S01.E06: The Garrison Commander

[ElectricBoogaloo]

For those pondering reading the books, I can say that the show is following book one pretty closely. So it's possible (for now) to watch an episode, go back and read its corresponding chapter, then stop.

Ha, that implies you believe I have a shred of self control! I am making myself wait until after S1 finishes airing before I read the first book so I won't be spoiled (which is the same thing I do with Game of Thrones).

I just discovered this show a week ago -- never heard of the books nor the show before that! So I'm digesting a lot in a short time.

Welcome! I'm in the same boat as I just watched the entire season last week so I got to take in the whole show pretty quickly. The biggest downside is now that I'm all caught up, I have to wait a WHOLE WEEK for the next episode. Torture! Not of the flogging variety though.

I agree that if the forced marriage had happened later in the series, Claire would have less guilt about being unfaithful to Frank and deceiving Jamie, but I wonder if maybe that's the point of doing it now rather than later so that she is still conflicted, which produces more drama. Most love stories deal with the obstacles to being together rather than the happily ever after, so if Claire happily skipped into her new marriage with Jamie guilt-free, there wouldn't be as much story to tell!

[taanja]

 

But, like the OP points out, her goal isn't to speak truth to power, or to win the hearts and minds of the British Army -- her goal is to get the Army to trust her and facilitate her return to the Stones.  You can let one or two go, Claire, without having to make your riposte.

 

The show has made a point ---from the very first moment --that the character Claire is headstrong and outspoken ---sometimes when it is indeed not smart to be. When it would be wise to just shut the fuck up. But alas. She does it anyway because it is her nature. Sometimes she is her own worst enemy.

 

I had no problem re-watching. This show is just glorious. Beside either I am jaded or the flogging and the amputee bit looked fake to me. I have an HDTV and I swear the "blood" looks to have a green/ greenish tint and the "flesh" looks like strips of plastic or bandages made to look like skin. Fake. fake. fake. So I didn't even look away. I think I even ate my dinner. Yup.

 

The whole meal scene with Claire and the English is just so delightful. There she is, almost smiling like a Cheshire Cat, so smug and sure they just love her! You can almost see her thinking ---"well these men are real gentleman. Surely one of them will help me get back to the magic stones!"  And the big-wig dude says just that and she is like---I'll have more wine to celebrate! I laughed out loud!

 

Have I mentioned how much I love the character Dougal? because yeah. I do.

 

Jamie seems fine enough and sure he is cute (In a younger than my son kind of way) so I can't take him seriously. I will have to see how this whole arranged marriage plays out.

Edited September 16, 2014 by taanja

[Pestilentia]

In reading these past few pages all I can say is

 

[annlaw78]

 

Right there with you on this--there's a little too much wish-fulfillment in the source material (I've only read up to about where the show is*), it seems, but I'm trusting RDM to layer and darken it up a bit.

Yeah, I'm not really buying that the "forced marriage" is much more than a typical plot contrivance found in a lot of (mostly historical) romance novels to allow the heroine to be sexually unchaste, free of consequence/judgment.  Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a Jamie-Claire hook-up, no complaints there.  But I'm not sure there is really a logical, historically sound reason why she had to marry THAT GUY to solve her problem.  I'm not seeing how a marriage license to an outlaw really "protects" Claire from a warrant being issued for her arrest for suspected treason, and its being duly executed on her.  

Edited September 17, 2014 by annlaw78

[CatMack]

Randall wants to question Claire.  He has no real evidence that she's done anything arrest-able and so far no one else has really expressed any interest her including the officers who heard her voice support for the Scots.  But she's an English subject so he can question her even if no one else cares or thinks she's done anything arrestable.  Does Claire have to marry Jamie to escape Randall?  No, she could marry anyone so long as he's a Scott, and Randall can no longer haul her in for questioning without more evidence of her actually having done something.  But a) Dougal gains politically from tying Jamie to an English woman, and b) Jamie's young and good looking and her friend, so out of all the Scottish men available to her why wouldn't she pick him?  Is it convenient that it worked out that way?  Sure, I guess, but it's fiction, not real life.  Almost all fiction has some plot point that someone somewhere is going to find annoying convenient. 

 

As for his outlaw status, others have already pointed out that Randall may not even see the contract with is name on it.  Keep in mind that while every scene we've had with Randall in the present day has been about Claire, he has an awful lot of off screen time where he has much bigger concerns to deal with.  Like a bunch of Scots shooting at his soldiers and cutting off their heads.  Claire is certainly a curiosity, but in the grand scheme of things that's all she really is.  If Dougal tells him she's married to a Scott now and out of his jurisdiction, and has a bunch of witnesses to back it up, how much time is he really going to have to fight that and dig?  For a single Englishwoman with no evidence of wrongdoing.  A bunch of people earlier in the thread pointed out how much insubordination he got away with and how his superior officers should have reigned him in more - well how are his superiors going to feel if he tries to kick up a fuss about Claire?  He already lied about having met her before so he has absolutely nothing to base a case on except some Scot sympathetic comments, which by themselves aren't illegal. 

