly rescue Claire, so it was nice to have it be someone else do so.  

 

After this episode, I hope they let the "Claire Almost Gets Raped" trope lie for awhile.  How many times can Claire be put in peril of being raped?  Geilis, Laoghaire, etc. don't seem to run around cowering, in fear of rape.  Yet anytime Claire is by herself, she's swarmed by unwashed Highlanders wanting to assault her.  In a culture that seems to very highly value a woman's virtue, seems fairly religious, and is by day is depicted as fairly charming and friendly, it's weird that the nighttime sport of choice is "rape."

 

Onto another topic, I didn't get why Claire was so antagonistic about the hunting, other than just being put out in general to be pressed into service.  It's not like they were out clubbing baby seals -- they were hunting feral pigs (which can be pest animals) for FOOD.  What do you think you're eating up at the Castle, Claire?  Hopes, dreams and fairy dust?  Someone has to hunt and slaughter the meat to serve the clan.  

[nara]

Based on my rewatch, I really don't think that Dougal intended to have sex with Claire against her will.  I thought the conversation with dying Geordie suggested that he's fairly used to women willingly jumping into bed with him.  It seems reasonable that he would assume Claire would be the same. When she indicated by slapping him that she was not, he backed off immediately. 

 

On a side note, in the Castle Leoch episode, there is some awkwardness around Claire's mistaken assumption that Hamish is Dougal's son.  To me, that immediately suggested that Dougal may have had an affair with Colum's wife and there was some chance that Hamish was indeed his son.  If true, it lends further credence to the idea that Dougal is a babe-magnet and used to women willingly having sex with him.  I could be off-base, but...

 

Regarding the rape culture, I get the impression that the men are used to having sex when they want, especially with a lower-class girl--but it's expected to be consensual. (They do seem terribly comfortable with joking about rape, as in when Claire first met Dougal's men and they suggested that they could have sex with her to determine whether or not she is a whore.) Note that neither Rupert nor Angus has any doubt that he will be "getting some" that evening. I believe it's the same set of drunk men who attacked Claire both times (correct me if I am wrong) and I think it's related to the large quantities of alcohol consumed, as opposed to a belief that their behavior will be considered acceptable.  However, it appears that the rules are different with the upper-class girls.  Laoghaire is a MacKenzie, and if Jamie is caught messing with her, he will be forced to marry her.

 

On an unrelated note, was I the only one who heard the music after Jamie's non-oath and hoped he would dance with Claire?

[WatchrTina]

 

Yet anytime Claire is by herself, she's swarmed by unwashed Highlanders wanting to assault her.

 

Weel, I don't know if that's fair.  It's pretty clear that The Gathering is an alcohol- and testosterone-fueled once-in-a-generation male bonding ritual.  Claire comments in the stable about the extraordinary amount of drink being consumed that night.  It's clearly a night for women to be extra careful about not being caught anywhere alone and Claire, unfortunately, has plans that require her going to great lengths to be alone in remote corners of the castle. 

 

 

I believe it's the same set of drunk men who attacked Claire both times

I'm certain the older guy who was holding the torch in the yard was not one of the three that cornered Claire in the castle.  I assumed the batch that stopped Claire in the yard were legitimately on guard duty while the three that accosted her in the castle were just taking a piss in a remote corner because they were too lazy or drunk to find a privy.

Edited September 5, 2014 by WatchrTina

[nara]

After this episode, I hope they let the "Claire Almost Gets Raped" trope lie for awhile.  How many times can Claire be put in peril of being raped?  Geilis, Laoghaire, etc. don't seem to run around cowering, in fear of rape.  Yet anytime Claire is by herself, she's swarmed by unwashed Highlanders wanting to assault her.  In a culture that seems to very highly value a woman's virtue, seems fairly religious, and is by day is depicted as fairly charming and friendly, it's weird that the nighttime sport of choice is "rape."

 

Onto another topic, I didn't get why Claire was so antagonistic about the hunting, other than just being put out in general to be pressed into service.  It's not like they were out clubbing baby seals -- they were hunting feral pigs (which can be pest animals) for FOOD.  What do you think you're eating up at the Castle, Claire?  Hopes, dreams and fairy dust?  Someone has to hunt and slaughter the meat to serve the clan.  

