S01.E05: Rent

[absnow54]

I for one am SICK of Claire's wanting to escape. I read the first book well over 10 years ago and remember little about it except the premise, but since we know the show is continuing for several episodes we KNOW that isn't going to work. Just bored, bored, bored. I also think cutting where they did at the ending was cheap. Come on, we KNOW she's not going to betray the people she's with, or the show would end. Cheap.

That's the nature of any television show. You know how many episodes are left in a season, and the pace of the story, and most likely nothing extremely relevant is going to happen until the last few episodes. What I agree with you on is that I think Claire's struggle lacks intrigue. She needs to get to some stones. Everything else is just an obstacle set between point a and point b. Sure there's mystery behind how the stones work, but that's largely hand waved and it's assumed that she'll touch the stones and magically be delivered back to her former life. I think it's sloppy story telling, and while Claire's desire to get back to her own time is the catalyst, the Jacobite uprising and MacKenzie drama is the actual beef of the story, which is why it's annoying when Claire constantly has to remind us that she's trying to get home, because, yes, we know that already, and nothing has happened to make us question your motives.

 

That said, I really liked the cliff hanger, because why wouldn't Claire turn on Dougal and go off with the red coats? She's friendly with some of the clansmen, but she's still being held prisoner by a bunch of people who couldn't care less about a life she's desperate to return to. Here comes a friendly Englishmen who seems genuinely concerned for her safety and has the means to free her. Why wouldn't she spit in Dougal's face and say peace out? I thought it was an interesting test of her loyalties. And even though there's still a large number of episodes left in the season, could just be an introduction to another leg of the journey.

Edited September 9, 2014 by absnow54

[taanja]

 

That being said, it wouldn't be all that odd if Claire is just not a capable linguist.  Some people just aren't.

 

I took Spanish language class both in High School and college and couldn't speak a word of it.

 

Then I moved to Arizona. Hearing Spanish spoken all the time I learned to communicate quite well. I learned swear words first (yup) and then common phrases. And of course ---Spanglish don't you know? LOL My son (who grew up there) speaks it fluently.

 

I must say after another re-watch (my obsession knows no bounds it seems) I agree with whoever said that all the men come across as rather dangerous. I really like that. They would kill you as soon as look at you. It makes it all the more exciting IMO because any character at any given time can and will do anything.

Edited September 9, 2014 by taanja

[ganesh]

I want Claire to get to the stones, but I'm wondering if/when she does, depending on how long it takes, whether she has the desire to return to the 1940s. I'm also very curious that there was a song/legend about the stones and whether she might meet other people that know more about the legend. I'm also interested in if she's at risk because of Colloden and maybe wants to just get the hell out of there before that. 

 

It's not that important to me how the stones work. They do. It's a kind of magic. [get it?] As much as The Leftovers was a complete pile of doggerel, the one thing that didn't bother me was that there was no intent to explain the

.

 

I hate when people use "it's the journey" to handwave that TPTBs made up a whole bunch of shit as they went along and manipulated the viewers into thinking It All Means Something.

 

This show is largely about the journey and was set up so from the get-go. So, I'm not in too much of a hurry for Claire to get to the stones. This episode was a good way to lay out the politics of the time, much like the prior to lay out the politics of the clan. As long as there are things happening, I'm interested. Lots of times when a show has a Point A to Point B plot, a lot in the middle is filler because TPTBs are weak on world building or characters. This isn't the case here by a mile. 

 

As they said, Claire is living through the last days, literally, of the Highlander way of life. It's very foreboding when you really think about it. 

[Constantinople]

That said, I really liked the cliff hanger, because why wouldn't Claire turn on Dougal and go off with the red coats? She's friendly with some of the clansmen, but she's still being held prisoner by a bunch of people who couldn't care less about a life she's desperate to return to. Here comes a friendly Englishmen who seems genuinely concerned for her safety and has the means to free her. Why wouldn't she spit in Dougal's face and say peace out? I thought it was an interesting test of her loyalties. And even though there's still a large number of episodes left in the season, could just be an introduction to another leg of the journey.

Perhaps because the last redcoat she met, "Black Jack" Randall, raped Jamie's sister, tried to rape Claire, and Captain Rapist outranks Lieutenant Do Gooder.

Also, the British soldiers will be just as suspicious of Claire as the Scots are. It's not as if she can tell them the truth any more than she told Scots.

[absnow54]

Perhaps because the last redcoat she met, "Black Jack" Randall, raped Jamie's sister, tried to rape Claire, and Captain Rapist outranks Lieutenant Do Gooder.

And Castle Leoch is the merry merry town of rape-ville after a few swigs of whisky (an exaggeration, I know, but she's experienced uncomfortable sexual situations with both camps.) I think that both options have a rather long cons list. I think if Claire were with anyone other than Dougal, she'd probably stay with the clan, but she's with Dougal right now, and they've had a power struggle going for weeks, and Claire's proven that her stubbornness often outweighs her reason, and this is her first big chance to really stick it to him, and finally escape the MacKenzies, which she's been planning to do for weeks now. That's why I liked the cliffhanger, because her choice could really go either way.