 

And if Randall insists on seeing an actual contract, and even if his superiors allow him to keep wasting time on it, and if he's given one with Jamie's actual real name on it, people seem to be forgetting the second part of Dougal's explanation to Claire - even if there's proof a crime has been committed, a Scottish citizen cannot be taken from clan lands without the permission of the laird involved.  Who in this case is Jamie's uncle.  Good luck with that, Randall.

[BooBear]

And if Randall insists on seeing an actual contract, and even if his superiors allow him to keep wasting time on it, and if he's given one with Jamie's actual real name on it, people seem to be forgetting the second part of Dougal's explanation to Claire - even if there's proof a crime has been committed, a Scottish citizen cannot be taken from clan lands without the permission of the laird involved.  Who in this case is Jamie's uncle.  Good luck with that, Randall.

 

 

But... but.. I pointed this out earlier.. isn't Jamie a fugitive? If his name is on that contract then they are admitting they know where Jamie is -- isn't that a crime?  Not to mention that given BJR's psycho status, would she really be safe from trumped up evidence of a crime? Dirty cops do that today.

[annlaw78]

 

Randall wants to question Claire.  He has no real evidence that she's done anything arrest-able and so far no one else has really expressed any interest her including the officers who heard her voice support for the Scots.  But she's an English subject so he can question her even if no one else cares or thinks she's done anything arrestable.  Does Claire have to marry Jamie to escape Randall?  No, she could marry anyone so long as he's a Scott, and Randall can no longer haul her in for questioning without more evidence of her actually having done something.  But a) Dougal gains politically from tying Jamie to an English woman, and b) Jamie's young and good looking and her friend, so out of all the Scottish men available to her why wouldn't she pick him?  Is it convenient that it worked out that way?  Sure, I guess, but it's fiction, not real life.  Almost all fiction has some plot point that someone somewhere is going to find annoying convenient.

I think Randall probably has enough to get a local magistrate to sign an arrest warrant for Claire, Scot or not, if he so chose.  If she told the story about wanting to get to France -- Britain's at war with France.  She pretty clearly has information regarding the whereabouts of a fugitive.  I think she could be charged with "obstruction," if nothing else.  I'm not sure how marrying someone also wanted as a fugitive on an obstruction charge (and murder) helps her.  But oh well.  

 

 

For a single Englishwoman with no evidence of wrongdoing.

Her own words can be evidence against her, and if she's going on and on about her goofy plan to get from Oxford to France (an enemy of Britain) via Inverness, with a nice little respite amongst known Jacobite rebels... treason and espionage are not out of the question.  For the very reasons she played the "relatives in France" card to the Scots, that would raise suspicion of her to the Brits.  

 

Also, "obstruction" covers many a sin, and I'm sure is used judiciously to arrest Scots simply for being Scots (like Jamie).  I see no reason why the same charges wouldn't be trumped up against Claire.  

Edited September 17, 2014 by annlaw78

[Cubisa]

But, no arrests can be made without the permission of the laird.

[annlaw78]

 

But, no arrests can be made without the permission of the laird.

That seems... unlikely and historically probably not true.  It's not even consistent with the story told up to this point.  Why was Jamie then arrested and flogged?  He was on his clan's lands, and presumably the laird wouldn't have turned him over.  

 

I think Dougal's point was that short of an arrest warrant being duly issued and executed, no one can be compelled from Clan lands without the permission of the laird.  I'm not sure how a laird could undermine the military/legal system of the King like that.  

Edited September 17, 2014 by annlaw78

[nara]

It's beginning to be kind of a joke how Claire gets tipsy in every episode.

 

It probably has to do with the fact that rhenish (spelling?) is the only luxury, so she indulges in it.  Also, she's deliberately trying to desensitize herself to her fear and the loss of her life and husband.

 

Regarding all the comments on Claire's foolishness with the English officers, I interpreted it as putting her own needs and goals aside to stand up for what's right.  I'd call it courage. It reminded me of all people who've fought for civil rights and been arrested, beaten, killed, etc.--I would still call them heroes even though they paid a heavy price for standing up for the cause.

[annlaw78]

Regarding all the comments on Claire's foolishness with the English officers, I interpreted it as putting her own needs and goals aside to stand up for what's right. I'd call it courage. It reminded me of all people who've fought for civil rights and been arrested, beaten, killed, etc.--I would still call them heroes even though they paid a heavy price for standing up for the cause.

I wouldn't exactly put Claire Beauchamp on par with Rosa Parks, Bobby Sands, Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc. Those people were advocating for change within their own societies... which they had lived in and had experience with for more than a month. But I get the point that sometimes people take stands that aren't in their best interests for the sake of change.

I don't think Claire is trying to advocate for or engender change, though. She's just sort of prissily spouting off on a subject she knows very little about, from her privileged position as a pretty English woman in a room full of theretofore adoring and gracious Englishmen -- while expecting those men to escort her back to Inverness. She professes that all she wants is to get back to Frank...

