S01.E09: The Reckoning

[Athena]

If you have seen the episode at Paleyfest, you are allowed to discuss it here. Spoilers for the episode below.

 

Synopsis:
 

Jamie and the Highlanders rescue Claire from Black Jack Randall.

 

Reminder: This is for discussion of the TV show only, no book talk allowed - including saying "but it's different in the books". Any spoiler from outside the books (i.e. next week's preview) should be in spoiler tags. Book Talk folks, there is another episode topic for you.

[WatchrTina]

Hey, why is it so quiet in here?  Are there really no "unsullied" viewers on these boards?  Well, I'm putting my comments here because I really want to hear what the TV-only crowd is thinking.  So here are myTV-only, no book talk thoughts on the episode.

 

THE GOOD

Horrocks has dreamy eyes and a great accent.  If that's the last we've seen of him, that is too bad.

 

Loved Rupert's line about not judging Horrocks for deserting the British army.  "We commend ye for it."

 

Jamie kilting up.  Yay!  I wrote to TPTB long ago saying they need to include a scene that shows how to put on a great kilt.  That they used Jamie for the demo is just a bonus.  Jamie's thighs.  Sigh.

 

Laughed when Murtagh coos "Thaannk youuu" to the red coat before knocking him out.

 

Laughed again when the red coat starts to come around just in time for Rupert to whack him again.

 

Thigh-sighting #2 as Jamie goes down the wall.  Sigh.

 

The look on Jamie's face when the gun fails to go off was wonderful.  The very short fight that followed was SO satisfying.  I whooped like Mrs. Fitz, all alone in my apartment.

 

Loved, loved, loved how Bear McCreary re-orchestrated the Claire & Jamie theme for strings for the jump in the water (it's been played on tin-whistle in the past.)  

 

Awwww.  Jamie admitted he has fallen in love with Claire.  Not a surprise -- it was pretty clear from the way he looked at her beginning back in episode one -- but it's nice to hear it confirmed.

 

The spanking scene.  I know it's controversial but I thought it was handled very well.  I thought they successfully portrayed why Jamie felt he had to do it and I cheered unabashedly for Claire when she kicks the hell out of him.  The reaction shots from downstairs were pretty funny too, which helped lighten a tense moment.

 

Yay Mrs. Fitz for orchestrating a grand welcome for the happy couple.  Too bad they are SO unhappy with each other.

 

Colum throwing shade --  "Now that I have all three of you weasels gathered together . . . "  

 

I liked Colum chastising Jamie for marrying a Sassenach and basically taking himself out of the running for Laird.  It explained the tension of Colum's greeting to the newlyweds (which confused me at first.)  I was never sure before where Colum stood on the possibility of Jamie succeeding him.  I still don't know if he has settled on Jamie as his choice but it seems clear that he wanted to keep that option open and he's well and truly pissed that Dougal outmaneuvered him on that point (as if he needed another reason to be pissed at Dougal.)

 

Claire & Jamie's room.  Seriously, I need to know where that was filmed so I can book a vacation there.  SO romantic.  Which makes Claire's "think again" line all the more cutting.

 

Murtagh spitting speaks volumes.

 

Jamie giving Colum advice -- well that's new.  We would never have seen it before of course (since all the previous episodes are from Claire's point of view) but I didn't get the vibe that those two were close enough for Jamie to give un-asked-for advice to Colum.  Maybe this is the first time?  Or maybe they are closer than we have realized before and Dougal was right to view Jamie as a rival.

 

I really liked the fact that Claire did NOT immediately buy Jamie's "vow" speech.  That would not have rung true.  The regret and hurt in his voice and face when he realizes it has not worked and he asks "Do you wish to live separately" is just wonderful.  And so was the revelation that the ring was made of the key to Lallybroch, which may now be forever beyond Jamie's grasp but it's okay because Claire is his home now.  Sigh.

 

The sex scene was great and I LOVED Claire interrupting it to make it perfectly clear (via the dagger) that he damn sure better keep his promise not to "raise his hand in rebellion" to her again.  Wanna bet this is the first time Jamie has experienced "cowgirl" style?

 

Loved, loved, loved their post-coital pillow-talk.  When his says "You called me a fucking bastard" he mimics her English accent.  So cute.  And it's impressive that he's still thinking about her words several days after hearing them for the first time.

 

Jamie's arse.  Sigh

 

THE BAD

Did one of the red coats say "Turn on the alarm?"  That seemed anachronistic as did the bell that began ringing.  It sounded mechanical. 

 

Is it realistic that Willie could get his hands on the Jacobite gold?  Seems like Ned would be keeping watch over that since it rode in his saddle bags.

 

Jamies says he'll "pay the price" if Colum & Dougal continue fighting.  Why?  I didn't get that.  The only thing I can figure is that Castle Leoch is one of the few safe places for Jamie right now but it's not safe if the clan is undergoing a civil war.

 

I understand the notion that Jamie was not welcome in Claire's bed at the beginning of the episode (see the "think again" line above) but he does seem to be staying in the same room (it would be a public humiliation if Claire made him sleep elsewhere) so her reaction to him undressing in "their" room didn't make sense to me.

 

That whole scene with Rupert and Angus beating up Willie was problematic.  Jamie defends Willie saying to Angus wouldn't you obey a direct order from Colum to which Angus replies "Not after what he did to Dougal."  What did Colum do to Dougal?  I didn't get that.  Also didn't quite get the big tense moment where Dougal says (ostensibly about stag hunting but really about choosing sides) "Who's with me." and no one answers -- not even Rupert and Angus though they sort of leer at the silent Willie, Jamie & Murtagh.  I think I know what they were trying to do in that scene but I don't think it was completely successful.

 

THE UGLY

Black Jack asking if Jamie would show him his back.  Sick MoFo

 

Dougal rubbing it in Colum's face that he (Dougal) had had to assure Colum's blood-line.  Damn Dougal, that was cold. 