Edited September 9, 2014 by absnow54

[lucindabelle]

I know of course that TV shows have arcs and we're well aware of them, but that doesn't excuse the LACK of suspense in this "will Claire get away" trope. After all, Game of Thrones shocked me by beheading a major character. However, given that 1940s Claire in 1700s Scotland is the premise of the show, it's dead certain she's not getting back to the 20th century in episode 2, so I'm bored whenever that comes up.

 

Also, how does she know the stones will work? Mabye it has to be Samhain again, for all she knows. The assumption she's making doesn't even hold true to folklore.

As for the "cliffhanger" ending, Claire has enough compassion for the Scots to mourn Culloden and want to steal a goat. She was appaled by the crucifixions. There's no way she's turning them in, so color me NOT in suspense, just irritated by what seemed cheap to me. I see zero chance for her choice to go either way. Anyone unsullied disagree, out of curiosity? No, the Scots are not genteel, but that doesn't mean she wants them killed.

 

I really want a show that doesn't demand I turn my intelligence off. There are some, so I know it can be done.

 

I really want to like this show more than I do. I love the cinematography, even the rather cheesy version of "Over the Hills to Skye,"  (i'm a big fan of Scottish and Irish music from way back) the actors are good-looking, the accents fine. I'd enjoy it more if I were able to binge it, because not much happens in any episode and i'm so not in suspense I forget it's on.

 

I am enjoying the period details and the times the show forgets that "will Claire get home" plot, like the waulking, and I love Ned. More of that, please.

Edited September 9, 2014 by lucindabelle

[annlaw78]

Perhaps because the last redcoat she met, "Black Jack" Randall, raped Jamie's sister, tried to rape Claire, and Captain Rapist outranks Lieutenant Do Gooder.

Also, the British soldiers will be just as suspicious of Claire as the Scots are. It's not as if she can tell them the truth any more than she told Scots.

Ha!

The advantages of staying with the Clan are:

1) more likely to return to Magic Stones (as opposed to being "returned" to Oxford);

2) Jamie is probably her best bet as far as a protector. Lt. Do Gooder seems well-intentioned now, but, yes, he reports up to Capt. Rapist. Added bonus: Jamie is easy on the eyes.

The only reason I can think that they had Dougal (and basically everything else in a kilt) assault Claire last ep was to try to create a bit more tension in her decision. It's not just the redcoats she has to be wary of.

Edited September 9, 2014 by annlaw78

[Nidratime]

However, given that 1940s Claire in 1700s Scotland is the premise of the show, it's dead certain she's not getting back to the 20th century in episode 2, so I'm bored whenever that comes up.

 

 

Well, no. Most viewers -- even those who have not read the books -- would probably not expect her to return to the 1940's in the second episode, just as we don't expect Dorothy to return to Kansas in the first half hour of the Wizard of Oz. However, it's the big WHY. For what reasons does she not get back quickly and what adventures does she have on her journey to get back? And, frankly, to have her not even give it a try -- no matter what we can guess from the show's premise -- would be equally unbelievable. Of course, she's going to do everything she can to get back to the stones and as soon as possible. That's what most people would do.

 

Also, how does she know the stones will work? Mabye it has to be Samhain again, for all she knows. The assumption she's making doesn't even hold true to folklore.

 

 

Well, if she doesn't get to the stones, she's not going to know anything for sure. She just can't go around blatantly asking for instructions on how to time travel via the stones hoping someone has the answer ... although, to be honest, that minstrel seemed to know a thing or two! ;-)

 

As for the "cliffhanger" ending, Claire has enough compassion for the Scots to mourn Culloden and want to steal a goat. She was appaled by the crucifixions. There's no way she's turning them in, so color me NOT in suspense, just irritated by what seemed cheap to me. I really want a show that doesn't demand I turn my intelligence off. There are some, so I know it can be done.

 

 

I don't think it's clear to her (or to us) that it's an either/or proposition. At the end of the episode, all we know is that the officer is asking if he can assist her. He's not asking her to give anybody up or accuse anyone of anything. She could easily say that her companions had taken her in, as they did, and had been offering her safe passage to wherever the heck she wants to go. She doesn't have to say anything about being held against her will.

[taanja]

 

but she's with Dougal right now, and they've had a power struggle going for weeks, and Claire's proven that her stubbornness often outweighs her reason, and this is her first big chance to really stick it to him, and finally escape the MacKenzies, which she's been planning to do for weeks now. That's why I liked the cliffhanger, because her choice could really go either way.

 

I saw it that way too and really liked the way the episode ended. I have no clue what Claire will do ---and that is exciting! I don't really like to be spoiled too much about this show. I know I could read the book (again) but I'm not going to.

I vaguely remember that Claire and Jamie are the "end game" couple. Fine. The show has already begun to set that up (close up of their hands lingering in a touch) so I don't think that is spoiler-ey?

 

At this early point in the show I am rooting for Clair to make it back to the "magic" stones and go back to her time. I mean---how hard can it be? Right? There are even songs and legends about it so obviously it is possible. (I had a weird thought the other day while re-watching the ep with the bard singing ---could Claire somehow have written the song herself? Jamie even makes a comment when Claire asks---so she makes it back through the stone?s --- and he replies:  "she always does" or something like that. So it got me thinking...)

