S01.E11: The Devil's Mark

[Athena]

Episode Synopsis:

Claire and Geillis are on trial for witchcraft. Jamie manages to rescue Claire, but not before she discovers a secret about Geillis' past.
 
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.

[Crackers]

Wonder if it occurred to Jamie that she didn't leave because her story wasn't true? And she didn't because she couldn't?

[Clawdette]

Sam Heughan was especially handsome tonight and I could feel his pain when he took Claire back to the stones. I must admit I shed a few tears with him.

[magdalene]

OMG. So many shocks. Geillis is from the future too. She tried to protect Claire. Dare I hope that because her burning to death wasn't shown it didn't happen? But how could she have been saved? 

 

And Claire told Jamie the truth and he gave her the choice to return to her time. Now that she has chosen to stay in the past with Jamie I can root for them and invest in them emotionally as a couple.

 

How I loathe that bug-eyed bitch Leery.

[JodhaBai]

Great episode.  I did not expect so much to happen with Claire telling Jaime.  I certainly didn't expect Jaime's reaction.  That was great.   

 

I was hoping Claire had gone home but returned to Jaime.

[ulkis]

I know Claire is an honorable person and all, but there was zero reason not to lie about giving Laoghrie the potion. She's trying to kill you! Your word against hers! Lie!

Good episode though.

[ganesh]

First off, 100% for all this episode. I've been saying a lot since the break that we haven't gotten a pov on Claire, re: the Stones. I don't know how I feel about Geillis being from 1968, though I'm fine with her being from the future. I also don't really buy she'd be so ready to sacrifice herself. I think there's a way that the both of them could have got out. I also think the last minute revelation is kind of contrived. It's pretty obvious from Claire stomping around that she's not from there, and we only learn about someone else now? 

 

I really liked Claire telling Jaime what's going to happen. I've been on that since the show started. Now the show becomes really interesting. If Jaime knows they're all going to die, what's next?

 

I swooned off my chair when he said, "so you were just trying to get home, and I beat you for it. I'm sorry." 

 

I'm assuming Claire didn't actually touch the stones and just walked back. She kind of owes Frank some closure. That's harsh. Then again, if she thinks she can avoid the destruction of clan life, that's fair. She's been part of their community for a while, and she knows they'll all die soon. 

Edited April 19, 2015 by ganesh

[KatWay]

I'm not sure I buy Claire not going through the stones at this point. I feel the bond between her and Jamie but after what she just went though, why would she want to stay in the past? I'm not sure I buy that her love for Jamie, great as though it might be, is earthshattering enough to live in a time where women are treated like this, have no rights, where she could be killed for any stupid thing at any moment and die of a thousand other causes that would be preventable in the future.

This whole episode was such a reminder of how much this past can suck and then she just stays, for no reason other than loving Jamie? Especially since her life in the future was pretty nice as well.

 

I don't think I could love anyone enough to be willing to relinquish my rights as a woman and human being like that. Sure the 1940s aren't the 2000s but still, the difference would be staggering.

[Starla]

Call me a hopeless romantic, but isn't that what true love is? Otherwise the entirety of humanity is just in it for themselves.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Damn it, so Geillis was from the future this whole time and didn't say anything to Claire? I wonder how long she's been living there because she seemed pretty well adapted. I mean, she still stuck out like a sore thumb for being an alleged witch even before she was arrested but, you know, other than that. I can totally see Geillis being a flower child in 1968. Man, Duncan is going to dislike Claire even more now.

 

How did Ned and Jamie know to come help Claire?

 

I am surprised that Claire admitted the truth to Jamie so soon. I thought it would take ages for him to tell him even a tiniest bit of her time traveling story. I was surprised he wasn't more jealous/upset about Frank.

 

While I love that Jamie loves Claire enough to take her back to the stones so she can return to her own time, I too had a hard time believing that she would really choose to stay. Jamie was speaking the truth when he said that there's nothing for her in the past but danger and violence. I'm all for true love, I really am (and I can be a total sap about romance) but dude! In her brief time in 1743, she has been almost raped twice in one day, physically assaulted more than once, kidnapped, arrested for witchcraft, whipped in public, forced into marriage to avoid a different arrest, etc. And that's before you factor in her role as a woman two hundred years in the past with almost no rights.