...presumably, to serve the story by allowing her to hook up with Jamie and yet prevent the scarlet letter of adultery from attaching to her. It's just a bit disingenuous. I just find all the contortions and hokey rationales for Why She Must Have Sex With Jamie unnecessary. She's an adult woman who has no real certainty of ever seeing her husband again. Jamie is kind to her, intelligent, and easy on the eyes. I don't really think she needs an excuse or narrative permission to be with Jamie.

Edited September 17, 2014 by annlaw78

[romantique]

There's a character named Brian Fraser in the credits for this episode.  I don't remember him being mentioned, but I assume he's in the scene where Jamie gets whipped and is a relative of his.  Did anyone spot him in the episode?  (I think I found him on IMDB, but was not able to embed the image here.) I wonder if he's Jamie's father.  Please, no spoilers from anyone who knows the truth.  :)

Yes, nara, this article actually features images of Brian Fraser:

http://mobile.hypable.com/all/2014-09-14-outlander-executive-producer-talks-season-2-plans-and-reveals#1

The article also mentions how Ron Moore recently answered some questions via Twitter as he was waiting to board a flight. Some of his responses were really funny and I only wish I had known he was doing this so I could have tweeted a question or two...

[lawless]

Dougal doesn't offer up Jamie because he's so cute and sexy. He offers him up because 1) it makes that whole possibility that Clan Mackenzie would elect Jamie as Laird even less likely and 2) Jamie is willing. I'm sure many of the men in the rent party wouldn't mind "grinding Claire's corn," but how many would want to marry her?! Mrs. Bossypants? How many might already be married, even if they've also been shown as flirting and grabbing at other women. At least a match with Jamie is a plausible match for an educated English woman since -- for all his being a wanted man -- he's also an educated man, a close relative to a powerful Laird, and an heir to his own lands.

All of these reasons make sense -- and yet, I can't help but feel like Claire is exceptionally fortunate to have the "terrible misfortune" to have to marry the big, strong, sweet, handsome Jamie.  Particularly since the other Highlanders we've met aren't nearly so attractive and winsome.  Dougal could have married her to Rupert and handled Jamie's potential claim on the Lairdship some other way.  He came up with the "marry Jamie" plan pretty fast.  Anyway, the show is well cast in that the actors are all doing a good job, but it might have come across as a little less contrived if the show had camouflaged Jamie by at least including some other handsome Scotts.  Or by trying to make the show just a little bit more of an ensemble overall.

 

However, screw it, I'll allow it, because Jamie is that adorable and fine-looking, and I want to see him nekkid(ish) and hot and bothered, rather than being flogged within an inch of his life.  He walks the line of looking almost made-to-order to be attractive to women -- like he was cooked up in a lab somewhere -- but somehow, he comes across as just genuine and natural enough to compensate for all the contrivance.  I guess more like he was grown in an organic greenhouse rather than a lab, but still actively designed to be attractive to women.  So.  Fine.  Poor Claire, she'll just have to marry Jamie.  Oh, the humanity!

Edited September 17, 2014 by lawless

[nara]

...presumably, to serve the story by allowing her to hook up with Jamie and yet prevent the scarlet letter of adultery from attaching to her. It's just a bit disingenuous. I just find all the contortions and hokey rationales for Why She Must Have Sex With Jamie unnecessary. She's an adult woman who has no real certainty of ever seeing her husband again. Jamie is kind to her, intelligent, and easy on the eyes. I don't really think she needs an excuse or narrative permission to be with Jamie.

Based on the non-fiction reading I've done, I do think that the consummation of marriage issue is a real issue, BUT I also think that the reason she ends up agreeing is because it's Jamie.  She has not yet acknowledged this to herself, but she's attracted to Jamie.  The attempts to "encourage" his interest in Laoghaire, the constant meaningful looks, etc. all reek of school-girl crush.  Yes, it would have probably been more meaningful if she had to make a conscious decision to be with him, rather than have to accept a forced marriage.  However, judging from the angry reaction to the idea of marrying Dougal and the lack thereof when it was Jamie, her attraction is at least a factor in her decision-making process.  In my book, it's almost the same as making a conscious decision.  I haven't read the books, but I think that she will acknowledge at some point in the story that she's always wanted him and she wasn't as "forced" as she likes to pretend.

Edited September 17, 2014 by nara

[lucindabelle]

That is a good point about marrying an actual outlaw. Might make her safer, him, not so much.

Frankly, Claire spouting off reminded me of people who spout off about the Middle East to Jews (I am one) without really understanding the situation. I'm not trying to start an argument about that here, bear with me.

I'm just saying, when you know the people you are talking to are VERY unlikely to see themselves as "occupiers" your words are going to just be taken as provocation. She's supposed to be an educated woman. Outspoken or not, that little outburst was puerile... and a bit contrived.

And yeah, this is a romance, Gabaldon, stop saying it isn't. You want an actual historical adventure that isn't pure romance, try "The Game of Kings" by Dorothy Dunnett-- I read that convinced it was going to be one based on the cover of the old Pocket Book. It is NOT. (later books in the series are a bit more so).