 

Anyway. having said all that ---if time goes by and Claire really begins to love the people in this time---will she want to back to her own time? That is the question. And that makes me very interested in the journey. How does Claire get from point A to point B? Does she ever? Will she want to?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Athena
Book talk. Technically, still a spoiler.

[DoughGirl]

 

 

I really want to like this show more than I do. I love the cinematography, even the rather cheesy version of "Over the Hills to Skye,"  (i'm a big fan of Scottish and Irish music from way back) the actors are good-looking, the accents fine. I'd enjoy it more if I were able to binge it, because not much happens in any episode and i'm so not in suspense I forget it's on.

 

Lucindabelle, I have to agree with you. I was going to post something like this in Unpopular Opinions, but have hesitated because I felt so in the minority. I find the show incredibly boring most of the time and am finding it hard to stick with. I subscribed to Starz solely to watch this but am going to cancel after this season. If it shows up somewhere like Netflix (which I have already) I may binge watch at that point.

[taanja]

Thank you! I didn't know how to do the spoiler dealio!

[nara]

Lucindabelle, I have to agree with you. I was going to post something like this in Unpopular Opinions, but have hesitated because I felt so in the minority. I find the show incredibly boring most of the time and am finding it hard to stick with. I subscribed to Starz solely to watch this but am going to cancel after this season. If it shows up somewhere like Netflix (which I have already) I may binge watch at that point.

I think it's perfectly fair to find the show boring--don't be ashamed about your minority opinion.  I am often a plot person and I don't typically read for detailed descriptions and characterization. 

 

However, in this case, I am really enjoying learning about the characters and the history through the way each scene unfolds.  Even if a scene may not have a clear plot-driving purpose when I first watch it, I end up finding something that I can learn from it and links to another scene in a different episode.  The attention to detail by the creators enables me to really analyze what's happening and theorize about the future, which I love (as evidenced by the obscene number of postings I've made on this forum).  If you think you can enjoy it in the same way, great.  If not, you might actually enjoy it more as a binge-watch later so you can enjoy the plot quickly.  There's nothing wrong with that approach!

[taanja]

nara,

 

That's how I feel about Game Of Thrones. I find it more palatable to binge watch  it as opposed to the weekly watch. To each his/her own.

[nara]

nara,

 

That's how I feel about Game Of Thrones. I find it more palatable to binge watch  it as opposed to the weekly watch. To each his/her own.

Game of Thrones is definitely binge-able since they have to leave out a lot of the book detail to fit it into 10-episode seasons, so it's very much about plot.  However, the books on which they are based (A Song of Ice and Fire) are so intricate and the clues are hidden, so you really have to read and re-read to catch everything.

[Petunia846]

Well, no. Most viewers -- even those who have not read the books -- would probably not expect her to return to the 1940's in the second episode, just as we don't expect Dorothy to return to Kansas in the first half hour of the Wizard of Oz. However, it's the big WHY. For what reasons does she not get back quickly and what adventures does she have on her journey to get back?

And how does she change and grow along the way. It's about the journey, not the destination.

[mybabyaidan]

I don't know, I think the way they set up the episode makes the ending more dramatic.  I really DON'T know what Claire will do.  She has "bonded" with the guys, but she is still technically a prisoner.  I am thinking she might end up telling the Redcoats that the nice Highlanders were kindly escorting her somewhere, that way she can go with the Redcoats and not really betray the clan.  Because I don't think she'd hesitate to turn in Dougal (her contempt of him was barely masked here, from the rent collection to his treatment of Jamie) but I would HOPE she wouldn't put the other men at risk.  Ned and Jamie especially.  

[WatchrTina]

I've been thinking about Angus and my opinion of his behavior in this episode keeps evolving.  The first time I watched I was actually quite upset with that scene where he man-handles Claire after he finds her with the waulking women.  My sympathies were entirely with Claire.  Later on, when I was thinking about the writing, I realized that the episode needed the redcoat to see Claire being mistreated in order for him to be inspired to come looking for her, so I forgave Angus a little.  He was a victim of plot necessity.  Today I realized that Angus was actually right -- Claire WAS up to no good.  I love that waulking scene so much I completely forgot that Claire took that opportunity to quiz the locals for information to aid in her escape.  Dougal and Angus were right in their belief that Claire cannot be trusted to go off by herself even for something as seemingly innocent as pitching in with the local "women's work."

 

So I forgive you Angus.

[bluebonnet]

Well, no. Most viewers -- even those who have not read the books -- would probably not expect her to return to the 1940's in the second episode, just as we don't expect Dorothy to return to Kansas in the first half hour of the Wizard of Oz. However, it's the big WHY. For what reasons does she not get back quickly and what adventures does she have on her journey to get back? And, frankly, to have her not even give it a try -- no matter what we can guess from the show's premise -- would be equally unbelievable. Of course, she's going to do everything she can to get back to the stones and as soon as possible. That's what most people would do.