 

Dougal, when a man gives you a bag of gold you don't open it and look in it like you're counting it.  Verra tacky.

 

I can't believe I'm going to say this but . . . poor Laoghaire.  I don't like her and she has no one to blame but herself but that was some epic-level humiliation she experienced by the river.  I also have to admit that when she and Jamie were almost kissing I shouted at the TV (in my best Mrs. Fitz voice) "Jamie!"

 

Aaaand I'm over feeling bad for Laoghaire because she put that "ill-wish" under their bed.  What a buzz-kill to a nice post-coital scene.

 

ONE LAST COMMENT

<insert sad voice>  Where was Waldo?

Edited April 8, 2015 by WatchrTina

[WaltersHair]

just watching now. IT'S BACK!

[absnow54]

While I liked the episode, I wasn't thrilled by the switch in POV. It was interesting to get more into Jamie's POV, but without Claire, there was no one to interpret the thick Scottish accents, and I was completely lost during all the political plotting -- I'll have to watch again with subtitles. Why was everyone fighting in the CGI snow? I was so confused!

 

Otherwise, it was a lot of fun! The rescue scene was brilliantly choreographed. Kudos!

[jordanpond]

There were so many things about that beating scene that bothered me that I can't even articulate them all. Where to even begin? The complete switch from Jamie being someone who broke rules to spare physical punishment for others to someone who embraces it long enough to beat his wife, and then has a convenient change of heart by the end of the episode; the fact that he told her he enjoyed beating her; the completely gratuitous shots of Clare's backside; her public humiliation as the men below knew what was happening and joked about it, the fact that she was punished for putting the men at risk yet these very men have been holding her against her will since she arrived...

I'm a non book reader who stumbled on this show by accident and had thought it was a real gem. But that scene completely turned me off of the show. So this independent woman was humiliated and punished like a naughty child and I guess she will fall in love with her beater? I have no interest in staying around to see that happen.

[nara]

WatchrTina, I think a lot of folks who were previousl Show-only have read the book(s) during the drought.  There seem to me a lot more comments in the Book Spoiler thread now than last fall.

 

What a fun episode!

I loved that the scene of Jamie throwing stones at the beginning ended up being the one with Laoghaire.  I actually liked the Jamie POV, especially since it helped with a number of scenes in this episode, but I think I prefer Claire's POV in general.

But why can't Jamie put his kilt on standing up?  It seems like if you had to get dressed quickly, lying down to do so would be impractical!

 

Jamie/Claire/Blackjack -- well played by all of them.  I could have done without the prolonged view of Claire's breasts, though.  I yelled out, "Jamie, distract him by offering to show him your scars!"  I think that might have actually worked.  Loved the plunge into the water--looked and sounded fantastic.

 

The fight between Claire and Jamie was sad, but well done.  For a second, it looked like Jamie was going to collapse from a heart attack.  One thing that's strange is that I believe we've never seen any sign of Jamie being all that traditional with gender roles, so it was odd to see it in the first fight and the later punishment scene.

 

The punishment scene was awesome and hilarious.  I laughed the whole time, especially at the comments from the peanut gallery.  Claire certainly got a few good shots in herself, especially that kick!  The humor of it all kept it from being misogynistic, as it easily could have been.  I wonder if they laughed their heads off filming it.

 

Man, what an awkward entrance into Leoch, though I'm glad to be back there.  Mrs. Fitz was delighted, as expected (and I think all of us need someone like her cheering us on), but Claire and Jamie were clearly at odds and Collum didn't even try to hide his anger.

 

Jamie and Laoghaire:  I know that he was trying to be kind, but I felt like he was leading her on.  It reminded me so much of Gone With the Wind's Ashley Wilkes-- Scarlett O'Hara--Melanie Hamilton triangle.  Instead of just telling Scarlett that he was in love with his wife, Ashley acted like he was with her out of duty and loyalty.  Scarlett took this to mean that he was really in love with her and was just with his wife out of duty.  If he had just told Scarlett he wasn't interested in her, however harsh that seems, it would have saved Scarlett time and heartache.  Jamie did the same thing IMHO and let Laoghaire think his marriage was purely a business arrangement/gallantry.  No wonder she thought he would still have sex with her.  I cannot believe he let it get as far as it did in this episode.  I mean, he should have immediately pushed her away when she tried to seduce him.  He held her hand and then her breast for far too long.  Even when he left her, it was about a vow, not about his love for his wife (though in the very next scene it was obvious that Jamie and Claire have a very passionate relationship). However, I did LOL that her father was right when he accused her of being loose at the Hall in Castle Leoch episode.

 

Collum and Dougal:  The tension between the brothers is great and I think the political story emphasis will help this show be more than a romance.  It was obvious that they were at odds over Jamie (in Castle Leoch, Collum is clearly annoyed that Dougal consigned Jamie to the stables) but I had not realized that Collum saw Jamie as a potential successor.  I wonder if he agreed to Dougal ensuring his bloodline by fathering Hamish or if Dougal made that decision on his own.  I want to see more about this relationship and the politics.  I hope we eventually get to see if this clan fights at Culloden.

 

Glad they didn't end the episode with Jamie and Claire still at odds.  I also liked the explanation of the key-ring--very sweet and romantic, and it showed how long he had been thinking of sharing everything in life with her.  Great sex scene at the end, but I couldn't help but wonder if her butt hurt when she was bouncing up an down like that!  Also, ending wth the creepy ill-wish was perfect.  Laoghaire will continue to be up to no good--yay!

[WatchrTina]

 

I yelled out, "Jamie, distract him by offering to show him your scars!"  I think that might have actually worked.

Okay that made me laugh.

[HunterHunted]

I loved the POV switch. While Claire is the heroine and protagonist, she's a stubborn mule headed jackass. We needed to not be in Claire's head just to get some perspective on how much danger she puts herself in by not reading cues and approaching her situation with more care. His POV was also really helpful to dig into the political jockeying that we never could have uncovered with just focusing on Claire's POV.

