Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

S01.E08: Both Sides Now

Recommended Posts

 

I think more of Claire's shock was at killing a man.  She isn't a Highland warrior, she is a nurse.  She saves lives, she doesn't take them.  It's a pretty big deal that she killed someone, regardless of the fact that he deserved it.

I agree with this, but I think the show did a poor job conveying it. There should have been more focus on the man as a dead body than on the man while he was sexually assaulting her. In that scene, the shock was "Oh my God, this woman is being raped!" not "Oh my God, this woman just murdered a man for the first time."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think more of Claire's shock was at killing a man.  She isn't a Highland warrior, she is a nurse.  She saves lives, she doesn't take them.  It's a pretty big deal that she killed someone, regardless of the fact that he deserved it.

 

I am going to re watch this episode again to correctly gather my thoughts.

I agree. Also, both Jamie and Claire are freaked out because they were completely absorbed in each other (ie having sex) and thus completely unaware of any danger around them. They were in love mode, forgetting that it is a very dangerous time. A cold bucket of water was dumped on them, basically. 

 

Also, Claire was waiting for the right moment, so she could get her little knife in the right part of the guy's back, like Rupert showed her. Rupert's whole lesson was to demonstrate you can't just stab anywhere- knife fighting is a bit of an art. 

 

I think it was two cases of almost-rape. 

Share this post


Link to post

Is Craigh Na Dun in a completely new location?  It seemed way more heavily forested in the pilot than it did here.  It looks very different from when we first saw the stones.  

Share this post


Link to post

 

Where was the omnipresent narration?  Why was Claire silent at this moment?  If there's a point to her narrative silence (she's shutting down, in shock, etc.), fine, but why then is there no follow-up conversation between Jamie and Claire about what happened, which, frankly, just doesn't seem at all like the relationship these two have developed, such that we've been allowed to see.

I don't think there was time for that.  She's on the hill, post-attack, and then they mount up and ride off (though she doesn't remember getting on her horse, nor how far they ride, nor does she realize she's on a road she's seen before.)  They are riding in a group all day and the talk you are asking about requires some privacy.  I presume they would have had that talk that evening if, you know, all hell had not broken loose.

 

So I just watched again and found new things to love.  Little things.  Such as:

 

The knowing way Jamie delivers the line (after telling Claire that someone is near), "Don't move, we all know."  Gives me a wee thrill for our bad-ass merry band of clansmen.

The way Angus says "Tulach Ard!" at the end of the fight in a tone of voice that clearly translates to "Fuck you!"

The fact that Murtagh stayed close to Claire all through the fight, guarding her position.

Rupert's swift retreat after he makes the "That's what see said" joke and then glances at Jamie's face.  We can't see Jamie's face but Rupert wipes the smile off his face and hustles away from Claire faster than Corporal Hawkins did when Dougal charged into the room during The Garrison Commander.  Hee!

Jamie spinning his dirk on his palm.  I think Sam just can't help himself.

 

These lines:

Murtagh - "I still say the only good weapon for a woman is poison."  

Dougal - "Perhaps but it has certain deficiencies in combat."

 

The slo-mo / jerky effects used during the assault on Claire and Jamie.  I thought it was effective.  And the final shot of him carrying her away and setting her down on a stone was very affecting.

Claire's face during the assault when she closes her eyes and steels her nerves to attack.  In the middle of that attack I found myself thinking how much I love her freckles.

The final shot of Claire pacing on the ridge line.

Claire's shawl is still at Craigh na Dun, where she left it 6 weeks ago.

Claire calls the Duke a "great and powerful" man -- another Wizard of Oz reference.

 

And last but not least, Waldo was in the episode (the cute, elvish highlander extra I've been keeping tabs on.)  You see him most clearly when he limps down the hill after the fight with the Grants and he's in the top left corner of the shot where Dougal bro-hugs Jamie after the fight.  it wouldn't surprise me if he also played one of the Grants -- perhaps the one who stole the horse (with most of his distinctive long, flowing hair bound up) --  but I couldn't get a clear enough look at his face to be be sure. Drink!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Claire's shawl is still at Craigh na Dun, where she left it 6 weeks ago.

Claire calls the Duke a "great and powerful" man -- another Wizard of Oz reference.

 

 

Cool. I did not notice the shawl, nor the "great and powerful" reference. I'll have to pay better attention when I watch it again.