 

Absolutely agree with this.  The major promotional pic for the show made it pretty clear which timeline Claire's longterm journey will be with.  I don't think TPTB are so concerned with keeping us in suspense about that considering all of the other promo vids and pics that were released before the show aired.  As you state, it's the how and the why.  If there's no place like home, how does Claire- someone who has spent most of her life without a home - determine what home is and why does she determine that something is home?  

[ganesh]

Well, if she doesn't get to the stones, she's not going to know anything for sure. She just can't go around blatantly asking for instructions on how to time travel via the stones hoping someone has the answer ... although, to be honest, that minstrel seemed to know a thing or two! ;-)

 

I said the same thing. I'm surprised she didn't try to talk to him after that. Though she may. I was thinking she might talk to all the townsfolk about the legend too.

 

I'm pretty sure Claire isn't going to choose the English. If she takes a second to think clearly, it's way bigger of a risk because they'll know too that something isn't right with her and she won't know how they react. Plus, she might have to deal with Black Jack again. If she gets drunk and pissed off again she might kick him in the junk and rip open the space time continuum.

 

What I would do was tell Dougal, "I could have *fucked you all up*. But I didn't. You owe me. Take me to the stones."

Edited September 10, 2014 by ganesh

[Pogojoco]

I know of course that TV shows have arcs and we're well aware of them, but that doesn't excuse the LACK of suspense in this "will Claire get away" trope. After all, Game of Thrones shocked me by beheading a major character. However, given that 1940s Claire in 1700s Scotland is the premise of the show, it's dead certain she's not getting back to the 20th century in episode 2, so I'm bored whenever that comes up.

 

 

As for the "cliffhanger" ending, Claire has enough compassion for the Scots to mourn Culloden and want to steal a goat. She was appaled by the crucifixions. There's no way she's turning them in, so color me NOT in suspense, just irritated by what seemed cheap to me. I see zero chance for her choice to go either way. Anyone unsullied disagree, out of curiosity? No, the Scots are not genteel, but that doesn't mean she wants them killed.

 

 

Well, to me, it could go more than two ways- she tells them "No, I'm a prisoner" and they rescue her, and she alienates herself from her Scotch buds (not likely, but it's possible) or she says "Yes, I'm here with them and it's fine" and that's that or (which is actually how I think it'll go) she says "Yeah, I'm fine," the English don't believe her and she and Dougal get taken in or finally, Dougal turns her in- he already thinks she's a spy (and he might be trying to confirm that) and he's also rather pissed at her for saying the uprising will fail and also, all mixed in is that he's attracted to her, but he's annoyed by it. 

 

I know how it happens in the book, but I don't know how they are going to work it out in the show. 

Edited September 10, 2014 by Pogojoco

[Shorty186]

Nara I just watched part 3 on my iPad and you are right -- it could be him in a different wig and yes, they do seem to be at great pains to only let you catch glimpses of his face.  That would all support my theory that he's Jamie's stunt double -- he is, after all, beating the stuffing out of a redcoat in that clip.  The best look at him in "Rent" (if it is the same guy) comes right after Claire cracks the joke. He's standing behind her during the moment as everyone stares at Claire and waits for Rupert's reaction.  Whoever that guy is, he's a young hottie who, if you put a red wig on him, could probably pass for Sam in a long shot.

 

Then again, I could just be fixating on three different young, good-looking stunt men .  As you do.

 

Hi, first time poster. I started reading the books after the pilot preview and now I'm almost through Book 5, anyway ... regarding Sam's stunt double, if you open the photo gallery here:

 

http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/pictures-outlander-stars-film-end-4122917

 

the fifth photo says it's of Caitriona and Sam's stunt doubles. If that's true, I don't think he looks anything like that guy in the screen cap. This guy's face is much fuller and younger-looking.

 

ETA: Some photos may be spoiler-ish as they're from the filming of episode 16.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Shorty186

[lucindabelle]

I get that it's supposed to be the big why. But it isn't. In a the Wizard of Oz Dorothy wasn't on no foolish trek. She had been explicitly told to go see the wizard by the good witch and she had a good reason to believe he'd send her home, she had a road to get there, along the way she met friends and had adventures. She wasn't escaping her friends by lying and scheming,

In contrast Claire has nothing. It a hunch about the stones to go on and given what we know even bout the archaeology of standing stones like newgrange or Stonehenge, built to show sun on very specific days, her assumption that the stones will work as any anytime portal strikes me as contrived. I just don't see the comparison but obviously miles vary.

Maybe it would help if I didn't find Claire for the most part smug and naive at the same time.... Och, weel. More scots and I'll keep watching, at least for a while.

[WatchrTina]

 

the fifth photo says it's of Caitriona and Sam's stunt doubles. If that's true, I don't think he looks anything like that guy in the screen cap. This guy's face is much fuller and younger-looking.