[Glade]

I also really enjoyed the change in POV to Jamie, it helped to really understand his life better.  I was prepared to fast-forward through the belting scene, though I was glad it was very short and not much to ff past at all.  Really though, compared to what was done to Jamie's back and the 11 year old boy who had his ear nailed to the post...this is certainly not more offensive.  It makes sense that in such a brutal world, virtually everyone (other then the most elite) was subject to that sort of corporal punishment.  It's actually pretty damn amazing that Jamie, a survivor of terrible bodily trauma, was able to grow and change in this way.  Hopefully Claire would also decide not to slap his face again during verbal arguments, but just stick with words for words. 

[helent]

I understand the notion that Jamie was not welcome in Claire's bed at the beginning of the episode (see the "think again" line above) but he does seem to be staying in the same room (it would be a public humiliation if Claire made him sleep elsewhere) so her reaction to him undressing in "their" room didn't make sense to me.

I pondered the same question during this scene. In the first season Jamie was sleeping in the stables, because of his fugitive status, but Clare of course is a guest of the Laird. So maybe officially he is still out with the horses (or possibly in the doghouse).

But why can't Jamie put his kilt on standing up?  It seems like if you had to get dressed quickly, lying down to do so would be impractical!

I broke my arm last year and had to do that in order to do up my jeans one-handed, so it made me laugh.

[Pestilentia]

 

But why can't Jamie put his kilt on standing up?  It seems like if you had to get dressed quickly, lying down to do so would be impractical!

 

You do realize that a kilt is simply one long enormous length of fabric?

Hop on over to Youtube and find yourself a video on how to put on a great kilt and all will be explained.

Here's a decent one- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA-um_4gulI

[nara]

You do realize that a kilt is simply one long enormous length of fabric?

Hop on over to Youtube and find yourself a video on how to put on a great kilt and all will be explained.

Here's a decent one-

Thanks. Will check it out. But Indian women put on 6 yards or 9 yard saris standing up so I'm skeptical. :)

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I seriously do not know how Claire can cope with being in a time where women were treated like property and expected to be quiet and obey (although I know that there are places in the world today where women are still treated that way). I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for her to live in a world where her husband thinks he can whip her with a belt for having the audacity to go for a walk. It makes me extra grateful that I live in the 21st century and that my husband would never consider laying a finger on me in anger or violence.

 

I know this may sound obvious, but the raid scene made me really appreciate the difference between how much technology has changed things. It's a lot harder to rescue someone without cell phones/walkie talkies, surveillance cameras, etc. Obviously it's still doable, but it's just striking to see the contrast between this kind of rescue mission versus, say, the kind of missions on Homeland or Person of Interest.

 

Dougal, when a man gives you a bag of gold you don't open it and look in it like you're counting it.  Verra tacky.

As Kenny Rogers very wisely said, you never count your money when you're sitting at the table!

 

Hey, why is it so quiet in here?  Are there really no "unsullied" viewers on these boards?

Hopefully there will be more posts/discussion here in the non-book thread later today. I am making myself wait until the end of S1 to read the first book so I am afraid to go into the book talk thread and be spoiled!

 

ITA that Jamie was painting an Ashley Wilkes-esque picture of duty instead of being honest and telling Laoghaire that although Dougal arranged the marriage quickly to protect Claire, he took his vow seriously once he married her. I know he eventually got around to mentioning he didn't want to be an oath breaker but only after his hand was on her boob. If he had told her all that in the first place, his hand might not have ended up there. I was afraid that she was going to run back to the castle and accuse him of rape or run straight to Black Jack to team up for revenge. Heh, now I'm definitely going to keep calling her Leghair out of spite.

[WatchrTina]

 

Did one of the red coats say "Turn on the alarm?"  That seemed anachronistic

I'm quoting myself above but upon subsequent viewing I think he actually said "sound the alarm" which makes more sense, but the closed-captioning guy got it wrong.  

 

He also got Laoghaire's line wrong when she says "Ye canna keep the Mackenzie waiting", captioning it as "You cannot keep A Mackenzie waiting". Her spoken line acknowledges the respect due to Colum (THE Mackenzie).  The captioned line actually makes her sound sarcastic or as if she is dissing her clan.

 

The same thing happened back in episode 5, Rent,  when Rupert says (of Claire) "I never heard the woman make a joke before" and the captioner heard "I never heard A woman make a joke before," which doesn't make sense and loses the significance of Claire's warming relationship with the group.

 

I usually watch with the captions on because of the accents but I think, from now on, the first viewing should not have them so that I can experience the episode in a purer form.

Edited April 5, 2015 by WatchrTina

[mledawn]

Pestilentia, thanks for that link - it explains so much.

[nara]

Hopefully there will be more posts/discussion here in the non-book thread later today. I am making myself wait until the end of S1 to read the first book so I am afraid to go into the book talk thread and be spoiled!

 

The book thread has spoilers for ALL the books, not just the first one, so I highly recommend you avoid it altogether. I thought it would just have spoilers for the book that matched the show season and ended up seeing things in the very first post that I didn't want to see. :( Something similar happened with Game of Thrones and it didn't hurt my enjoyment at all, so I'm hoping the same thing is true here...

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Thanks for letting me know, nara! I am the same way with GoT (I only read the book after the season airs so I only read the non-book threads) but I haven't ventured into any of the GoT book threads. I will stay nice and safe here in the non-book threads. To me, knowing what happens in the books before I see it on the show is like reading the last page of a book (a la Harry Burns) so I avoid it when possible.

Edited April 5, 2015 by ElectricBoogaloo

[absnow54]

I know that they had to film the episodes out of order, but my favorite part of the episode was the implication that, while on the road, Claire chopped off 5 inches of hair in anticipation of her triumphant return to Leoch. I'm guessing she had Murdoch cut it. He's the only one of the group I'd trust with such a task. 