 

One thing I want to mention -- after having listened to one of those great podcasts that people are doing -- they brought up something interesting. They pointed out that one big impetus after Claire spots the stones and makes a break for them wasn't just the thought of getting back to Frank, but the fact that she had just killed a man and had been in shock. Even after all the attacks she's suffered through, she's never had to kill anyone and that brings the reality of her new life into focus and so she makes for that Hill, back to the relative safety of the 1940's, where she doesn't have to know how to kill people, and to Frank.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think more of Claire's shock was at killing a man.  She isn't a Highland warrior, she is a nurse.  She saves lives, she doesn't take them.  It's a pretty big deal that she killed someone, regardless of the fact that he deserved it.

Most heartily agree.  The attack would be awful and terrifying, but making a decision to strike and kill another human being would be life-altering, in my mind. I think the combination of both was what had her reeling. I think if she had "just" been attacked, she would have fought and kicked and (possibly) found a way to defeat her attacker. Claire seems just that tough!  But given there were two men, and one had a gun pointed at Jaimie, things changed. Not to imply that the attack wouldn't also be horrifying and life-altering, but I think the two events compounded each other. Plus she kept looking at the blood on her hands. I did like that she realized that if Jamie tried to comfort her, she might lose it completely and spill the beans.  I'm one of those "Don't be nice to me or I will come unhinged" kinds of people, so I get her wanting her space. Glad she recognized the shock.

 

As for the episode as a whole, a little too much Frank, but nice to see him being a person. Really liked the joint return to the stones, and them crying out to each other (and I thought they both heard one another.) However, I can't NOT see BJR's face when Frank is present -  don't know how Claire could resume a life with Frank, while seeing BJR's face. Kind of like in the early eps, when she saw Frank in BJR, and kept trying to find the good in him.  I think even if they showed Frank with puppies and rainbows, I would still be thinking, "Creepy!"

Edited by SandyToes
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Whoever drew the poster did a good job on Jamie's mother's broach. Which pretty much settles the question of "who" is was looking at Claire in the window. The real question is "how"? I still hold to the theory that it was Jamie's ghost.

Share this post


Link to post

SandyToes, ITA about Claire. Plus, she's a nurse, who saves lives, not take them. And add to that she did it with thought and purpose. Yes, she had too but that would still wreak emotional havoc with anyone.

I also agree with those who say the constant threat of rape was a part of that time. That's why women were not allowed outside their homes/farms/territory without escorts. We romanticise the olden days and forget the realities. Women ( and children) were just things. If they were precious things then they were cared for and protected. If they were not cared for and protected then in turn they were not precious and would be used any way a man wanted to. It still happens in many countries today. It still happens in our enlightened counties too. As far as the thought that this country was religious (catholic) they still stole each other's sheep and livestock, raided each other's villages, had hand fasting, celebrated pagan festivals, etc etc. all which are against the bible. And don't get me started on the inquisitions (in other countries by the same religious group). Religious standards applied when someone wanted them too and didn't apply when it didn't suit that person.

The scene with the Deserters was more about disloyalty and being untrustworthy once someone betrays their vows than about it being all Red Coats are scum. And of course the overall Image of the Red Coats in this series (so far) is going to be negative. This story is told from the POV of Claire during the unpopular occupation of Scottland by the Red Coats. I'm sure if the POV was Black Jack's then the Red Coats would all be loyal saviors with beaming lights coming out of their heads and all Scots would be played by dirty mongrel dogs deserving of brutal beatings into submission. Of course that would be a different story.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

It's not that I didn't think this episode was a good one, because I do, but it wasn't better than the last one.  Up to this point each episode has improved upon the one before it, developing the characters, upping the tension, basically getting me more and more invested in the show.  Unfortunately no winning streak last forever, but at least they broke the streak with a tie instead of an outright loss.  This episode was comparable to maybe episode 5, as opposed eps 6 and 7, which where (IMO) outstanding for any tv show.

 

I'm not a book purist.  So far I've felt the changes have all been improvements.  Unfortunately this episode I felt they cut out stuff that was needed and left in stuff I was hoping they'd cut. (I was really hoping they'd lose one of the rape attempts.  Even in the book they were too close together.)  I did like the Frank scenes and I don't feel too much time was spent on him, but maybe this should've been two episodes.  That way they could've divided up the rape scenes and included more of Claire and Jamie's honeymoon, which I felt was sorely missing as a way of establishing the bond between the two.