 

Regarding the repeated threats of rape, it seems that women who are non-traditional tend to be threatened with that a lot in literature (and maybe even real life).  For example, in Game of Thrones/ A Song of Ice and Fire, Brienne is constantly threatened with punishment by rape for wanted to be a knight. Claire is a stranger and very unusual (walks about on her own, acts differently, swears a lot), so perhaps the men think she is an easier target than Geillis (who is married to a prominent man or Laoghaire (who is a MacKenzie daughter).

 

*************************

Regarding Claire's annoyance with hunting, I assumed that she was irritable about her escape being thwarted.  They could have been going to pick apples in an orchard and that would have irritated her. 

 

Also, I think she empathizes with the boars because she feels "hunted" and "trapped" herself.  I think it's no coincidence that she plays "the boar" in the game with the children at the start of the episode.

[annlaw78]

 

If true, it lends further credence to the idea that Dougal is a babe-magnet and used to women willingly having sex with him.  I could be off-base, but...

Him?  Crusty old Dougal?  To each her own, haha.  

 

 

It's pretty clear that The Gathering is an alcohol- and testosterone-fueled one-in-a-generation male bonding ritual.  Claire comments in the stable about the extraordinary amount of drink being consumed that night.  It's clearly a night for women to be extra careful about not being caught anywhere alone and Claire, unfortunately, has plans that require her going to great lengths to be alone in remote corners of the castle.

I don't know.  I don't want to get too much on a soapbox, but rape isn't exactly a matter of boys-being-boys and getting drunk and grabbing the first woman they see.  Not every man who gets drunk is going to turn into a sexual offender.   In defense of the opposite sex, I would say sexually assaulting a woman is not the "norm" that all men revert to when inhibitions are lifted.  The concept of consent has been around for millennia; it's not a purely modern one.  I don't think there's any question that Jamie understands what happened to Jenny was wrong.  And I find it very odd that within the space of an hour, Claire finds herself being manhandled to various degrees, and threatened with violence at least four times (if you include Jamie's initial drawing his knife on her).  That's just... a lot.  It's veering a bit uncomfortably into the "rape fantasy" often found in bodice-rippers, and I'd like the show to avoid that cliche.  

 

It makes me wonder what Claire thinks is going to happen, if she's running around the countryside by herself.  Apparently the redcoats will rape her on sight, and so will any man in a kilt who comes across her.  Geez.  

 

 

Based on my rewatch, I really don't think that Dougal intended to have sex with Claire against her will.  I thought the conversation with dying Geordie suggested that he's fairly used to women willingly jumping into bed with him.  It seems reasonable that he would assume Claire would be the same. When she indicated by slapping him that she was not, he backed off immediately.

I agree that he backed off, and I don't know what his motivations were prior to her slapping him.  I just have some trouble with that scene (and having much use for Dougal as a character after it), because I don't think there's any reason for Dougal to think that Claire, specifically Claire in that situation, would welcome his sticking his hand under her skirt.  That's a pretty threatening, panic-inducing gesture for a man to make.

Edited September 4, 2014 by annlaw78

[nara]

Him?  Crusty old Dougal?  To each her own, haha.  

Dude, based on the comments in the earlier part of this thread, prepare to be slammed!  :)

 

annlaw78, on 04 Sept 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

I don't know.  I don't want to get too much on a soapbox, but rape isn't exactly a matter of boys-being-boys and getting drunk and grabbing the first woman they see.  Not every man who gets drunk is going to turn into a sexual offender.   In defense of the opposite sex, I would say sexually assaulting a woman is not the "norm" that all men revert to when inhibitions are lifted.  The concept of consent has been around for millennia; it's not a purely modern one.  I don't think there's any question that Jamie understands what happened to Jenny was wrong.  And I find it very odd that within the space of an hour, Claire finds herself being manhandled to various degrees, and threatened with violence at least four times (if you include Jamie's initial drawing his knife on her).  That's just... a lot.  It's veering a bit uncomfortably into the "rape fantasy" often found in bodice-rippers, and I'd like the show to avoid that cliche. 