 

But I'm not complaining. I'm enjoying wee Jamie. I'd enjoy it all more on a binge, and when it's over, I'll probably binge. I just don't feel each episode is really shaped to stand alone, a la "Game of Thrones," or, going back a ways, "Brideshead Revisited."

 

Some of the things seem forced/contrived-- I wasn't impressed by the flogging because it seemed to not drive the action anywhere in particular and could have been done in half the time.

 

But I'm still looking forward to my scenes of Scotland on Saturday and my sexy Scottish men lighting up the screen.

 

Still think it would have been much, much more interesting if BJR were redeemable, but only by Claire, and we have an 18th-century love triangle...

[emu]

Had a crackpot theory pop into my head during BJR's monologue that Frank had also traveled back in time (to an earlier time than Claire) and was, in fact, his own ancestor BJR! I'll admit that was crazy, but wanted to share... ;)

My theory is that Black Jack travelled to the future :)

Claire keeps talking about Inverness - Black Jack might just follow her there, and to Craigh na Dun, and he might touch the stones if he sees her doing that. He could be sent to another point in time - before Claire and Frank met. Then, he just looks up Claire Beauchamp (smart, Claire, telling him your maiden name), seduce her (of course he would totally be capable of that), marry her and regale her with tales of historic events (which he actually witnessed firsthand). Edited September 17, 2014 by emu

[Rekilt]

Also, without giving away any spoilers, many of the other men are already married, which narrowed down the options for this last minute wedding. Remember, they're suppose to deliver Claire the next day. And quite frankly, although many of those left available wouldn't mind grinding corn with Claire, I doubt many of them would want to be permanently tied to this very opiniated non conformist woman for all time. It's obvious to everyone jamie isn't oppose to her "character flaws". Add that to the fact that jamie marrying an English woman takes him mostly out of the running for Laird of Mckenzie but keeps him loyal to the Mackenzie's. Then IF he should die then Claire would inherit Lallybroch, a stretegically important piece of land, and whoever married her AFTER that would then get and control of said piece of strategic land. It's a win win situation for the Mackenzie's.

For Jamie, he gets Claire, whom him obviously feels something for. He gets a wife, which in his position, was going to be nearly impossible (no father wants his daughter married to an outlaw and few women would want to live that life). He gets a full time healer (which he seems to need on a regular bases). And he gets to piss off BJR by keeping Claire out of BJR's clutches. That's a better deal than he ever thought he would get.

For claire she is immediately saved from BJR's clutches. She will have permanent protection under Jamie's family and the Mckenzie clan. She'll be given more freedom to possibly get back to the stones. She gets jamie although that maybe subconsciously acknowledge. And she gives the gift of a hot steamy honeymoon to all of us loyal fans.

It's a win/win for everyone except BJR so why is anyone questioning it?????!!!!! We get to see more of shirtless Jamie, isn't that enough plot??!!

[BooBear]

All of these .  So.  Fine.  Poor Claire, she'll just have to marry Jamie.  Oh, the humanity!

 

Not only that she just has to consumate the marriage -- though I can't see any reason they can't just all agree the marrage was consumated.  It is just a romance novel cliche'. Hey it is what it is, but if that is all this show has to offer, and from looking at spoilers ...well, seems like they have quite the light fluff here that they are trying superhard to make into something important and serious.

[annlaw78]

For claire she is immediately saved from BJR's clutches. She will have permanent protection under Jamie's family and the Mckenzie clan. She'll be given more freedom to possibly get back to the stones. She gets jamie although that maybe subconsciously acknowledge. And she gives the gift of a hot steamy honeymoon to all of us loyal fans.

It's a win/win for everyone except BJR so why is anyone questioning it?????!!!!! We get to see more of shirtless Jamie, isn't that enough plot??!!

Like I said above, I'm fine with Claire and Jamie 's getting together. I just think it's rather silly that they do so under the auspices of "saving Claire from the clutches of BJR," because I don't really think that plan holds together well under any sort of scrutiny. It doesn't make sense how this "solves" any sort of real threat by BJR, unless the English are completely impotent in Scotland... which the whole point of the rebellion and Jamie's story is that they aren't, and they are abusive to the Scots.

Just give Claire some agency and some choice about why she's with Jamie. She doesn't need an "excuse," or permission. It's really hard to take a "forced marriage" plot seriously. It's certainly cueing up some fun scenes for next week, but it just doesn't make sense.

Not only that she just has to consumate the marriage -- though I can't see any reason they can't just all agree the marrage was consumated. It is just a romance novel cliche'. Hey it is what it is, but if that is all this show has to offer, and from looking at spoilers ...well, seems like they have quite the light fluff here that they are trying superhard to make into something important and serious.

.