Well boo!  A perfectly good fan theory shot all to hell.  But I think you are right.  The guy in that photo is actually a much better match for Sam's bulked-up body (he of the brawny, fire-lit, well-defined chest) than the slim, young, "elvish" extra (or extras) that provoked all my interest.  So my new theory is that the guy I keep spotting is a wrangler (designated horseback stunt player/extra) and the reason he's never seen clearly or in a lingering shot is so he can be used repeatedly in different costumes and wigs whenever they need a deft hand with the horses.  I wonder if I looked closely at those redcoats, would I spot him?  Hey, a girl's gotta find a way to keep herself entertained between episodes.

[kieyra]

I'll just drop this in here: despite knowing his name for over ten years, I had no idea till today that Bear McCreary is a young attractive man. All this time I'd been picturing someone way more GRRM-ish.

[Shorty186]

I'm sorry, Tina. I was hemming and hawing over whether or not I should keep my mouth shut. On the bright side, a new episode is less than two days away ... :)

[Pestilentia]

I'll just drop this in here: despite knowing his name for over ten years, I had no idea till today that Bear McCreary is a young attractive man. All this time I'd been picturing someone way more GRRM-ish.

Thanks for mentioning it- I googled him and was astounded.

He looked nothing like his name suggests- once again I am guilty of the old book/cover syndrome  :)

[magdalene]

I think I would think less of Claire if she had already given up trying to get back to the stones and back to her husband. I am not a book reader but as a person who doesn't live in a media vacuum I am aware that she and Jamie are the big thing in this show. But I don't want Claire to be fickle and wishy-washy and just go "oh this Scottish hottie in the olden days I somehow ended up in clearly has the hots for me and we have much chemistry, so I am going to jump him and Frank who".

 

That just wouldn't work for me. Any romantic relationship Claire and Jamie are going to have has to be earned so I can root for them as a couple. And to me they haven't earned that yet.

 

I for one am SICK of Claire's wanting to escape.

Edited September 12, 2014 by magdalene

[ihartcoffee]

I think I would think less of Claire if she had already given up trying to get back to the stones and back to her husband. I am not a book reader but as a person who doesn't live in a media vacuum I am aware that she and Jamie are the big thing in this show. But I don't want Claire to be fickle and wishy-washy and just go "oh this Scottish hottie in the olden days I somehow ended up in clearly has the hots for me and we have much chemistry, so I am going to jump him and Frank who".

 

That just wouldn't work for me. Any romantic relationship Claire and Jamie are going to have has to be earned so I can root for them as a couple. And to me they haven't earned that yet.

 

I so agree!  Seriously, if it were me I'd be taking any opportunity to return to my time.  No access to medicine, hot water or ice!  Natural childbirth?  No thank you....

 

When I read the first book I kinda didn't see the romance with Jamie coming, I don't always pick up on those things.   I didn't know anything about the story really but that she time traveled.  I liked how the book surprised me with that.  It would not make sense for Claire to just jump into anyone's arms at this point.  I am glad they are not trying to rush that part of the story because at this point of course she'd want to return home to her husband that she recently reconnected with.  

 

(Sorry for mentioning the B word, I hope I didn't say too much....)

 

I liked the character building in this episode.  And it was adorably cute the way Jamie reacted to her inviting him to sleep in her room.  

Well boo!  A perfectly good fan theory shot all to hell.  But I think you are right.  The guy in that photo is actually a much better match for Sam's bulked-up body (he of the brawny, fire-lit, well-defined chest) than the slim, young, "elvish" extra (or extras) that provoked all my interest.  So my new theory is that the guy I keep spotting is a wrangler (designated horseback stunt player/extra) and the reason he's never seen clearly or in a lingering shot is so he can be used repeatedly in different costumes and wigs whenever they need a deft hand with the horses.  I wonder if I looked closely at those redcoats, would I spot him?  Hey, a girl's gotta find a way to keep herself entertained between episodes.

 

You should make it a drinking game!  Now you have me searching for him too though, it's so funny.  I love his long hair... that's probably a wig though, right? 

 

I am so glad they made this show!  I've loving not only watching it but discussing it with other fans makes it all the better.  

I've been thinking about Angus and my opinion of his behavior in this episode keeps evolving.  The first time I watched I was actually quite upset with that scene where he man-handles Claire after he finds her with the waulking women.  My sympathies were entirely with Claire.  Later on, when I was thinking about the writing, I realized that the episode needed the redcoat to see Claire being mistreated in order for him to be inspired to come looking for her, so I forgave Angus a little.  He was a victim of plot necessity.  Today I realized that Angus was actually right -- Claire WAS up to no good.  I love that waulking scene so much I completely forgot that Claire took that opportunity to quiz the locals for information to aid in her escape.  Dougal and Angus were right in their belief that Claire cannot be trusted to go off by herself even for something as seemingly innocent as pitching in with the local "women's work."

 

So I forgive you Angus.

 

Good points, Angus intrigues me for some reason.  He is funny though, the way he reacts to Claire.  

[ganesh]

This is the first show in a long time that I actually can't wait to watch every week. I watch a decent amount of tv, but it's usually just "what's in the queue, what should I watch tonight?" Not Outlander. It's: make dinner and don't bother me for the next hour. 