It makes me wonder what Claire thinks is going to happen, if she's running around the countryside by herself.  Apparently the redcoats will rape her on sight, and so will any man in a kilt who comes across her.  Geez. 

I think that part of the reason for including so many rapey moments in the story is to make it clear why Claire is so anxious to leave this world.  In addition to returning to the husband she loves, she is trying to escape a world where women have few choices, are 2nd-class citizens and in danger of sexual assault.  Otherwise, it would be easy for viewers to think that she should stay and make the best of her new life.  (This is especially true since there is so much chemistry between Claire and Jamie that it can make viewers forget about Frank.)  Perhaps it could be more subtle, but I think the show's creators want the threats to be real and constant.

[taanja]

 

because Claire "saved" Dougal from sexually assaulting her

 

First of all I am viewing this with the eyes from someone from the 18th century. So my modern sensibilities were in no way, shape or form affronted.

 

Men did indeed think they owned woman (basically they did since woman weren't allowed to own their own property and were literally considered the property of first their father's and then their husbands -- but I digress) and that they could do what they wanted when they wanted.

 

So I wasn't shocked. And Dougal was drunk -- not an excuse just fact --- but I got the feeling that was more him trying to see how far Claire would let him go. In other words ---he was seeing what he could or could not get away with. Ya ken?  ;-)

 

I watched the episode again last night (I seem to be developing a mild obsession!) and the way Dougal looks at her when he states matter of fact that she has seen a lot of death and she confirms that. He doesn't know what to make of her. He cannot get her "measure" so to speak. Because there was no such thing as a Battle Field Nurse as we know it today.

 

 He looks like he is wondering : where and how would she have seen so much death? WHO is this woman?

 

[annlaw78]

First of all I am viewing this with the eyes from someone from the 18th century. So my modern sensibilities were in no way, shape or form affronted.

 

Men did indeed think they owned woman (basically they did since woman weren't allowed to own their own property and were literally considered the property of first their father's and then their husbands -- but I digress) and that they could do what they wanted when they wanted.

I know what you're getting at, but it's not like all men thought they owned all women.  A particular woman's identity/legal status may be tied to a particular man (i.e., her father or husband), it's not like any man who passes her in the hall thinks that he has a right to grope her.  If he did, then that woman's father/husband could seek redress from the authorities.  

 

There has been a concept of consent and rape as long as there have been written laws.  All the Highlanders would agree what Randall did to Jenny was rape and criminal.  That those same Highlanders would think doing that to Claire is okay... doesn't compute.   Claire is clearly well-dressed, and somehow clan/Leogh-related.  If they don't know she's the vaunted and esteemed Healer, they at least know she's "someone's" woman (in this instance, the Laird's guest).  I don't think it's overly "modern" to be surprised to see various groups of men groping Claire, and threatening to force themselves on her.  

 

 

I think that part of the reason for including so many rapey moments in the story is to make it clear why Claire is so anxious to leave this world.

Good point.  

Edited September 4, 2014 by annlaw78

[absnow54]

I'd say they were just enforcing the sort of victim blaming standards that aren't too uncommon from today's society. On a dark night, it's better for a woman to stay in and not travel about alone, than for a man to simply not feel inclined to rape/attack them. I'm not saying this mentality is right. I think quite the opposite. But if this exact same scene took place in the 21st century, it'd most likely happen the same way. I don't think it's just a commentary on historical times, but on a rape culture that's endured centuries. 

Edited September 4, 2014 by absnow54

[Bort]

 [Dougal]looks like he is wondering : where and how would [Claire] have seen so much death? WHO is this woman?

THAT is what I love most about that scene. Dougal is pretty sure Claire isn't a spy. She just doesn't act like one. Yet she's seen a lot of violent death, he can tell, and she admitted as much when he asked. But if she's not a spy, then how has she seen all that death? I'm sure he is completely and utterly confused because Claire is a massive enigma.

[MedievalGirl]

Colum loses the beard for a ceremony in which an untold number of men pledge him their swords.