[annlaw78]

There were so many things about that beating scene that bothered me that I can't even articulate them all. Where to even begin? The complete switch from Jamie being someone who broke rules to spare physical punishment for others to someone who embraces it long enough to beat his wife, and then has a convenient change of hearing t by the end of the episode; the fact that he told her he enjoyed beating her; the completely gratuitous shots of Clare's backside; her public humiliation as the men below knew what was happening and joked about it, the fact that she was punished for putting the men at risk yet these very men have been holding her against her will since she arrived...

I'm a non book reader who stumbled on this show by accident and had thought it was a real gem. But that scene completely turned me off of the show. So this independent woman was humiliated and punished like a naughty child and I guess she will fall in love with her beater? I have no interest in staying around to see that happen.

I agree. The lines about his enjoying it were especially tone deaf. I also query how prevalent it really was for men to corporally punish their wives like children back then. Perhaps it was more common with the lower classes.

I think nearly being raped and sliced up is "punishment" enough for her "disobedience," especially given that this was the second very near rape attempt (arguably, the scene with the deserters looked like actual rape -- Jamie seemed to think it was) in as many days. That he'd think Claire hadn't "learned her lesson" and was in need of his "discipline" is, I think, uncharacteristically stupid and boorish of him. I would have expected more concern and kindness from the Jamie we have seen in prior episodes, given what his new wife had been through.

The victim-blaming in Jamie's speech in the fight scene was also obnoxious, but I can acknowledge that may be a product of the times.

That being said, no matter what the times, there are men who beat their wives, and men who don't. It's disappointing that Jamie is the former.

Edited April 5, 2015 by annlaw78

[peacefrog]

The hair continuity on this show is awful and always bugs me, lol. I understand why but it's just so blatant.

[Proclone]

There were so many things about that beating scene that bothered me that I can't even articulate them all. Where to even begin? The complete switch from Jamie being someone who broke rules to spare physical punishment for others to someone who embraces it long enough to beat his wife, and then has a convenient change of heart by the end of the episode; the fact that he told her he enjoyed beating her; the completely gratuitous shots of Clare's backside; her public humiliation as the men below knew what was happening and joked about it, the fact that she was punished for putting the men at risk yet these very men have been holding her against her will since she arrived...

I'm a non book reader who stumbled on this show by accident and had thought it was a real gem. But that scene completely turned me off of the show. So this independent woman was humiliated and punished like a naughty child and I guess she will fall in love with her beater? I have no interest in staying around to see that happen.

 

Jamie took the beating for Loaghaire because it was going to done in public and he thought she wouldn't get over the embarrassment, not because he thought that it was wrong to punish her that way.  

 

I'm not a book reader either (though to be fair I was spoiled enough to know this scene was coming), but I can't say it's turned me off to Jamie or the show in general.  I really think he did think that it was justice for what she had done and that he needed to do it both to make sure she understood the error of her ways and to also for him to save face in front of the other highlanders.  Does that make it right?  Of course not, but given the time period I can see how Jamie would feel it was his duty to do it.  I honestly don't think he did out of anger.  He quickly said he was sorry when he merely yelled at Claire earlier in the episode because he did in anger.  This I think he saw as just something that needed to be done for them to move on.  Despite his words later, when I think he was a bit angry that Claire kicked him, I don't think he ever really enjoyed hitting Claire.  

 

Honestly I have to give him a little credit that he was able to see in the end that just because things were done a certain way by his father and grandfather doesn't mean it is the right way to deal with his wife.  I know it seems like I'm defending a guy who beat his wife, which in real life I would never do, but I think it's important to remember that Jamie didn't grow up taught that's it's not Ok to hit a woman.  He grew up it a time when if you made a mistake you were punished and probably punished brutally. 

 

What I really hated about that scene was the fucking music, though.  I guess they didn't want in to come off that violent, or intense, but the music made it seem like a comedy.  Now even though I can see were Jamie was coming from, doesn't mean I think him hitting Claire should be played as a joke or a funny scene.  It was a serious thing, and a serious event in Jamie and Claire's relationship.  Though I thought the rest of the episode treated it as such the music in that scene didn't.  I think the music made me more uncomfortable about the scene then if there was more serious music playing.  It was like it was out of some fifties sitcom when it was still OK to hit your wife and it was supposed to be funny to watch her try to escape punishment.  I was waiting for the damn laugh track.  The music was a serious misstep on the part of the show IMO.

[Athena]

The book thread has spoilers for ALL the books, not just the first one, so I highly recommend you avoid it altogether. I thought it would just have spoilers for the book that matched the show season and ended up seeing things in the very first post that I didn't want to see. :( Something similar happened with Game of Thrones and it didn't hurt my enjoyment at all, so I'm hoping the same thing is true here...

 

 

Thanks for letting me know, nara! I am the same way with GoT (I only read the book after the season airs so I only read the non-book threads) but I haven't ventured into any of the GoT book threads. I will stay nice and safe here in the non-book threads. To me, knowing what happens in the books before I see it on the show is like reading the last page of a book (a la Harry Burns) so I avoid it when possible.

 

As in GoT, the Book Talk thread assumes you have read ALL the books with these exceptions:

 

• The individual book threads only cover content of that book and the one(s) preceding it. E.g. Book 1: Outlander / Cross Stitch covers just that book and everything else is spoiler tagged. Book 2 includes Book 1 and 2 content, etc.
• The Ask the Outlanders thread is a special thread where all book talk is spoiler tagged allowing TV-only viewers to ask questions if they want to be spoiled.

 

I hope this clarified things. I would advise people to stick to non-book threads. There are less watchers who haven't read the books, but there are still a good enough amount of you to engage in conversation. I monitor these threads more closely for potential spoilers.

 

Thank you.

[magdalene]

I still haven't read the books and have managed to stay unspoiled by not coming here during the hiatus. I thought this was a safe thread but I think I have already gotten spoiled to some plot details that were not in this episode by book readers posting in this thread. So I am probably just going to have to stay away from the Outlander board here entirely from now on.