[Rekilt]

I've been thinking about Angus and the other men's apparent cold shoulder to Claire in this episode when it seemed like she was becoming more accepted in the previous episode. I think Angus may still have been upset with Claire's "Spanish" sedative. Not only did she trick him but he probably got reprimanded by Dougal or Collum for not keeping an eye on her. Which then leads to putting Jamie in a dangerous position when he tries to help her to get safely back to the castle, which is acknowledged by Murtagh when he confirmed it was all Claire's fault.

So now Murtagh (who probably realizes Jamie has a soft spot for Claire, which is dangerous for Jamie) and the men who like Jamie are probably a little upset with her for endangering Jamie's position. And although Jamie figured out a great way to handle the oath ceremony, Dougal and Collum seemed like they would have preferred not to have taken a chance in the first place and may be upset with Claire for being a lose cannon.

When I watched the scene with Angus pulling Claire out of the waulking room I feel he's more upset because she disappeared and they couldn't find her and he was going crazy searching. He probably got yelled at by Dougal for losing her again (so soon after the Spanish sedative incident) plus a touch of worry that she was ok. He sounded more like an upset parent when they think they lost their small child in the mall and when reunited starts scolding the child.

[magdalene]

I am actually liking all of these guys - Angus, and Murtaugh and Dougal. I know they are flawed and some of their actions and behavior are not nice and dubious at best. But as long as I can see their humanity and sort of  understand their flaws and their motivations I am not going to hate on them like they are some mustache twirling villain. I used to watch this HBO show DEADWOOD and some of  the most interesting and complex characters on it, Al Swearengen and his men, were basically introduced as villainous and I came to love that bunch despite some of their actions.

 

The only character that gave me the creeps right off the bat was Not!Frank and that was because of his hello and I am going to rape you now introduction.

[WatchrTina]

 

This is the first show in a long time that I actually can't wait to watch every week.

I totally agree.  I watch almost nothing live (I can't remember the last time I was forced to sit through commercials) but for me the only shows recently that have risen to the level of "appointment television" are Outlander, Game of Thrones and Vikings (on the History channel).  BTW if anyone is not watching Vikings and is looking for an Outlander substitute during the mid-season hiatus I heartily recommend Vikings.  What it has in common with Outlander is a story set in the past populated with warrior men and some very strong women.  The eye-candy is pretty spectacular too, but they can all act  and the writing is excellent.  But be prepared -- the brutality of Viking life is more akin to Game of Thrones than Outlander.  

[ihartcoffee]

I totally agree.  I watch almost nothing live (I can't remember the last time I was forced to sit through commercials) but for me the only shows recently that have risen to the level of "appointment television" are Outlander, Game of Thrones and Vikings (on the History channel).  BTW if anyone is not watching Vikings and is looking for an Outlander substitute during the mid-season hiatus I heartily recommend Vikings.  What it has in common with Outlander is a story set in the past populated with warrior men and some very strong women.  The eye-candy is pretty spectacular too, but they can all act  and the writing is excellent.  But be prepared -- the brutality of Viking life is more akin to Game of Thrones than Outlander.  

Me too, I have to see it live.  I have considered watching Vikings.  I'm afraid Spartacus spoiled me, that show was so good yet very violent.  My husband was amazed I watched it when he'd sit in for an episode.  Glad to hear you like GOT too, did you read the books by chance? 

[WatchrTina]

Yes ihartcoffee, I've read the entire "A Song of Ice and Fire" series.  Twice.  In fact I owe my discovery of Outlander to George RR Martin because when I finished the most recent book in his series (the first time) I was absolutely bereft and desperately looking for something in a similar vein to start.  A complete stranger told me about Outlander (a random conversation at an airport if memory serves.)  I downloaded in onto my Kindle, read the first book and then said, hmmmm, this doesn't feel like the end of the story, went online, and discovered there were SIX MORE (now seven).  I was overjoyed.

 

Outlander and Game of Thrones are very different books.  The TV shows are very different as well but I love them both and I'm so happy that the conversion from book to TV has been made so successfully.

 

And now to tiptoe away from book talk and back onto episode talk, can I just share my love for one wee moment? I love when Claire is fussing at them after the brawl, saying "Any excuse for a fight" and Murtaugh walks into frame, says "You were the excuse" and then walks back out of frame again, leaving the camera on Claire's confused face.  I just love the way that was shot, the way Duncan (the actor) delivered the line, and the overall characterization of Murtaugh as the one who speaks the truth to Claire without pulling any punches (just like when he confirmed that it was Claire's fault Jamie was in danger at the oath-taking saying simply, "Aye, it is.")

 

I love Murtaugh.  

[WatchrTina]

Remember the "elvish" highlander I was talking about earlier?  I found him.  I didn't mean to.  I was just following links and tags and the next thing you know, I was looking it at his Facebook page.  For the record, it's not a wig.  Those actually are his own long, flowing locks and yes, he does a lot of work on horseback and in period costume.