 

I do find it interesting that Claire basically said sex with Jamie is better than sex with Frank even though Jamie is the less experienced lover and doesn't (as far as we know) perform oral.  I think that's supposed to be our clue that Claire and Jamie are soul mates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have to admit being a little bit confused at this episode, particularly the rape. Claire was raped, that's clear. She killed the renegade Red Coat, that's clear. Why she was angry and sullen with Jamie, is not clear. Unless, Maybe it was at this point that Claire decided that being wife to a clansman in the 18th century isn't all that it's cracked up to be even if he is hotter than the sun. Maybe now, Frank is starting to look more attractive and she misses things like toilet paper, afternoon tea with lemon and modern medicine. Oh hell, it would be a difficult decision for me but I think between Jamie and toilet paper and modern conveniences, I'd take the latter.  Looks fade, sex and passion wanes, but good old toilet paper (and Frank) will always be there in 1945.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 

Maybe now, Frank is starting to look more attractive and she misses things like toilet paper, afternoon tea with lemon and modern medicine.

Feminine hygiene products.  That's all I have to say.  

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

Why she was angry and sullen with Jamie, is not clear. Unless, Maybe it was at this point that Claire decided that being wife to a clansman in the 18th century isn't all that it's cracked up to be even if he is hotter than the sun.

 

I don't think she's mad at him, but this new Highlander world suddenly got very real for her. Not to mention, 'oh shit, what am I going to do after Culloden, if I'm still here?'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have to admit being a little bit confused at this episode, particularly the rape. Claire was raped, that's clear. She killed the renegade Red Coat, that's clear. Why she was angry and sullen with Jamie, is not clear. Unless, Maybe it was at this point that Claire decided that being wife to a clansman in the 18th century isn't all that it's cracked up to be even if he is hotter than the sun. Maybe now, Frank is starting to look more attractive and she misses things like toilet paper, afternoon tea with lemon and modern medicine. Oh hell, it would be a difficult decision for me but I think between Jamie and toilet paper and modern conveniences, I'd take the latter.  Looks fade, sex and passion wanes, but good old toilet paper (and Frank) will always be there in 1945.

Claire wasn't raped. Failed attempt. She needed him to be very close to the actual act so she had a better chance at killing him. Distraction and all. If she had attempted anything too soon he would have overcome her and the other guy would have shot Jamie. But she wasn't actually raped.

Anger is a normal reaction in the aftermath of a traumatic experience. Usually the anger is turned on the one we love the most, feel the safest with because on a subconscious level we know they will forgive us of our anger/actions. In this case that would be Jamie. Plus, she felt Jamie let her down/failed her. Also a normal response in a traumatic situation. If they had more time they probably would have talked through it but they didn't have that time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

There's something about this series that has disturbed me from day one. It's Claire's verbal narration of the events. Now, if there was no narration by her at all, I would have some doubts as to the outcome of it all. For me, the narration says that this woman (if it were a true story) wrote her story and had it published as a novel. This wouldn't be possible in 18th century Scotland so the ending sort of jumps out at me despite all the 'will she or won't she' scenarios.

Claire wasn't raped. Failed attempt. She needed him to be very close to the actual act so she had a better chance at killing him. Distraction and all. If she had attempted anything too soon he would have overcome her and the other guy would have shot Jamie. But she wasn't actually raped.

Anger is a normal reaction in the aftermath of a traumatic experience. Usually the anger is turned on the one we love the most, feel the safest with because on a subconscious level we know they will forgive us of our anger/actions. In this case that would be Jamie. Plus, she felt Jamie let her down/failed her. Also a normal response in a traumatic situation. If they had more time they probably would have talked through it but they didn't have that time.

How did Jamie let her down? I don't understand this at all. He slit the throat of the renegade red coat because he was going to kill both of them. He laid his life on the line for her. Then in her narrative (again) she says she was angry and didn't know why but it was a "pivotal point in her life". Suddenly she's treating Jamie with contempt, but isn't Jamie the man that she was she was enamored with just minutes before their ambush? This is a woman that's seen a lot of war wounds, tons of blood and twisted flesh. Was the trauma caused to her because she took a life in self defense? This woman's thinking just isn't adding up for me.

Share this post


Link to post

How did Jamie let her down? I don't understand this at all. He slit the throat of the renegade red coat because he was going to kill both of them. He laid his life on the line for her. Then in her narrative (again) she says she was angry and didn't know why but it was a "pivotal point in her life". Suddenly she's treating Jamie with contempt, but isn't Jamie the man that she was she was enamored with just minutes before their ambush? This is a woman that's seen a lot of war wounds, tons of blood and twisted flesh. Was the trauma caused to her because she took a life in self defense? This woman's thinking just isn't adding up for me.