Claire's certainly capable of "faking" the sounds of consummation (see the first episode and bouncing on the bed of Mrs. Baird's), and from what we've seen of Jamie, I'd imagine he'd not pounce on her if she didn't want to. "Proof" of consummation from behind a closed door would be easy enough to obtain, and if everyone's going to be lying to BJR and the Brits about who the bridegroom is, then I don't see why they can't lie about what went on on the wedding night.

Edited September 17, 2014 by annlaw78

[absnow54]

Not only that she just has to consumate the marriage -- though I can't see any reason they can't just all agree the marrage was consumated.  It is just a romance novel cliche'. Hey it is what it is, but if that is all this show has to offer, and from looking at spoilers ...well, seems like they have quite the light fluff here that they are trying superhard to make into something important and serious.

This is my thing. All parties involved on the Scot side know that they're running a scam on the English. If all it takes is a bunch of drunk witnesses and a priest held at dirk point to tell the English that the Lady is married, then that's all they have to do. If all it takes is to wave a 3 page handwritten contract in illegible type, then she can be married to Scooby Doo for all it matters. If the marriage has to be legal, and had to have a legal contract with their legal names, that means the possibility exists that upon news that Claire is now a Scot, BJR could demand to see the contract. It doesn't mean he will. But the possibility is there, otherwise what's the point of having the proof. And when he sees the contract, then the Clan will run into even more trouble trying to hold onto both Claire and Jamie. For Jamie's case, a known crime has been committed on his part, so there's nothing that Scot's law can do to protect him from being handed over. That's why although there are some political advantages for Dougal. There's a real immediate inconvenience to using Jamie as a pawn right now, when they're better off keeping him off the radar when tempting the English.

 

The consummation thing is ridiculous too, because really all they have to do is say that it's consummated. Claire's not a virgin, so it's not like they'll have bloody bed linens to wave out the window. If Claire were trying to deceive Jamie into marrying her so she'd have protection without Jamie knowing that it's a sham, then, yes, the whole consummation thing would be an issue. But he knows too, so the contrivance is a bit silly. Shut up Claire, you want to have sex with him, don't pretend.

 

That said, I love forced marriage tropes, I think they're a lot of fun, and I'm excited to see this go down. It's just the arrangement doesn't make sense given the immediate peril it's supposed to resolve. Oh no we need to stop them from taking Claire, let's throw another person they're looking for into the spotlight with her! This won't backfire at all!

[Nidratime]

Too cute by half plot developments? Marriage tropes? Don't read any Shakespeare! ;-)

[CatMack]

As a book reader, I don't think there's much else I can say on the current topics of debate that haven't already been said, without going into book spoilers.

 

All I will say is that the marriage plot reveal happened a few minutes before the end of the episode, and was used to provide some light comic relief to an otherwise very emotionally dark episode (ie, there were virgin jokes instead of a deep debate of Scottish/British politics and law).  I feel like it's common sense, rather than a book spoiler, so say we'll probably hear more details going forward. 

[WatchrTina]

I'm going to fan-wank that the contract Claire was reading specifically said the marriage would not legally come into being until the marriage was consummated and that that is why Claire has already given up on the notion of faking the consummation.  Or at least that's what she's telling herself because deep down, hoo boy, she wants him bad.  

Edited September 17, 2014 by WatchrTina

[nara]

This is my thing. All parties involved on the Scot side know that they're running a scam on the English. If all it takes is a bunch of drunk witnesses and a priest held at dirk point to tell the English that the Lady is married, then that's all they have to do. If all it takes is to wave a 3 page handwritten contract in illegible type, then she can be married to Scooby Doo for all it matters. If the marriage has to be legal, and had to have a legal contract with their legal names, that means the possibility exists that upon news that Claire is now a Scot, BJR could demand to see the contract. It doesn't mean he will. But the possibility is there, otherwise what's the point of having the proof. And when he sees the contract, then the Clan will run into even more trouble trying to hold onto both Claire and Jamie. For Jamie's case, a known crime has been committed on his part, so there's nothing that Scot's law can do to protect him from being handed over. That's why although there are some political advantages for Dougal. There's a real immediate inconvenience to using Jamie as a pawn right now, when they're better off keeping him off the radar when tempting the English.

 

The consummation thing is ridiculous too, because really all they have to do is say that it's consummated. Claire's not a virgin, so it's not like they'll have bloody bed linens to wave out the window. If Claire were trying to deceive Jamie into marrying her so she'd have protection without Jamie knowing that it's a sham, then, yes, the whole consummation thing would be an issue. But he knows too, so the contrivance is a bit silly. Shut up Claire, you want to have sex with him, don't pretend.

 

That said, I love forced marriage tropes, I think they're a lot of fun, and I'm excited to see this go down. It's just the arrangement doesn't make sense given the immediate peril it's supposed to resolve. Oh no we need to stop them from taking Claire, let's throw another person they're looking for into the spotlight with her! This won't backfire at all!

I'm going to assume that a fake marriage would be considered by the Scots to be an affront to God for making a sham of a sacred union--and just go with it!