 

Aaannd now I'm a stalker.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Bluebonnet, great observation about Claire not being immersed into the new culture by women back at the castle. Seeing her shrug off the info about the piss and joining in said so many things about Claire. I'm sure part of her was relieved just to be in the company of women again so that she didn't have to deal with the men's sexy stories and general rowdiness, but I think a larger part of it was doing something communal and being accepted, even if only for a brief moment. Although she had been trusted to treat people back at the castle, she was still looked at suspicously and generally given the side eye. Not being part of the women's community back at the castle effectively isolated her as much as being English did. She has been an outlander in so many ways.

 

There are times when Jamie seems so very young and the whole sleeping outside the door to protect Claire but being scandalized by her offer to sleep inside was one of them. He still has his idealism and thoughts on honor (he should protect Claire from having any of the drunkards hassling her) but would not besmirch her honor by sleeping inside her room because of the impropriety. Honestly, it reminded me of the sweetly naive kind of thing a young high school boy would do (and by that I mean a 14 year old freshman, not an 18 year old senior).

 

I actually thought that Jamie was going to say he was worried that after Dougal's anti-English speech, he was worried that the men would get drunk and riled up and want to be abusive towards her (as opposed to getting drunk, riled up in a different way, and well, you know). Either way, I respect that he is thinking ahead as to what might happen and trying to be preventative rather than waiting for it to happen and then reacting.

 

I was initially proud of Claire for not coming out and telling any of the Scots they were going to get totally annihilated at Culloden. I doubt that she would have been able to change their minds, but as someone who watched Back to the Future a million times, I am constantly paranoid that something Claire does will change the future. I mean, even if she convinced some of the guys she is with now, I doubt she would be able to change the outcome of the Jacobite rebellion but she still needs to be careful not to go blabbing about the future. It hasn't been an issue thus far, but this is something pretty major and it isn't her place to tell them what is going to happen.

 

One thing I really liked was when Claire tried to tell Jamie that things were different where she came from and he told her that she isn't there anymore so she shouldn't be applying her morals/ideas from somewhere else to the place where she is now. That is something my history teachers always emphasized too - you have to be careful not to apply today's morals/ideas to the past and get all judgmental because you need to understand the historical context.

 

Loved that Angus was the first one to defend Claire's honor in the bar fight. Awwww! Yoga ponytail FTW! ITA that his anger when he found her with the other women was right in line with what happens when your dog runs off and you finally find it. You're so mad but so relieved! Angus and Claire seem to have a big brother/little sister vibe. He gets exasperated with her, but he is still willing to start a fight with someone who calls her a whore.

[Pestilentia]

Remember the "elvish" highlander I was talking about earlier?  I found him.  I didn't mean to.  I was just following links and tags and the next thing you know, I was looking it at his Facebook page.  For the record, it's not a wig.  Those actually are his own long, flowing locks and yes, he does a lot of work on horseback and in period costume.

 

Aaannd now I'm a stalker.

SO SPILL!!!

[WatchrTina]

Pestilentia I'm not going to invade his privacy by linking to his Facebook page or revealing his name (though I am going to check the credits to see if he's listed.)  My scruples did not, however, prevent me from watching the Ice Bucket Challenge video he posted, which is one of the funnier ones I've seen.  He did it with two other guys who may or may not have also been Outlander extras -- they certainly had the beards and long hair for it.  But they may simply be friends of his from the renaissance fairs and historical reenactments that he participates in.

 

It just goes to show ladies and gentlemen, privacy settings on Facebook DO matter.

 

Oh and I read the comments on a production still from this episode and he IS the one walking alongside the horses in that one early scene.  I was right, he was there in case one of the actors was uncomfortable.  Also Cait was riding his usual horse.

[Pestilentia]

Well, drat.

I do understand however- I have been sitting on info about my rock and roll boyfriend for years because I have no one that I trust enough to discuss it with.

[lucindabelle]

As someone who's Worked with a lot of actors, believe me, he wants his name known. I'm deadly serious. You can message him and tell him to start a fan page, and he can change the status of his privacy settings on his personal page, but anyone in show biz desperately, desperately wants to be known.

Edited September 14, 2014 by lucindabelle

[bluebonnet]

Plus, it's on Facebook.  I sort of thought the point of facebook was to make sure people see it.  I figure there are privacy settings that can adjust level of access, but still, it's facebook.  

 

I've never dealt with facebook so I might be wrong.  I just always assumed people used these social media for purposes of being known.  

[Pestilentia]

Just message him that a group of us are going all fan-girly over him and want to know more about him so we can lobby for more air time  :)

[jordanpond]

If there's no place like home, how does Claire- someone who has spent most of her life without a home - determine what home is and why does she determine that something is home?  

Bluebonnet, What a wonderfully worded question! This is a very interesting framework for viewing Claire's journey. You gave me a new way to think about the series.

Edited September 20, 2014 by jordanpond

[Petunia846]

Every time I hear Dougal tell Claire, "stop your havering," in this episode that Proclaimers song gets stuck in my head. Up until this episode that was the only place I'd ever heard the word haver before. (For your listening pleasure...

)

[WatchrTina]

Petunia846 I just had the nearly identical thought (you must be watching the marathon too?)  I once asked someone with an Irish surname what "havering" meant because of the song.  He had no idea.  Now I suspect I should have asked a Scot.  I guess I thought The Proclaimers were Irish.  (Don't tell them.)