 

Interesting that the priest realizing Claire saved that kid still didn't convince people of her innocence, but they really just wanted to burn someone. That mob mentality is terrifying.

 

I know Claire is an honorable person and all, but there was zero reason not to lie about giving Laoghrie the potion. She's trying to kill you! Your word against hers! Lie!

Ha, I know! Throughout the trial, I kept thinking that this isn't like a trial in 2015 where they would have all kinds of evidence. The only "evidence" is people accusing you so at least refute what they're saying, even if that means lying, so that you can save your life!

Edited April 19, 2015 by ElectricBoogaloo

[nara]

Apparently, I’m more of a hopeless romantic than most people in this thread.  I found it completely believable that Claire would pick Jamie and all the crap that comes with being with him.  But we’ll get to that…

 

This was a great episode and I liked the focus on Claire and Geillis, especially the evolution from Claire’s initial coldness to Geillis to them being friends again to the prisoner’s dilemma issue of whether Claire would turn on Geillis to Claire’s decision not to throw her friend under the bus to Geillis’s ultimate sacrifice.  The only other episode like this was the Wedding, which focused on Claire and Jamie’s new marriage and it gives good opportunity for character development.  I have to admit that when I saw only 4 actors’ names in the titles, I was a little skeptical but it worked out.  BTW, for someone who spent a few days in the hole without eating much or bathing, Geillis sure looked gorgeous!  Must be the pregnancy glow!  Also BTW, I thought her belly looked pretty real. I wondered if it was makeup or if she was told to have a really big meal before shooting!  ;)

 

Regarding the trial...
• I found it very scary that the accused could not speak in their own defense.  At the same time, I wished Claire would shut up.  Or as someone mentioned above, she could have denied Laoghaire’s accusation, rather than trying to explain it.  But I guess her guilt was a foregone conclusion, so she had nothing to lose by trying to fight back. 

 

• Did anyone else notice that the 3 female witness said things that had some sort of basis in fact but the one male witness did not?  (Have we even seen that guy before?) Not sure if there was meant to be a message there… (BTW, the changeling baby’s mother has the most beautiful eyes, especially when they showed her in the woods.)

 

• I’m a little surprised that Laoghaire was able to come and give evidence.  I doubt that Colum would approve of her getting involved.  Also, would there be any repercussion for her admitting to asking a witch for a love potion?  That is, do the customers of witches get any punishment or just the practitioners?  I did notice that she made herself scarce when Jamie arrived, and I'm sad we didn't get to see him give her a look of repulsion.  I feel sorry for Laoghaire losing the love of her life, but I really hope she gets some sort of payback for her terrible behavior.  I did think it very interesting that Jamie apparently told Claire about Laoghaire’s attempt at seduction.  I don’t believe that happened on screen, but it is indicative of the “truth between Jamie and Claire”.

 

• Father Bain.  His entrance into the court was exactly what I expected – all fire and brimstone.  It completely took me by surprise that he acknowledged Claire’s superiority when it came to rescuing young Tom Baxter.  However, I cannot decide if his testimony ultimately helped or hurt and his reaction when they were condemned to death was a bit of a mystery to me.

 

• Ned Gowan is the MAN.  I liked the way he calmly turned the testimony of each witness, and especially the gentle way he dealt with the grieving changeling mother.  He really did seem to want to help Claire.  The last ditch attempt with his gun was pretty funny, but gallant too.  It reminded me of the fight during the Rent episode, when he was so proud of his one contribution—shooting his gun.

 

• I did wonder if Geillis mentioning she was pregnant would have any impact on her punishment once she was found guilty.  If she hadn’t said it was Satan’s child but had just said it was her husband’s child, would they have not thrown her into the hole (I mean literally—they threw her down the hole rather than letting her climb down), would they have fed her better, and would they have delayed the trial/sentence?  Or would they kill her and the unborn child regardless?