 

Am I reading too much into this?

 

Perhaps. Ron mentions something in the podcast about this. It isn't particularly spoilery but I'll use the spoiler tag. Ron said that

he thought he erred in making Colum look too scruffy at the beginning and took the opportunity of the Gathering to dress Colum nicer.

My fan theory is that Claire's care made Colum feel better so he felt like making more of an effort. 

Edited September 4, 2014 by MedievalGirl

[bluebonnet]

First of all I am viewing this with the eyes from someone from the 18th century. So my modern sensibilities were in no way, shape or form affronted.

 

Why?  The series isn't created for an 18th century audience.  It's specifically intended for a 21st century audience.   Furthermore, the story isn't being told from the POV of an 18th century inhabitant, but from a 20th century one, and one whose personal ideals are not all that different from our own.  She's not practicing moral or cultural relativism when she discusses rape with Colum or when she bashes Dougal over the head or when she insists on treating a boy who the church decided was possessed or when she pushes for a more lenient punishment for the tanner's boy.  Like Claire, the audience intellectually understands that the era she is living in is different and that things are not the same.  However, Claire, our POV character, isn't just shrugging her shoulders and saying that it's just the way it is so it's neither right or wrong.  If our POV character isn't being a relativist, why should we?  The EP's certainly aren't asking it's audience to view this through the eyes of someone from the 18th century (which is impossible anyway since none of us are from the 18th century).  

 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with not questioning inappropriate behavior with characters portraying a different era of men.  We all enjoy our entertainment in different ways; I read and watch lots of stuff without the desire to scrutinize things.  I just wanted to point out that cultural and moral relativism is definitely not being asked for with this show.  

[taanja]

 

I'm sure he is completely and utterly confused because Claire is a massive enigma.

 

Enigma! That is the word I was looking for. Thank you. I have watched that scene several times. Both of the actors do such a great job.

 

[taanja]

 

Like Claire, the audience intellectually understands that the era she is living in is different and that things are not the same

 

That is why it didn't bother me. Different time - different place - different risks.

 

Plus the scene was kind of intense --which I liked and we got to see a side of Dougal that doesn't paint him in a good light but fleshes out the character in a way I found fascinating. And I think it helps to make Claire realize she ain't in Kansas anymore.

 

[Pestilentia]

 

Like Claire, the audience intellectually understands that the era she is living in is different and that things are not the same.

I'm not entirely sure that all in the audience understand it ;)

[tennisgurl]

That's the great thing about historical fiction in general. You can peak into a world that had a completely different mindset than the one your familiar with. Trying to figure out how much you can judge what's happening based on 21st century morality, or how much you accept the world on its own terms, is up to you.

[bluebonnet]

That is why it didn't bother me. Different time - different place - different risks.

 

Plus the scene was kind of intense --which I liked and we got to see a side of Dougal that doesn't paint him in a good light but fleshes out the character in a way I found fascinating. And I think it helps to make Claire realize she ain't in Kansas anymore.

I also thought it was a great scene and for similar reasons you describe here.  However, you ignored all of the other sentences I wrote.  I don't have any objection at all to consuming a piece of entertainment without scrutiny.  I do it all the time.  The point I was making is that the intended audience is a 21st century one, not an 18th century.  The viewer need not be a cultural relativist in order to understand the behavior of the 18th century characters.  Put a different way, FGM is widely practiced in Somalia (among 20+ other nations).  The cultural relativist would say the inhumane treatment of Somalian girls is tolerable because it's a part of the culture and there's no right or wrong wrt culture no matter how horrifying a practice might be.  Most people would disagree with this and acknowledge that FGM is a gross violation of human rights, even when they understand that FGM is an inherent part of the culture. 

 

Drunk and disorderly conduct and poor treatment of women, especially those women who do not 'fit the mold', is something we'd expect from an 18th century man in Scotland at what amounts to a 20-year-reunion.  Yet, we aren't an 18th century audience and the show goes to great lengths to ensure that we aren't shrugging away the inappropriate behavior of the 18th century characters.  I'm not at all bothered by someone who doesn't scrutinize a character's behaviors because, as I previously stated, we all consume entertainment differently.  Plus, these are fictional characters, after all, who are only as real as our imagination allows them to be.  