[jaytee1812]

Petunia846 I just had the nearly identical thought (you must be watching the marathon too?)  I once asked someone with an Irish surname what "havering" meant because of the song.  He had no idea.  Now I suspect I should have asked a Scot.  I guess I thought The Proclaimers were Irish.  (Don't tell them.)

 

The Proclaimers are from Auchtermuchty. Haver means to talk nonsense. 

 

Man, Clare is annoying, I'm surprised she can see what's going on from up their on her high horse. 

 

And for the love of god someone tell this shows writers sassenach does not mean English. 

[Athena]

And for the love of god someone tell this shows writers sassenach does not mean English. 

 

Technically, it means "Saxon" and in the past, it was generally a term for Lowlanders. Language does evolve and in modern Scotland, it does have a meaning for English people:

 

 

As Tobias Smollett wrote in the novel, Humphrey Clinker (1771), 'The Highlanders have no other name for the people of the Low country, but Sassenagh [sic.], or Saxons'. In modern Scotland, however, the Gaelic term has been adopted into general usage as sassenach, denoting something or someone English.

 

Source: University of Glasgow.

 

The show and books use of it is at worse, an anachronism.

[John Potts]

OK, Claire, you want to get people to trust you, it helps if you don't 1) act like a stuck up bitch  2) insult your hosts/prisoners and 3) act like a complete idiot. Well done for perpetuating (or possibly originating - ye ken wae I mean) the arrogant English stereotype. You're not going to learn Gaelic in a week, but you might try learning to say, "Please" "Thank you" and "Good day" - a little effort goes a long way! Secondly, if a guy is suspicious of you... it doesn't lessen his suspicions if you start accusing him of fraud/treachery and thirdly, you KNOW what year it is and that the revolt happens in 1745 (and that Jamie got his scars from the Brits) - what did you THINK they were collecting for!? I did think she simply didn't know (or had forgotten the date of) Bonnie Prince Charlie's uprising, but she hadn't, she'd just failed to put two & two together. Also, this is the landlord (land laird?) coming to collect money from his poor tenants - why were you  expecting them to be happy to see them - how many people go, "Oh goody, it's a tax demand!"? Also, it shouldn't have come as a surprise that a clearly educated (OK, that may not be as apparent to non Brits - his accent gives it away) Englishman in the Highlands would be an army officer.

On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 4:55 AM, WatchrTina said:

Wicked, wicked cliff-hanger ending.  Oh it hurts so good.

I thought it was a bit of a weak ending. Aside from the meta reasons, if Claire claimed she was being held captive, as she knew the clan were engaged in treasonous activity (and could be a spy) the Highlanders would HAVE to kill the soldiers. It would simply be a case of kill or be killed. I doubt Claire wants a bloody fight followed by a lot of awkward questions, whichever side won.

On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 4:55 AM, WatchrTina said:

I thought Brits pronounced lieutenant "lef-tennent" but our new red-coat didn't.

That's true today, but I think it wasn't always the case. However, I thought the change dated back to the Hannoverians (who had been the ruling house since 1714), who replaced a French pronunciation with a Germanic one. But the change probably occurred during a period Britain was at war with France - which, per Claire, they are at the moment (the idea of renaming "French Fries" "Freedom Fries" isn't new).

On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 2:31 PM, ihartcoffee said:

I was pretty grossed out over the warm piss, that would smell so nasty.

Authentic though (IIRC, it was used to "fix" the dyes). I thought it was specifically men's urine, but maybe not.

On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 2:49 PM, nara said:

It's almost like they have a Jamie shirtless quota the way other shows have a naked woman quota

To be fair, there's been a fair amount of naked Claire too (hey, you have your Fanservice, I have mine).

On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 10:57 PM, Glaze Crazy said:

Neil Oliver's BBC "History of Scotland" series on YouTube and I got sucked into it big time.  I have no idea if it's really a "respectable" version of history or if folks in the UK see it as tripe, but for me it was very informative.

I haven't seen it, but I think it's reasonably well regarded (it is the BBC!).

[Camera One]

I can understand Claire's frustration at being a prisoner and constantly excluded by language, but it was frustrating to see her acting out when she clearly couldn't win.  I am enjoying the show, but one can't help but be impatient for her to finally get to the Stones and come back home (which I'm assuming is not going to happen anyway).

I liked seeing what life was like out in the countryside.  Her conversations with Ned were nice, though I don't think she should have been so certain about the loss of the Highlanders.  I was a little confused about who "The Watch" was.  I guess they were trying to find British sympathesizers?

I went to Culloden Battlefields earlier this year, and overheard a tour group guide mentioning "Outlander", which was the first time I had heard of this show.  The museum there was really good.  It was pouring rain the day I went, so I was soaked by the time I came back in from the fields, but it was still worth it.  I also went to Inverness without realizing the connection to this show... I almost wish I watched this show before I went.

[Hanahope]

Just started watching this show.

personally, I’d love for Claire to change history and help the Scots.  But I doubt that will happen.  Small historical changes are one thing, big ones would make for a very different story.