 

My thoughts on the episode:  I thought that was some excellent acting during that very intense fight between Jamie and Claire - it was irrational and foul-mouthed and hurtful and much more realistic than lovers quarrels usually are depicted as on TV.  At one point I really thought Jamie was having a heart attack.

 

About the belting my feelings are that if a man in our time period had done it I would find it unforgivable but mind sets were very different back then. When I watch a historical program I try to judge the characters by the moral standards of their time. I don't always succeed in this but I try. As much as it chafes me that women were the property of their husbands back then. I still think that Jamie is a very good man and so very young in a lot of ways. I also got the impression that he wouldn't have belted Claire at all if it wasn't for the other men giving her the cold shoulder for having to go rescue her.  As soon as Jamie had punished her Claire was back in the men's good graces. I will say though that now that Jamie knows how much that strapping bothered her and he has promised to never do it again I won't forgive him if he ever does it again. 

 

I feel bad for both of them. It is so hard for Claire to adjust to this time and since Jamie doesn't know the truth about Claire I don't think they can have a true marriage at all unless she tells him where/when she came from and about Frank.

 

About that girl who is in love with Jamie - I think he totally mishandled his talk with her, giving her false hope. Once again his youth and relative inexperience at play.

 

Lastly I am so sick of Black Jack, he is so over the top villainous and disgusting. Jamie should have killed him when he had the chance.

[nara]

I agree. The lines about his enjoying it were especially tone deaf. I also query how prevalent it really was for men to corporally punish their wives like children back then. Perhaps it was more common with the lower classes.

I think nearly being raped and sliced up is "punishment" enough for her "disobedience," especially given that this was the second very near rape attempt (arguably, the scene with the deserters looked like actual rape -- Jamie seemed to think it was) in as many days. That he'd think Claire hadn't "learned her lesson" and was in need of his "discipline" is, I think, uncharacteristically stupid and boorish of him. I would have expected more concern and kindness from the Jamie we have seen in prior episodes, given what his new wife had been through.

The victim-blaming in Jamie's speech in the fight scene was also obnoxious, but I can acknowledge that may be a product of the times.

That being said, no matter what the times, there are men who beat their wives, and men who don't. It's disappointing that Jamie is the former.

 

I didn't think it was victim blaming.  I thought it was fear.  I think this would resonate with parents.  Your kids do something that puts them at risk.  It may be something stupid or just unthinking.  While they are in danger, you're focused on getting them safe.  Then when they are safe, your pent up emotions come out as yelling at them for not thinking of for doing something foolish.  I don't have kids, but have observed this phenomenon many, many times.

[annlaw78]

Mileage varies and all, but I thought there was some victim-blaming in Jamie's throwing in Claire's face that next thing he know, she's flat on her back with the scum of the earth between her legs. "On your back" and "between your legs" are pretty loaded, accusatory, "slutty" terms. And, in this situation, not even accurate to how he found her. That's what Claire was trying to explain to him, that going for a walk doesn't mean she deserved to be kidnapped and raped. (And, as an aside, it doesn't make much sense why a British patrol would apprehend a random woman -- it's not as though she had her photo ID in her and they were able to call back to the station to check for BOLOs.)

Also: there's no proof the British patrol wouldn't have checked the teeny little bit of wood she and Willie were hiding in a few yards from the stones, if they were on a specific mission to round up all brunettes they come across. So, there goes Jamie's, et al. Impeccable logic.

[nara]

I do agree that the biggest issue is that Jamie didn't bother to ask her what happened.  He just assumed she was doing something silly like wandering away from Willie. 

[absnow54]

Mileage varies and all, but I thought there was some victim-blaming in Jamie's throwing in Claire's face that next thing he know, she's flat on her back with the scum of the earth between her legs. "On your back" and "between your legs" are pretty loaded, accusatory, "slutty" terms. And, in this situation, not even accurate to how he found her. That's what Claire was trying to explain to him, that going for a walk doesn't mean she deserved to be kidnapped and raped.

I'm not sure he was slut shamming, but it still was pretty insensitive that he was only considering how Claire's attempted rapes affected him and not how traumatized Claire must have been, almost being raped, promptly being abandoned, and then quickly being captured and almost raped again. The clan promised they'd protect her, and for all intents and purposes, they've been doing a pretty shitty job. But the clan was absolved from any blame because they had to justify the spanking.

 

(And, as an aside, it doesn't make much sense why a British patrol would apprehend a random woman -- it's not as though she had her photo ID in her and they were able to call back to the station to check for BOLOs.)

This is a good point. Maybe they were the soldiers that were originally going to escort her to Inverness during the Garrison Commander?

[magdalene]

Claire wasn't just going for a walk though, she was actually running away as soon as she saw The Stones in the distance and shouting for Frank and trying to get back to her first husband. Which I don't blame her for one bit. I also don't blame her for getting captured by the soldiers. And I don't blame Jamie for over-reacting out of fear or being the product of his time. 

 

While they are well-matched in passion and strong will - though Claire wins the stubbornness sweeps stakes - he doesn't know the whole story and as of now seems more into her than she is into him.

[attica]

What I really hated about that scene was the fucking music, though.

 

I'm with you on that score. (heh) The caperish tone to the music belied what-all was going on in that room. I agree with you as well that TPTB wanted to lighten the mood, give it a 'hey those crazy kids are at it again' vibe, but I think it was a misstep on their part to do so.

 

And geez, I'd really be happy if the women can go a full episode without rape or rape adjacent experiences. All that time would, imo, be better spent watching the men kilt up. 

[Crackers]

I must say I'm really enjoying this program. I have not been disappointed by any of the episodes. I can totally immerse myself in the period, the settings and the characters. It's been a lovely escape and am looking forward to more.