I bet they're going to consummate the heck out of the marriage, just to ensure that there are no doubters!  ;)

[kieyra]

It's a win/win for everyone except BJR so why is anyone questioning it?????!!!!! We get to see more of shirtless Jamie, isn't that enough plot??!!

 

 

It's not the outcome anyone has a problem with, it's that the romance-tropey setup required to get there is kind of like being able to see the man behind the curtain, so it breaks suspension of disbelief a little. The author had to build a framework where it was 'okay' for a married woman to go back in time and almost immediately have sex with a hot guy, and the framework is just a little too visible. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm still watching, I just can't unsee the scaffolding.

[absnow54]

I'm going to assume that a fake marriage would be considered by the Scots to be an affront to God for making a sham of a sacred union--and just go with it!

This I will accept given all their superstitions. 

 

And I will say, I have read the book and I do know all the reasoning for why Jamie specifically was picked, that doesn't mean I don't find the setup sloppy. In my opinion Diana comes up with a lot of over complicated plot points that only matter when she says they matter and Jamie's fugitive status is one of them. 

[glitterpants]

While there must be all sorts of reasons for the marriage from an in-story perspective, I do agree that seen from the outside it totally is a big old romance trope, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. It fits into a really appealing context (it's not all that the show is about) and I like the way it's been executed so far.

Edited September 17, 2014 by glitterpants

[Haleth]

We should have had a scene where Dougal asks for a volunteer to marry the sassanach. Everyone takes a step back except Jamie who is too busy mending his shirt for the millionth time.

[rainsmom]

IIRC, Dougal had already been talking about this to Ned Gowan. Remember? Claire said that when Dougal was so quick to discuss the marriage and contracts. It seems to me that Dougal had *already planned* to force the marriage because it was politically in his best interest to do so. Black Jack's threat just made it easier to convince Claire and Jamie to go along with the plan. I expect Dougal is feeling quite pleased with himself.

 

From that perspective, it makes little difference whether his claim that this will keep BJR off their arses holds up under scrutiny. Dougal has other reasons to want the marriage.

[WatchrTina]

Nothing wrong with a good trope. On one of the supporting blogs (Terry's I think) there is a post about the traditional characteristics of a literary "hero" figure. Claire and Jamie both tick almost all the boxes starting with the tragic death of one or both parents at an early age. Jane Austen (my favorite author) was incapable of writing a novel without a wedding in it. Heck, even the not-at-all-romantic Lord of the Rings ends with a rash of weddings. Yeah, bring on the tropes! How about a morally ambiguous character suddenly turning up at just the right moment to aid the hero *cough* Han Solo *cough*. Oh, hi Dougal-to-the-rescue!

Edited because one ought to be able to spell the name of one's favorite author.

Edited September 17, 2014 by WatchrTina

[nara]

We should have had a scene where Dougal asks for a volunteer to marry the sassanach. Everyone takes a step back except Jamie who is too busy mending his shirt for the millionth time.

 

If that scene happened, there would be a Katniss Everdeen-style "I VOLUNTEER!!!!" from Jamie.

Edited September 17, 2014 by nara

[jcin617]

As a minor diversion from the marriage talk, at the start of the episode the camera was panning around a room and ended on some objects laying by a window, one of which was (I assume) Claire's 20th century watch.   Was the implication that BJR has it?

[SpiritSong]

This is my thing. All parties involved on the Scot side know that they're running a scam on the English. If all it takes is a bunch of drunk witnesses and a priest held at dirk point to tell the English that the Lady is married, then that's all they have to do. If all it takes is to wave a 3 page handwritten contract in illegible type, then she can be married to Scooby Doo for all it matters. If the marriage has to be legal, and had to have a legal contract with their legal names, that means the possibility exists that upon news that Claire is now a Scot, BJR could demand to see the contract. It doesn't mean he will. But the possibility is there, otherwise what's the point of having the proof. And when he sees the contract, then the Clan will run into even more trouble trying to hold onto both Claire and Jamie. For Jamie's case, a known crime has been committed on his part, so there's nothing that Scot's law can do to protect him from being handed over. That's why although there are some political advantages for Dougal. There's a real immediate inconvenience to using Jamie as a pawn right now, when they're better off keeping him off the radar when tempting the English.

 

The consummation thing is ridiculous too, because really all they have to do is say that it's consummated. Claire's not a virgin, so it's not like they'll have bloody bed linens to wave out the window. If Claire were trying to deceive Jamie into marrying her so she'd have protection without Jamie knowing that it's a sham, then, yes, the whole consummation thing would be an issue. But he knows too, so the contrivance is a bit silly. Shut up Claire, you want to have sex with him, don't pretend.

I think most of the men of Clan MacKenzie like Jamie well enough. It would be ridiculous for them to say you have to get married, but no sex with your wife, ever! Even if the marriage is being done for political reasons it seems unreasonable to expect a man in the prime of his life to stay celibate afterwards.

[nara]

As a minor diversion from the marriage talk, at the start of the episode the camera was panning around a room and ended on some objects laying by a window, one of which was (I assume) Claire's 20th century watch.   Was the implication that BJR has it?