Here's the thinking.  Jamie promised her the protection of his body (plus his clan, etc.) However, at the very first threat to her, he was first careless (not paying attention/pulling her away from the safety of the group to satisfy his sexual desires) and then helpless.  If she hadn't first killed one deserter, he would have not been able to kill the other one. The fact that she wasn't raped was due to her own ability to fight, not his. 

 

Claire isn't really angry with him, but in her distress over almost being raped and having to kill a man for the first time, she lashes out at the nearest person.  Pretty normal reaction. 

Edited by nara
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

How did Jamie let her down? I don't understand this at all. He slit the throat of the renegade red coat because he was going to kill both of them. He laid his life on the line for her. Then in her narrative (again) she says she was angry and didn't know why but it was a "pivotal point in her life". Suddenly she's treating Jamie with contempt, but isn't Jamie the man that she was she was enamored with just minutes before their ambush? This is a woman that's seen a lot of war wounds, tons of blood and twisted flesh. Was the trauma caused to her because she took a life in self defense? This woman's thinking just isn't adding up for me.

people who experience trauma don't always make sense right after it. Normal reactions include shock, anger, fear, blame etc. some people cry uncontrollably while others can laugh uncontrollably and appear to go insane. Some withdraw and others lash out. Maybe it was the physical assault (she wasn't raped but still assaulted) or the actual taking of a life (which I think was worse to her) or probably a combination of both, she was traumatized. And Whether it's accurate or not, Jamie promised to protect her and at that moment Claire, shocked, hurt, angry felt let down by him. It's normal. Usually with enough time and support the traumatized person comes to their senses and sees how things are more clearly. But it had only been moments/hours afterwards and she was in the lashing out stage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Slightly off-topic, but I'm really hoping they get back to Leoch soon (in the new episodes).  I want to see everyone's (especially Mrs. Fitz) reactions to the marriage of Claire and Jamie and somehow I think that Christmas at Leoch might be fun.  We need some happy (non-sex) moments.  Even the wedding scene was not really happy and this episode was depressing too.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Slightly off-topic, but I'm really hoping they get back to Leoch soon (in the new episodes).  I want to see everyone's (especially Mrs. Fitz) reactions to the marriage of Claire and Jamie and somehow I think that Christmas at Leoch might be fun.  We need some happy (non-sex) moments.  Even the wedding scene was not really happy and this episode was depressing too.

I agree! I want to see more interactions!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

However, I can't NOT see BJR's face when Frank is present -  don't know how Claire could resume a life with Frank, while seeing BJR's face. Kind of like in the early eps, when she saw Frank in BJR, and kept trying to find the good in him.  I think even if they showed Frank with puppies and rainbows, I would still be thinking, "Creepy!"

This. Even the sight of Frank makes my skin crawl now, I don't know what effect that would have on Claire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Way too much Frank. They barely spent any time developing more of Claire and Jamie's relationship.

Overall for me, it was just alright. Kind of a let down after the Wedding.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I want to see Laogheire's reaction to Jamie's marriage which ought to be interesting. Also I miss Geillis. 

 

If I was Claire I would really miss antibiotics and shampoo.

 

Edited to add that I fell into immediate like with the Hugh Monroe character. When Claire kissed him on the cheek I was like you go girl.

 

It's so interesting to read the thread with all the insightful posts. It really adds to my show viewing pleasure.

Edited by magdalene
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Let's move all the book talk or references to them off of the episode topics for now. Discuss only what you have seen in the episodes so far and please no more hinting. 

 

I apologize because I was not here this weekend to deal with this. For the next half of the season, I am going to find another solution for the book/non-book people. Originally, I did not anticipate this forum being so popular. I am glad the show is doing well, but this means I may revise the books/spoilers policy for April. 

 

Thank you.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I don't blame Claire for wanting to get back home, since she's been almost raped 80 times since arriving in the 18th century. 

 

I liked seeing Frank and what he's going through and it was also nice to know that time is moving at the same speed because I was wondering about that. I guess we were supposed to see a little bit of BJR in Frank when he continued to beat the scammer after he was down. 

 

I see Claire's drinking problem and foot in mouth disease is still going strong. So from Mrs. Graham's story, the stones don't just work all the time, it's at certain dates and for certain people? Is that what she meant? So even if Claire managed to touch the stones she might not have gone back to the 1940's?

 

April 4th is a long time to wait, I don't know if should finish reading the book or wait and be surprised. Such a dilemma. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
So from Mrs. Graham's story, the stones don't just work all the time, it's at certain dates and for certain people? Is that what she meant? So even if Claire managed to touch the stones she might not have gone back to the 1940's?