[viajero]

While I think that I generally prefer that the story be told from Claire's POV, I did find some value in having this episode told from Jaime's.  Part of this is to get some insight into his feelings about Claire and why he reacted the way he did.  But equally important it that it allowed us to witness all the political discussion, which I found to be actually the most interesting part of the episode because of the historical events that we know are coming down the road.  Having said that, I would prefer that they revert to Claire's POV in most future episodes.

 

About the belting my feelings are that if a man in our time period had done it I would find it unforgivable but mind sets were very different back then. When I watch a historical program I try to judge the characters by the moral standards of their time. I don't always succeed in this but I try. As much as it chafes me that women were the property of their husbands back then. I still think that Jamie is a very good man and so very young in a lot of ways. I also got the impression that he wouldn't have belted Claire at all if it wasn't for the other men giving her the cold shoulder for having to go rescue her.  As soon as Jamie had punished her Claire was back in the men's good graces. I will say though that now that Jamie knows how much that strapping bothered her and he has promised to never do it again I won't forgive him if he ever does it again.

 

 

Cultural sensitivity is always a tough issue, not just when assessing the actions and attitudes of historical figures, but also when you are visiting or living in different cultures in today's world.  Not only is it not really fair to judge people too strictly based on your own cultural norms, but it can get you into some real trouble (as has already happened to Claire on more than one occasion).   At the same time, there are certain lines that should not be crossed no matter what the cultural norms of a time or place may be.  On the surface, the spanking incident crosses that line for me.  But at the same time I'm hesitant to condemn Jaime too harshly for all the reasons you mention.  I think it would be a gross exaggeration to condemn Jaime as a "wife-beater" the way we would with any man who smacked his wife with a belt these days.  Men today are brought up in a culture where there is a strong taboo against committing any kind of physical violence against women.  A willingness to break that taboo is a strong indication of some kind of serious social pathology.  Jaime was bought up in a culture that actually approves of a man punishing his wife for disobedience, where refusing to do so in that particular situation actually calls for bucking the prevalent social norms.  I'm still not happy with what he did and found the scene to be incredibly uncomfortable.  But given his later actions, I'm not yet ready to give up on the guy.

 

Lastly I am so sick of Black Jack, he is so over the top villainous and disgusting. Jamie should have killed him when he had the chance.

 

 

This is actually my biggest problem with this show.  Black Jack is too much the cartoon villain.  Hopefully we'll eventually get more insight into why Black Jack is the way he is.

[zoey1996]

Lastly I am so sick of Black Jack, he is so over the top villainous and disgusting. Jamie should have killed him when he had the chance.

Since this is time travel, if Black Jack had been killed, would his descendant, Frank Randall, have been born?  I think that's why Black Jack has to live.

 

 I wonder if he agreed to Dougal ensuring his bloodline by fathering Hamish or if Dougal made that decision on his own.  I want to see more about this relationship and the politics.  I hope we eventually get to see if this clan fights at Culloden.

In one of the earlier season 1 episodes, IIRC, Claire and Frank visit the field at Culloden, and there are stone markers with the clan names.  Either MacKenzie or Fraser (or maybe both?) were shown on the marker(s).  I know there is a Fraser marker now.  

Italicized to denote edit...

Edited April 6, 2015 by zoey1996

[iMonrey]

 

I do agree that the biggest issue is that Jamie didn't bother to ask her what happened.  He just assumed she was doing something silly like wandering away from Willie.

 

That's probably because that's what Willie told him. What I didn't get (because maybe I missed it?) is how they figured out what happened to her and where the soldiers took her.

 

I've only just discovered this show this weekend and binge-watched the first eight episodes. I found this one a bit jarring with the switch to Jamie's POV and the total lack of flash-forwards. I didn't care for it. I think when you take away the context of Claire having traveled back in time it's a different kind of show and reads more like your typical Harlequin romance novel. I hope going forward they restore the flash forwards and the correlation between what's going on with Claire now and what happened in her own time. Is she going to give up on trying to get back to the stones and back to Frank? Or is she just going to accept being Jamie's wife in 1743 and forget all about her own time?

[attica]

total lack of flash-forwards.

 

Agreed: I missed them too.

[Linderhill]

 

In one of the season 1 episodes

Actually, this is still season 1, its just the second half of it.  I only mention it because another poster mentioned that the earlier episodes were season 1.  Season 2 will be the next book but there's no word yet on when that will be released.

 

I'm a bad viewer because I never noticed the jaunty music during the strapping scene.  I did notice the clansmen down in the tavern being highly amused. 

[Sakura12]

I'm glad this show is back, But man is it tough to watch. Seeing Jamie's POV was different, but I hope we get Claire's from now on. 

 

I do have to go with what time period is to judge some of the actions. And I bought Jamie's explanation. He thought the hiding was what he was supposed to do, because that's what he heard, saw and received growing up. It wasn't taboo back then, Even school teachers were allowed to hit children for misbehaving. He does know that he doesn't want to do that his wife and that it doesn't have to be like that. 

 

I'm surprised Colum is letting Dougal get away with outing himself as Hamish's father in front of others. I know even Jamie suspected it, but that still has to be something that should've never been spoken out loud. 

 

I did like Claire having to explain what "fucking" meant. Is she going to invent a word before it's time? lol. 

[Latverian Diplomat]

Jamie and Laoghaire:  I know that he was trying to be kind, but I felt like he was leading her on.  It reminded me so much of Gone With the Wind's Ashley Wilkes-- Scarlett O'Hara--Melanie Hamilton triangle. 

I'm not sure that Laoghaire (or Scarlett, for different reasons, i.e., incredible ego) would be so easily dissuaded.

 

And even if Jamie had explained his feelings, Laoghaire might still expect that he (like many men of his time) would not see taking a lover as a gross violation of his marital vows (double standard and all that), especially if he and Claire were already in a rough patch.

 

I did like Claire having to explain what "fucking" meant. Is she going to invent a word before it's time? lol. 