 

I do really like your comments about the scene, that it fleshes out Dougal a bit more and that it's another rude awakening for Claire.  So far, I really like Dougal as a character.  The casting and direction are done so well that I find myself wanting him to appear on screen more.  As much as I am enjoying the character, I'm a 21st century viewer and there's nothing unreasonable about pointing out that Dougal's behavior in the hallway with Claire was completely objectionable.  

[ZulaMay]

I agree with whoever said Claire seemed to be overreacting to the hunt.  She might not be an 18th century woman, but she is an English woman in the 1940s who just came from being a nurse in a terribly bloody war.  People still hunted in England at that time.  Maybe she was not among them, but people were not nearly as far removed from their food sources as they are today.  Claire would have understood that when she ate meat, an animal had died for it.  

 

It was especially odd considering her upbringing, traveling to remote places with her uncle for archaeological digs and smoking cigarettes.  Surely she saw similar things during her lifetime?  

 

I found her to be a bit judgmental and prissy about the whole thing, to an unrealistic degree.  

Edited September 5, 2014 by ZulaMay

[peacefrog]

Honestly I just thought her voicing her displeasure of the boar hunt to be establishing her character. She just had her escape plan, that she put a lot of time into planning, thwarted. All her focus had been on it, she's frustrated and feeling powerless. Speaking snidely to them was the only way to snatch back some control and vent her anger. Much like Dougal joining the shinty game.

[Sakura12]

As Claire said in the first episode, "There is never a good reason for rape". Dougal saying that Claire should be paying a penalty for being where she shouldn't be whilst trying to get under her dress, that's attempted rape. Being drunk is not an excuse. Claire is a 20th century woman, so she should never just think oh well, it's what happens in this time period and accept it. 

 

It does give Dougal more character but that also turns me of wanting him and Claire to get together. If that scene didn't happen and I saw Dougal gaining respect for Claire's knowledge of death, I might have seen something that could happen. However that scene changed my opinion of him.  I still like his character because in TV land I mostly like the morally ambiguous characters over the good ones. Which is why it's strange that I love Jamie but it could be the accent that's throwing me off my game along with the amazing chemistry he has with Claire. Even watching their interviews Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe have great chemistry. It's strange hearing Caitriona Balfe speak because she has the slightest trace of an accent while also sounding like a California girl. 

[theschnauzers]

In reference to the scene involving Claire and Dougal after Dougal chases off the three drunk clansmen, Claire only hit Dougal with the stool when Dougal looked down and saw Claire's stachel of food and supplies she was taking for her escape, and started to reach down and look in it. That's why she knocked Dougal out cold at that point.

 

As to the oath taking and jamie, I think Jamie had previously figured out how to handle the situation if he were forced to attend the ceremony, although he and old Alec, and Murtagh (and oresumably Dougal and Colum) were preferring to have Jamie just stay out of sight. Jamie has a wisdom about things that's really interesting to watch, which is what I picked up on with the conversations he had with Claire in the stables about her knocking out Dougal, and then in the castle when Jamie is changing into his attire for the ceremony. It really does make you want to know how he got such an insight into things.

Edited September 5, 2014 by theschnauzers

[nara]

As to the oath taking and jamie, I think Jamie had previously figured out how to handle the situation if he were forced to attend the ceremony, although he and old Alec, and Murtagh (and oresumably Dougal and Colum) were preferring to have Jamie just stay out of sight. Jamie has a wisdom about things that's really interesting to watch, which is what I picked up on with the conversations he had with Claire in the stables about her knocking out Dougal, and then in the castle when Jamie is changing into his attire for the ceremony. It really does make you want to know how he got such an insight into things.

Jamie definitely lives up to his family motto, "Je suis prest", and I think when he spoke those words to Claire, he had already decided what he was going to do.  He even told her to find a place in the hall so she could get a view for his performance.  Show off!  ;)  I certainly look forward to learning more about him.  In some ways, he's just as mysterious as Claire, because he doesn't share a lot of what he's thinking.