 

In the song from earlier in the season, they sang that the traveler was taken to a faraway land and then returned home. I think the point of what Mrs. Graham was saying was that it wouldn't work for Frank; i.e., the show was telling us that Frank's not going back in time. 

 

For Claire, maybe it works only on certain days, but it would seem she is one of the people for whom the stones would work. I'm guessing that the show isn't about this, but since this legend has survived for so long, I hope there's a little more sprinkled in here and there. 

Share this post


Link to post

So...yeah. Think there is anyway I can find my own time traveling stones, and just skip ahead to April 4th? Anyone up for a quick jaunt to Scotland? Anyone?

 

I will have more to say later, but for now, I just loved this episode (as hard as some of it was to watch) and I have loved all of this show so far. If my time travel plan doesn't work out, I might have to crack and read the books!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The "Duke of Sandringham" -- each time I hear the name, it drives me crazy.. Sandringham isn't in Scotland, Balmoral is. I don't get why a duke with his seat in Norfolk would be all up in Scottish politics. If the Duke has Scottish lands/titles, then he'd typically be known by them in Scotland (i.e., the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, the Duke of Cambridge is the Earl of Strathearn, etc.)

But Claire and BJR are both English, so maybe it's not such a reach to have them refer to the Duke by his English title.

Share this post


Link to post

The "Duke of Sandringham" -- each time I hear the name, it drives me crazy.. Sandringham isn't in Scotland, Balmoral is. I don't get why a duke with his seat in Norfolk would be all up in Scottish politics. If the Duke has Scottish lands/titles, then he'd typically be known by them in Scotland (i.e., the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, the Duke of Cambridge is the Earl of Strathearn, etc.)

 

 

But Claire and BJR are both English, so maybe it's not such a reach to have them refer to the Duke by his English title.

 

During the Scottish independence campaign, when William and Kate announced they were expecting again, Scotland's First Minister congratulated them using their Scottish titles. The commentators over there accused him of playing politics because they are rarely referred to that way, but as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Admittedly, things might have been different back then, but it would be natural for two English people to default to the English reference first, I would think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
 Why she was angry and sullen with Jamie, is not clear.

I think the answers are in Claire's voice-over. At one point she says understands now why she's angry at Jamie. Basically she's mostly angry at herself for getting caught up in this romance and forgetting her end game, and redirecting anger is a thing people do. Just after the attack, she talks about struggling to keep repressed feelings in check. What happened was a shock, it brought her back to the reality of her situation.

Share this post


Link to post

I rewatched the episode and something wasn't clear to me.  Where were Dougal, Jamie, Claire and the others going on that trip?   It was a kind of leisurely trip, plenty of time to stop for a mountain top picnic (and to meet an old tongueless friend) and for a bit of boinking on the other side of a hill.   Where were they supposed to be going and why all the lollygagging along the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Where were they supposed to be going and why all the lollygagging along the way?

They're still collecting rent, I believe. Although, they're taking a detour, I guess, to meet up with Horrocks. It's just like the episode Rent when they were camping by the road in between towns, but now that Claire is one of them, she gets to play along with their lollygagging rather than sulking in the corner.

Edited by absnow54
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

They were still on the tour of the MacKenzie lands that began several episodes ago to collect rent.  

 

April 4???  Are you kidding me???  That is a looooong time to have in our heads the last image of Claire bent over the table with her stuff hanging out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, that rent collecting trip has taken some serious detours, hasn't it?   You all are right, still being on the rent trip explains the comment after the horse theft that they didn't get the money.

Share this post


Link to post

 

That is a looooong time to have in our heads the last image of Claire bent over the table with her stuff hanging out.

I had no problem with the nudity in ep 7 "The Wedding". I liked it in fact. But when a woman's clothes are almost torn off without consent,  well that's not something I wanna see the camera linger on.  Did we need honestly need to see Jenny's breasts that time either?

 

I don't want to see any rape in detail on a regular basis in a show I watch for entertainment (even if it may happen in real life). It often puts me off 'Game of Thrones' - especially in season 4 - and the badly done campus rape storyline was one of the reasons I stopped watching Veronica Mars in season 3.

 

 It can be traumatic to watch and the emotional aftermath is often more powerful than the naked bits anyway. 

 

Just a personal preference I guess. I don't think it does my mind any good to see it.  Needless to say, I'm not a fan of Law and Order: SVU either and find it mind-boggling that that's the only series in the franchise still on air.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I watched it again.

I did catch the Errol Flynn reference this time so I guess that's why I had "swashbuckling" in my mind. I still thought Claire and Frank yelling was cheezy but the scenes were shot really well cinematography-wise.