I'm pretty sure the f word was already in English by then (OED says 16th century), though more taboo than today, perhaps. (It's difficult to track because of the reluctance to put it in writing). It's not implausible, I guess that Scots for whom English is a second language might not know it. One would think the British soldiers will pass it on to them soon enough.

 

Using it as an adjectival participle ("fucking bastard"), like Claire did, was possibly not a thing yet. (?)

 

On the "punishment scene". I do think Jamie would have let it go, but bowed to the pressure from the others to administer physical punishment (as he said, one of the men would have been in for a beating for the same "offense"). I thought he might be planning to just wallop the mattress, but I guess he's just too much of an honest lunkhead for that.

 

Claire's reaction was perfectly reasonable, and I don't want to take away from that. But I do think that Jamie getting sucked in to anger and bullying when trying to administer "fair punishment" is a real problem with corporal punishment in all contexts. It's too physical and visceral and demeaning an act; it brings out the worst in the punisher. Because this is typically a parent/child interaction, I don't mean to cast Claire as a child here, or ignore the obvious sexual element in Jamie's behavior. I'm just trying to say that some of the way the scene played out for Jamie was also consistent psychologically with corporal punishment in other contexts. It gets mean and pointless very quickly and easily. So that worked for me.  

[iMonrey]

Heck it was only 60 years ago when Ricky was constantly threatening to put Lucy over his knee and give her a good spanking (and did so, at least once). Or when Ralph threatened to punch Alice so hard he'd send her "to the moon." Imagine if that was 160 years ago.

 

It also occurs to me that as a woman of the 1940s, the idea of a man hitting his wife wouldn't have been quite so foreign a concept to Claire as it would be to a woman of the 21st century.

[Pestilentia]

 

I do agree that the biggest issue is that Jamie didn't bother to ask her what happened.  He just assumed she was doing something silly like wandering away from Willie.

Well, to be fair Jamie made quite the issue of asking Claire to promise to stay put.

He asked her twice even, and asked her to swear at that.

And she did promise with her own voice to be there when he returned, oddly just after cautioning him not to make promises he can't keep.

She screwed up and by doing so has no right to feel undeserving of whatever consequences are deemed appropriate in this place and time.

Maybe, just maybe she will think twice about going off the reservation so cavalierly in the future.

[zoey1996]

Actually, this is still season 1, its just the second half of it.  I only mention it because another poster mentioned that the earlier episodes were season 1.  Season 2 will be the next book but there's no word yet on when that will be released.

 

Of course, that's correct.  It was so long ago, it just seemed like a separate season to me!

[annlaw78]

Well, to be fair Jamie made quite the issue of asking Claire to promise to stay put.

He asked her twice even, and asked her to swear at that.

And she did promise with her own voice to be there when he returned, oddly just after cautioning him not to make promises he can't keep.

She screwed up and by doing so has no right to feel undeserving of whatever consequences are deemed appropriate in this place and time.

Maybe, just maybe she will think twice about going off the reservation so cavalierly in the future.

Assuming she disobeyed/messed up, I think being humiliated, nearly raped and stabbed are enough to learn her lesson. She's a smart woman. She doesn't need her husband to teach her lesson -- her younger, callow husband at that. I would have preferred to see Jamie defend and support her, and exercise his own judgmrnt and discretion. Edited April 6, 2015 by annlaw78

[magdalene]

About the f word - wasn't it Queen Victoria/the Victorian Age that made that word taboo? I am sure the f word was around before then for a long time in the English language and while it was rude and certainly not refined it wasn't a word that was basically reduced to one letter in polite company.

 

I am kind of surprised Jamie - recently devirginized though he is - wouldn't have known that word considering the  male company he keeps.

[Constantinople]

Jamie can't catch a break.

 

Last year Black Jack Randall and the Cat O'Nine Tails.

 

Now Laoghaire tries to break him with the Rack.

[Guest]

I agree. The lines about his enjoying it were especially tone deaf. I also query how prevalent it really was for men to corporally punish their wives like children back then. Perhaps it was more common with the lower classes.

 

I think you underestimate how recent recognition of domestic violence as a problem is and it wasn't a high class / low class issue.  We are talking 1970s through 1990s before any real strides were made.  In 1975, a magistrate fined a man in Scotland $11.50 for hitting his wife in the face because at the time you could strike her bottom but not her face.  Old English common law permitted wife beating.  It was only in the late 1800s when Queen Elizabeth took the throne that reforms for women started.  Life threatening beatings become grounds for divorce and daughters couldn't be sold into prostitution.

 

I think they wanted to illustrate the gulf between time periods and social moors, but they knew their audience was 21st century.  To me Jamie still came off more enlightened for his time period than I would have ever expected and this before he got the cold shoulder and vowed never to beat Claire again.  Claire on the other hand felt like she was responding as if she was from about fifty years further in the future than she is.  Frankly I found Claire continuing to have sex with Jamie with a knife to his throat equally or more disturbing than Jamie whipping Claire with a belt on the ass. 

 

I was just relieved that Jamie didn't take up blondie on her offer because I doubt the time period had much fidelity and chastity going on the part of the male.

Edited April 7, 2015 by ParadoxLost

[annlaw78]

I'm not unfamiliar with the literature and history of that period. Jamie is well-educated, part of the landed gentry (I believe), and well-connected to the Scottish upper class. That all the lairds are smacking their ladies around is questionable. And the whole "rule of thumb" thing is largely apocryphal. Regardless of whether this may have been common, a person could always choose to be uncommon. As Jamie himself says, he's not the lowest common denominator.

But, this is clearly a mileage varying thing, so I'll get off my soapbox.

Edited April 7, 2015 by annlaw78

[nara]

I'm not sure that Laoghaire (or Scarlett, for different reasons, i.e., incredible ego) would be so easily dissuaded.

 

And even if Jamie had explained his feelings, Laoghaire might still expect that he (like many men of his time) would not see taking a lover as a gross violation of his marital vows (double standard and all that), especially if he and Claire were already in a rough patch.