 

Wow!  Good eye.  I have no POV on this, but wanted to compliment your observation skills.

[thingamajig]

Well Jamie knows the marriage is a marriage of convenience, but he doesn't know that Claire doesn't plan to stick around once she can get to the stones so as far as he's concerned the marriage is real, despite the reasons for it.  So Claire either tells him she's planning to escape, or she goes along with acting like it's the real deal, which includes consummating the marriage. And since "sex with Jamie" is behind Door Number 2, of course she picks that one. ;)

[taanja]

I have no problem with the forced marriage trope either.

 

My only sorrow is that Claire isn't being "forced" to marry Dougal.   ;-)

[Pestilentia]

As a minor diversion from the marriage talk, at the start of the episode the camera was panning around a room and ended on some objects laying by a window, one of which was (I assume) Claire's 20th century watch.   Was the implication that BJR has it?

 

I went and checked and yes, there is a wristwatch with a leather band lying there beside BJR's pearl handled razor and shaving brush.

Then I checked the first episode when Claire went through the rocks and she is wearing a wristwatch but it has a gold band, so the watch BJR has is not hers.

 

Don't know what exactly to make of this!

[Constantinople]

The show has made a point ---from the very first moment --that the character Claire is headstrong and outspoken ---sometimes when it is indeed not smart to be. When it would be wise to just shut the fuck up. But alas. She does it anyway because it is her nature. Sometimes she is her own worst enemy.

 

I agree, and I don't have a problem with that.  I don't find it unrealistic.  

 

After all, Gibbon wrote "History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind", not "History is little more than the register of the actions of people behaving in a calm, optimal, and rational manner"

[BizBuzz]

I don't remember this review being posted in this thread, but I just came across it, and the picture is striking of Claire and Frank.  Hard to find Frank attractive right now, but the picture is simply beautiful.  How can he look so sweet and nice?

[Nidratime]

I went and checked and yes, there is a wristwatch with a leather band lying there beside BJR's pearl handled razor and shaving brush.

Then I checked the first episode when Claire went through the rocks and she is wearing a wristwatch but it has a gold band, so the watch BJR has is not hers.

 

 

I think someone from Outlander discusses this. Menzies? Moore? I don't know anymore because I've read so many articles and seen so many little videos. I believe they said it was a deliberate anachronism, showing Frank's or a modern watch there next to Randall's things, just as the straight razor is there in modern times.

[jordanpond]

Since the following comment isn't specifically about Episode 6, I considered putting this in the "unpopular opinions" thread. But since that thread isn't marked "no book talk" I was afraid I'd get spoiled by joining the thread. And maybe what I'm about to say won't be all that unpopular anyway, so here goes:

 

Although I generally dislike nudity in shows/movies, and think that probably 95% of the nudity I've seen in my life was unnecssary to the telling of the story, I accept nudity in programs if 1) the show is great and 2) the nudity doesn't seem exploitive. Well, so far, "Outlander" is qualifying as a great show in my book. But even though the nudity hasn't been excessive -- and has been completely absent the last 3 episodes -- I'm not so sure it hasn't been exploitive to women.

 

I knew nothing about either "Outlander" or  "Starz" when I stumbled on this show last week. When I saw the nudity warning my first thought was "Oh no. If this is like so many other shows, we'll probably get a bedroom scene in which the camera "just happens" to catch the woman, but not the man, nude. The woman, of course, will be young and very toned. And we'll probably get some other topless or bottomless shot of another young, well-built woman. And then maybe, in the appearance of gender fairness, they'll show some backside shot of a man, but if it follows the pattern of so many programs, it'll be some older, out-of-shape man. And all of those things happened (Claire topless/bottomless a few times, topless Jenny, followed by bottomless old Colum.) I didn't want to be right. I hoped that I would be pleasantly surprised. But I wasn't.

 

Now I realize, with the upcoming wedding episode there may be some handsome male nudity coming this weekend. But even if it does, it doesn't change the fact that as of episode 6, the series is more than 1/3 over, and the nudity thus far has exhibited the same pattern that I've seen over and over before in which "nudity" really means mostly young, highly attractive female nudity with the occasional -- and often unattractive -- male nude body (Colum) thrown in to give the appearance of gender equality. So, although I consider this series to be quite wonderful in too many ways to count, and would have had no issue with nudity that was gender balanced despite my overall preference for nudity-free programming, I find the nude scenes, when taken as a whole, rather exploitive of women. Nudity that is disproportionately female always seems exploitive to me, but in a show like this which centers around such a strong female lead, it seems particularly disingenuous on the part of the showrunners.

[glitterpants]

the nudity thus far has exhibited the same pattern that I've seen over and over before in which "nudity" really means mostly young, highly attractive female nudity with the occasional -- and often unattractive -- male nude body (Colum) thrown in to give the appearance of gender equality.

 

 

I get what you're saying, but what about all the scenes that included Jamie's bare chest, lovingly lit and shot in all its highly attractive (i mean, it's supposed to be) glory? I know it doesn't quite compare to a butt, but...