The episode did do a good job of showing how dangerous the times are there. The 3 instances while Claire is with Jamie, Hugh Munro's arrow-benign, the raiders- midlevel threat, then desserters-very dangerous, escalate showing how they are all living with constant threats to their lives. Likewise this is the third time Claire was interrogated by BJR, the stakes are higher.

I still found the tonality to the episode different, almost campy in some parts.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the thinking. Jamie promised her the protection of his body (plus his clan, etc.) However, at the very first threat to her, he was first careless (not paying attention/pulling her away from the safety of the group to satisfy his sexual desires) and then helpless

To be fair to Jamie, they were BOTH satisfying THEIR sexual desires. Claire has been established as a sexual being, not just some passive partner who has to close her eyes and think of England while fulfilling her wifely duties. She was fully enjoying herself and glad to have snuck away with Jamie, up until she wasn't.

I get the idea that she's a basket full of raw emotions after what I perceive was a rape, albeit a perfunctory one (sorry, show, I'm going to go by what is shown, not what people say in interviews). And I do understand that those we're closest to may bear the brunt of our emotional upheaval at times. What I don't get is how or why, after what Jamie clearly thought was a traumatic rape, he's just leaving her. It's just too disjointed, and there was enough going on in the "honeymoon" period that all the cuts to Frank were a disservice to developing all that was happening with Claire and Jamie.

Edited by annlaw78
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
What I don't get is how or why, after what Jamie clearly thought was a traumatic rape, he's just leaving her. It's just too disjointed, and there was enough going on in the "honeymoon" period that all the cuts to Frank were a disservice to developing all that was happening with Claire and Jamie.

At this point, I think Jamie's back story isn't fleshed out enough to convey the urgency of why he would leave her in this situation. Yes, he's an outlaw, he tells us this every episode, but it seems like such an empty threat at this point. Why does he so desperately want this price lifted from his head when nobody seems to be looking for him? They've touted through towns where people didn't have enough money to pay their rent and had to give up their only source of food to get by, yet NO ONE was tempted to collect the ransom money from the outlaw who was being paraded about? I know it's almost certain death to go against the War Chieften of the clan, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and that would have been an easy way to show that Jamie's freedom was threatened. Even having one of the deserters recognize him would have tied to the danger he was in and given motivation to clear his name right.now.

 

I think they've laid the groundwork, we know Jamie is loyal to the Frasers and his home because he wouldn't take the MacKenzie oath and he refused to wear anything but Fraser colors at his wedding, and we know he wants to settle down and be a family with Claire at Lallybroch, but I think they could have spent more time with Jamie and Claire developing that rather than all of Frank's adventures. Jamie and Claire have two options right now, stay with the MacKenzie's where they will be "protected" or secure Jamie's freedom and get out from under Dougal's thumb (which, by the way, why is Dougal even helping Jamie with this Horrocks thing when he's got Jamie and Claire comfortably in his pocket, and obviously wouldn't want Claire running off to Lallybroch when he's still trying to seduce her...) I think they could have made that all more clear to justify why Jamie would leave Claire alone after the trauma. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The "Duke of Sandringham" -- each time I hear the name, it drives me crazy.. Sandringham isn't in Scotland, Balmoral is. I don't get why a duke with his seat in Norfolk would be all up in Scottish politics. If the Duke has Scottish lands/titles, then he'd typically be known by them in Scotland (i.e., the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, the Duke of Cambridge is the Earl of Strathearn, etc.)

 

Do we know if the Duke has any Scottish titles?

 

Even if the Duke doesn't, I don't think it's surprising that the Duke has a protege in the British army.  He might well have more than one, in different parts of the world as well as in the Navy as well.

 

Also, Scotland doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Britain and France are at war, along with numerous other European powers in what was called the War of the Austrian succession.  France can use a rebellion in Scotland to open another front against the war with Britain, and use the Stuarts to get additional support for that rebellion, possibly including additional support in England as well.  Under those circumstances, I don't think it's odd that the Duke is interested in what's going on in Scotland.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

There were some English that didn't support the Hanover crown.  It's not necessarily that they wanted a Stuart crown either, but they didn't want the Hanovers to be involved in England.  That's why it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that Sandringham was playing both sides.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair to Jamie, they were BOTH satisfying THEIR sexual desires. Claire has been established as a sexual being, not just some passive partner who has to close her eyes and think of England while fulfilling her wifely duties. She was fully enjoying herself and glad to have snuck away with Jamie, up until she wasn't.