 

I think it's entirely possible that Scarlett or Laoghaire would have continued to obsess, but my point was more about what Ashley and Jamie should have done. 

 

Well, to be fair Jamie made quite the issue of asking Claire to promise to stay put.

He asked her twice even, and asked her to swear at that.

And she did promise with her own voice to be there when he returned, oddly just after cautioning him not to make promises he can't keep.

She screwed up and by doing so has no right to feel undeserving of whatever consequences are deemed appropriate in this place and time.

Maybe, just maybe she will think twice about going off the reservation so cavalierly in the future.

 

Perhaps, but I do think a "what in heavens made you leave the spot after you promised me you'd stay there?" might have been good and avoided the concern that he didn't consider her feelings.  She still wouldn't have had a good answer, so he would have still punished her.  However, as far as he knows, a wild animal approached the spot where they were waiting and she was trying to avoid being attacked.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because he was out of his mind with fear and then overcome with the emotions of relief.

[maraleia]

Heck it was only 60 years ago when Ricky was constantly threatening to put Lucy over his knee and give her a good spanking (and did so, at least once). Or when Ralph threatened to punch Alice so hard he'd send her "to the moon." Imagine if that was 160 years ago.

 

It also occurs to me that as a woman of the 1940s, the idea of a man hitting his wife wouldn't have been quite so foreign a concept to Claire as it would be to a woman of the 21st century.

Very true and I also think that Claire's unorthodox upbringing (traveling with her Uncle Lam) made her more modern that her contemporaries in this regard. I can't imagine Uncle Lam spanking a young Claire and since she has no frame of reference regarding married couples it only amplifies her lack of understanding of how men treated women in her era or the past.

[tennisgurl]

Finally got a chance to see the episode! Its seems like its been ages, but the land of kilts and pretty camera angles is back!

 

I was happy to get an episode in Jaimie`s perspective. I love Claire as our hero, who we mostly see the world from, but it was nice to add some more depths to Jaime. I love Jaime, but he can get a bit "worlds most perfect man", especially last round of episodes. Its good to see him more as a person apart from Claire.

 

So the spanking scene. I have never read the books, but I had heard about it, and, honestly, it didn't bother me. I thought it might have been played for laughs a little too much, but the fall out from it wasn't. Jaime is a great guy, but he is a man of his time, to an extent. He lives in a world where people are punished for breaking the rules, so he figured that this was the only way to handle this. At least, that`s one interpretation. I honestly felt like he was more doing it for the other guys, than because he wanted to punish Claire. It would have looked bad on both of them if there was no "punishment", and the guys would continue to give Claire the cold shoulder, and it could cause more problems for Jaimie, when he`s already in a precarious position with the clan. To him, I can see how a quick spanking for everyone to hear was the best way to solve both of their problems. Plus, it was just the way things were done back then. I mean, Jaime was almost whipped to death. He probably figured a little spank wouldn't be much of an issue. Of course, this could also have offered him some perspective. When he realized what he did was screwed up, he swore to never do it again. If he DOES do it again, then we will have some issues, but I like how they handled it. I can understand why others didn't like it though.  

 

The thing about society is, we have to learn from our mistakes. There was a time when it was considered ok to spank your wife. There were men who believed that. It went on until enough people said that enough was enough, and they were tired of doing what everyone else had done, when they could sense that it was wrong. Some of them probably had hit their wives, and realized they hated it, and hated how it made their wives feel. Now, a lot of these changes had to do with women gaining more and more social power, and creating change, but it cant be only women changing ideas in a whole society. It has to be everybody. Some of them were probably men like Jaimie, who realized what they were doing was wrong, and learned from it. Or at least, that's what I would hope. 

 

Man, when Dougal started yelling at Collum about "ensuring his bloodline" I literally was like "oooooooo he went there!", then it cut to Ned and Jaime with basically the same look! 

 

So excited for more episodes! 

[jordanpond]

I'm not unfamiliar with the literature and history of that period. Jamie is well-educated, part of the landed gentry (I believe), and well-connected to the Scottish upper class. That all the lairds are smacking their ladies around is questionable. And the whole "rule of thumb" thing is largely apocryphal. Regardless of whether this may have been common, a person could always choose to be uncommon. As Jamie himself says, he's not the lowest common denominator.

But, this is clearly a mileage varying thing, so I'll get off my soapbox.

I don't think your opinion is a soapbox at all. And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that people can always choose to be uncommon. In the US, during times of slavery, there were always white people who refused to have slaves; before women had the right to vote, there were always men who thought women should have the right. Do we really think there was such complete agreement among men in Jamie's time that there wasn't at least a significant minority that said "I don't care what our customs say. I simply refuse to hit my wife." And Jamie in particular had twice previously demonstrated that he was willing to go against custom when it came to corporal punishment. (I'm not saying that he was completely against it, but that he did not blindly follow custom where corporal punishment was concerned.) So for this episode to present him as someone who was essentially required to follow custom and beat Claire ignores not only that people of all cultures do indeed choose to be uncommon, but that Jamie in particular had on two previous occasions chosen to be uncommon with respect to physical punishment. Edited April 7, 2015 by jordanpond

[Sakura12]

I don't think Jamie ever agreed that it was right to beat your wife. When someone misbehaves the punishment is a couple whips with a belt, it's the common practice against anyone, not just women. I don't think he wanted to do it, but he also knew that the Clan would look at him as weak and ignore Claire until it was done. They heard the beating and the next day they were talking to Claire and everything was forgiven. That's just how they think. 

 

Jamie hated himself for doing that and vowed to never do it again and let her kill him if he did. That's progress for someone that grew up in the world he grew up in. I also think Claire is giving him more courage to stand up to some of his customs. She was the one that was horrified by the boy getting his ear nailed to a post. Jamie didn't think anything of it. The boy did wrong and was getting punished, just like he did when he was a child. Claire is making him see that some punishments are too harsh for the crime.