[Rekilt]

It's not the outcome anyone has a problem with, it's that the romance-tropey setup required to get there is kind of like being able to see the man behind the curtain, so it breaks suspension of disbelief a little. The author had to build a framework where it was 'okay' for a married woman to go back in time and almost immediately have sex with a hot guy, and the framework is just a little too visible. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm still watching, I just can't unsee the scaffolding.

Sorry, I was trying to be funny with those sentences.

I think the two things the series is not doing as well as the book, which may be the reason some people aren't feeling the whole claire/jamie thing, is showing how much time has truly passed and how close jamie and Claire had become. By the time the wedding took place it had been months and months of claire living in this extreme situation. Suffering day in and day out on many levels the loss of her world, her culture, her family, hot baths, etc. Although people were starting to accept her presence, even respect her healing skills, the only person that she could actually call a friend was Jamie. Even Ms. Fitzgibbon doesn't hang out with Claire, chatting over coffee and pumpkin spice cake. There's only jamie that treated her as a real person, spent time with her, etc.

Then after weeks upon weeks of traveling on the road (literally) as the only woman, sleeping on the cold hard ground, eating sinewy rabbit, physically and mentally exhausted she gets mind freaked by a man that looks and sounds like her husband. Sucker punched by BJR. Kicked by another English soldier. Then threatened with possible torture and imprisonment in one of the worst prisons in all of the UK after being rescued by Dougal. Then only a few hours later is told the only way to prevent your torture and imprisonment would be to marry your only friend in this hostile world, oh yah and you only have a couple of hours to decide. If you run, you'll probably be found and turned over to BJR, or found by the English and turned over to BJR, or caught and raped. And if you happen to get away then all the Scotsman in your group will become criminals in the eyes of the English for not turning you in as instructed. I'm pretty sure a good portion of us would take the marriage. Considering too that 1) frank has already told her it didn't matter if she had a liaison, he would still love her, how much more so if the liaison was to save her life 2) even if she gets back to her time, no one is going to believe her about time travel let alone a marriage to a hot Scotsman and 3) if she survives the torture and is stuck in an English prison she will NEVER get to the stones.

[MedievalGirl]

As a minor diversion from the marriage talk, at the start of the episode the camera was panning around a room and ended on some objects laying by a window, one of which was (I assume) Claire's 20th century watch.   Was the implication that BJR has it?

 

Ron mentions in the podcast that it is Frank's watch and the image is meant to suggest a contrast between the two men. All the episode have had a still life just after the credits that shows something about the plot. I guess it is a homage to the printing of the books that had a similar illustrations of objects related to the story. 

[romantique]

As a minor diversion from the marriage talk, at the start of the episode the camera was panning around a room and ended on some objects laying by a window, one of which was (I assume) Claire's 20th century watch.   Was the implication that BJR has it?

 

 

Ron mentions in the podcast that it is Frank's watch and the image is meant to suggest a contrast between the two men. All the episode have had a still life just after the credits that shows something about the plot. I guess it is a homage to the printing of the books that had a similar illustrations of objects related to the story. 

Yes, and you will notice it is right next to the razor that has passed through the generations from BJR to Frank, so it was a deliberate callback on Ron Moore's part. I like how that opening image foreshadows what we are going to see in the episode - along with the theme music ending changing each week, it makes each episode that much more cinematic.

[kieyra]

By the time the wedding took place it had been months and months of claire living in this extreme situation.

 

This is going to seem nitpicky, but I just read that section of that book

and I think it said she'd been back in time for a month

. I could be wrong though, the memory isn't what it once was.

 

I guess I'll just say this and leave it alone henceforth: I'm only lightly complaining about the trope's visible structure. If RDM thought the source material was worth bringing to the screen, I'm in for the long haul, and Claire is a great character, and the show is full of phenomenal actors. I'm just not invested in Jamie/Claire and not sure I will be anytime soon. 

[WatchrTina]

The only opening credits I make a point to watch are those for Game of Thrones because they change from week to week and foreshadow the episode. Now I think I'll need to start paying closer attention to the "still life" section of Outlander's opening credits for the same reason. There was harpsichord music over the still life this time wasn't there? Another clever hint of what was to come.

[Bort]

This is going to seem nitpicky, but I just read that section of that book

and I think it said she'd been back in time for a month

. I could be wrong though, the memory isn't what it once was.

That's right, I remember Claire saying something like

known each other a month, married a day.

Basically, the amount of time that has passed on the show is on par with the book.

[Athena]

Hey all, please ease up on the book comparisons and spoilers. We are in the episode topic. :) Thanks!

[Rekilt]

I was reading excerpts online this weekend looking for a specific passage I had a question about and at one point she said something about it being months since the stones and it was before the wedding. If that is incorrect well then PUDGES! yep she's an immoral horah and needs to be brunt at the stake! Because I can accept the premise that there's time travel through some Scottish stones but not the premise for a wedding this fast into the story.

Ok, I'm just being silly there.