I get the idea that she's a basket full of raw emotions after what I perceive was a rape, albeit a perfunctory one (sorry, show, I'm going to go by what is shown, not what people say in interviews). And I do understand that those we're closest to may bear the brunt of our emotional upheaval at times. What I don't get is how or why, after what Jamie clearly thought was a traumatic rape, he's just leaving her. It's just too disjointed, and there was enough going on in the "honeymoon" period that all the cuts to Frank were a disservice to developing all that was happening with Claire and Jamie.

 

Claire was definitely an active participant, but Jamie is the one more knowledgeable about the danger around them.  Personally, I don't blame Jamie for what happened, but I can see how he would blame himself and even why Claire would be (temporarily) upset with him.

 

At this point, I think Jamie's back story isn't fleshed out enough to convey the urgency of why he would leave her in this situation. Yes, he's an outlaw, he tells us this every episode, but it seems like such an empty threat at this point. Why does he so desperately want this price lifted from his head when nobody seems to be looking for him? They've touted through towns where people didn't have enough money to pay their rent and had to give up their only source of food to get by, yet NO ONE was tempted to collect the ransom money from the outlaw who was being paraded about? I know it's almost certain death to go against the War Chieften of the clan, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and that would have been an easy way to show that Jamie's freedom was threatened. Even having one of the deserters recognize him would have tied to the danger he was in and given motivation to clear his name right.now.

 

I think they've laid the groundwork, we know Jamie is loyal to the Frasers and his home because he wouldn't take the MacKenzie oath and he refused to wear anything but Fraser colors at his wedding, and we know he wants to settle down and be a family with Claire at Lallybroch, but I think they could have spent more time with Jamie and Claire developing that rather than all of Frank's adventures. Jamie and Claire have two options right now, stay with the MacKenzie's where they will be "protected" or secure Jamie's freedom and get out from under Dougal's thumb (which, by the way, why is Dougal even helping Jamie with this Horrocks thing when he's got Jamie and Claire comfortably in his pocket, and obviously wouldn't want Claire running off to Lallybroch when he's still trying to seduce her...) I think they could have made that all more clear to justify why Jamie would leave Claire alone after the trauma. 

I agree that it was strange that Jamie would leave her alone.  In his position, I would have her right by my side every second--even when she needed to go to the bathroom.  Or, in a pinch, I would leave the more experienced Murtagh to protect her, rather than young Willie.  This is particularly true since she knows she had a tendency to run (e.g., during Sassenach and the Gathering) and is in a terrible state of mind.  He would want someone wiser left with her.  I assumed it was just a plot device to give her an opportunity to run, and accepted it for that. 

 

However, 1) Maybe Jamie doesn't think she wants to be around him right now so he sees this as a way to give her some space, 2) the threat really  is so much in the town that she is really safer in the woods.  I agree that we don't have enough info about the threat to him yet, and 3) the redcoats generally travel in big enough groups that Claire and Willie can easily hide from them.  It isn't as though there are a LOT of deserters wandering around.

 

Regarding Dougal's motivations, I do think he's fond of Jamie (as evidenced by their hug), even if he sees him as a rival, and wants him to be safe and happy.  Having Jamie back in Lallybroch would also serve Dougal's political purposes by keeping Jamie away from the seat of power and pushing him back into the Fraser camp.  Also, now that he's seen Claire and Jamie together, I don't think he's planning to hit on Claire again. However, if she and Jamie are so torn apart by the events in this episode that he thinks she might be willing, he might give it a casual try. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I was distracted by the sign for Craigh Na Dun right as Frank turned the car.  5 Miles with an arrow pointing to the side?  Wouldn't Scotland's signage be in km ?

 

When BJR saw Jamie in the window, the look on his face was weird.  A parody of joy or something.  Like a caricature vs. trying to actually play someone surprised.

 

I am a bookreader and I watch with a non-reader, to where it is all fresh for them.  We were both let down by the episode, albeit in different ways.  I thought that was interesting.  My non-bookreader counterpart doesn't seem to care if it comes back.  I've been told to remind them and they will see if it fits into the tv watching schedule at that time.

 

Honestly, I'm definitely getting a True Blood "inspired by" sensation of the way the showrunners are taking this series, where they started off close to the books and then headed their own direction.  If it swings way, way offcourse from the books like TB did, I don't think I'll be able to stick it out. 

Share this post


Link to post

I was distracted by the sign for Craigh Na Dun right as Frank turned the car.  5 Miles with an arrow pointing to the side?  Wouldn't Scotland's signage be in km ?

 

From the wikipedia article on Metrication in the United Kingdom:

 

Adopting the metric system was discussed in the Parliament as early as 1818 and some industries and even some government agencies had metricated, or were in the process of metricating by the mid 1960s. However, a formal government policy to support metrication was not agreed until 1965. This policy, initiated in response to requests from industry, was to support voluntary metrication, with costs picked up where they fell. In 1969 the government created the Metrication Board as a Quango to promote and coordinate metrication. In 1978, after some carpet retailers reverted to pricing by the square yard rather than the square metre, government policy shifted, and they started issuing orders making metrication mandatory in certain sectors. In 1980 government policy shifted again to prefer voluntary metrication, and the Metrication Board was abolished. By the time the Metrication Board was wound up, all the economic sectors that fell within its remit except road signage and parts of the retail trade sector had metricated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

They're much further along with it than we are, but it was a gradual process evidently.

Share this post


Link to post

I was distracted by the sign for Craigh Na Dun right as Frank turned the car.  5 Miles with an arrow pointing to the side?  Wouldn't Scotland's signage be in km ?

 

In 1945?  Not necessarily.

 

I don't think the UK went metric until well after WWII.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was distracted by the sign for Craigh Na Dun right as Frank turned the car.  5 Miles with an arrow pointing to the side?  Wouldn't Scotland's signage be in km ?

 

The United Kingdom still uses the imperial system for road signs and they didn't really start using the metric system for much at all until the 1960s. Using km would have been a huge anachronism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh Wow! I loved it! I was sure Claire was going to make it through the stones back to the 20th century! In fact, since I have no clue the premise of this time travel show ---I was thinking she would be one of those "special" people the house keeper was talking about who can travel through the stones when she wants. Kind of back and forth.

 

I was really feeling bad for Frank. He has no clue what happened but the police are trying to convince him that Claire ran off with some dude. In a way she did ---but not the way he thinks. That scene at the stones was way cool! Both of them calling to one another from across the ages. I REALLY was rooting for Claire to make it through the stones! (I had some sort of vision that she would go back to Frank and then decide she really loved that Jamie dude so go back---- then come back to the 20th century when she realized how un-woman friendly the 18th century really is!) but I digress....

 

Poor Claire! the 18th century really is NOT friendly to woman! raped twice in one day! (ALMOST ANYWAY) That is harsh! She needs to get the eff out of dodge!

 

Which brings me to my only point of contention with the epic love story of this show. So We have Claire ---a 20th century woman who somehow -- someway --travels back in time. Fine.  She is forced into an arranged marriage with a man from the 18th century. Fine. They are obviously hitting it off and falling in love. But it's wrong. She is wrong.  She is out of time/ out of place. She doesn't belong.  So any kind of love / relationship founded in the 18th century is based on a lie. No matter how epic it is supposed to be it is still wrong. Out of place. Out of sync. Against nature. Wrong.

 

Anyway. The show resumes in April 2015. Nice to know.

Share this post


Link to post

 

NO ONE was tempted to collect the ransom money from the outlaw who was being paraded about?

 

I don't think Jamie was exactly going about the countryside introducing himself as James Alexander Malcolm Mackenzie Fraser, wanted by the British Crown for a sum of X pounds. To those villagers, he was just Jamie, ally of the Mackenzie clan.

 

Not really a spoiler but just in case:

In the book, it's more explicit that Jamie is both going by a false name and hides from the British if they're out and about.

Share this post


Link to post
They are obviously hitting it off and falling in love. But it's wrong. She is wrong.  She is out of time/ out of place. She doesn't belong.  So any kind of love / relationship founded in the 18th century is based on a lie. No matter how epic it is supposed to be it is still wrong. Out of place. Out of sync. Against nature. Wrong.

 

 

But what if her destiny, all along, was to go back in time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

But what if her destiny, all along, was to go back in time.

 

Seeing how it's the premise of the book --- it is something the audience is supposed to accept.. I get that. But what I see is that Jamie is in love with THE IDEA of Claire --- not Claire herself. I say this because he doesn't know a thing about her. He doesn't even know her real name.

 

And for Claire? She is in the wrong place. The wrong time. Any relationships established  in that time and place are based on lies.

 

Quick edit because I kept thinking about this last night while I watched: Claire should send a message to her  (or Frank's) future self. Like a letter or a carving or something to let him know what happened. She knows that she and Frank will be staying at so and so Inn  right before she disappears through the stones -- at some point during her time in the 18th century ---she could warn her future self of what was going to happen. Or at least a letter to Frank from the past.

Edited by taanja
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size