 

The Future Reveal(s)

 

Loved the double reveal that Geillis is from the future and Claire’s revelation to Jamie.  I got the impression that Geillis deliberately came back to support Bonnie Prince Charlie, and I hope we’ll get more details later about how that was accomplished.  Also, did she influence Dougal to become a Jacobite or was he always one.  I thought it interesting that after she realized that Claire was not there for a similar/or opposing purpose, Geillis saved her.  If Claire had deliberately come back to make changes in history, would Geillis have let her live?

 

The reveal to Jamie was a relief and his sorrow for beating Claire when she was only trying to get back to her husband was sweet.  (I love love love scenes with Jamie and Claire together—the actors play off each other so well!) I’m a little surprised that Jamie was so quickly accepting of Claire’s story.  I mean, he’s always known there was something off about her even though she wasn’t a spy, but that story is a bit farfetched.  However, I can believe that now that there are no secrets between them, their love will truly transcend the physical passion and genuine affection that they already have.  For this reason, I can believe that Claire would choose to stay with Jamie, despite all the issues in 1743. I would have liked to have a voiceover talking about her decision.  Was it hard?  Did she have any regrets about Frank at all?  As people mentioned in the comments on previous episodes, we have not gotten a great sense of where her heart lies with regard to Frank—and that’s a real failure IMHO.  I can believe that she chose Jamie, I cannot believe that she would not consider the pros and cons of her options.  In fact, it might have been better to spend a little time with her having the debate in her mind and end the episode with her walking towards the stone.  The fact that she returned to Jamie could have been the very first scene in the next episode.

 

Sorry for my long posts.  I just love this show that much!

[cattykit]

It was made clear how Claire realized Geillis was from the future (and I'm pretty sure 'fucking barbecue' was not part of 1743 vernacular), but not how Geillis realized Claire might also have been from the future so Claire would understand her references.  I thought I saw Geillis's ears prick up at Claire quoting Nathan Hale, "I regret I have but one life to give for my country," having been said in 1776, and maybe that's how she knew Claire was a fellow time traveler.

 

I don't understand the split season.  When is the actual second season to begin?

[iMonrey]

I was kind of disappointed. I get that the Claire and Jamie romance is the driving force of the story, but ultimately I want to see Claire return to her own time. What I'd prefer is if she went back to 1945 then met some descendent of Jamie's and ran off with him - or if Jamie followed her to the future. It would be a lot easier for Jamie to live in Claire's time than for Claire to living in Jamie's. If the resolution is that Claire simply decides to remain in 1743 so she can be with Jamie (screw Frank!) then that should be the last episode IMO.

 

I'm not sure how realistic a witch trial in 1743 is either. Most witch trials ended in the 1600s and even Ned pointed out that laws against witchcraft had been repealed in Great Britain ten years earlier. Also, the hyper, amped up crowd in the courtroom was a little too Monty Python.

 

The reveal that Geillis was also from the future was interesting (although it was nearly impossible to remain unspoiled about that piece of the story) but ultimately, it feels like Geillis's story went nowhere. However, I'd been wondering about the "summoning" ritual Geillis performed in the last episode, which reminded Claire so much of the pagan ritual she and Frank watched at the stones. It made me wonder if the purpose of the ritual was to travel through time - is that why Claire traveled through time, because she'd been there during this ritual? Is that how Geillis traveled through time? I wonder if we'll ever get an answer to this, since clearly the stones don't just send people back in time willy nilly, there must be another component to it.

[Cali]

Haha, yes, "fucking barbecue" was a dead giveaway, before the vaccine scar.

I loved this episode. I thought the scenes between Claire and Jamie were the tenderest and most romantic. It would be great if Claire could take Jamie to the 40s (personally I don't feel at all invested in her relationship with Frank - the relationship with Jamie seems just one of those intense, once-in-a-lifetime, unstoppable forces), but I expect he cannot travel through the stones like she can.

[ganesh]

The show did tell us that not everyone could travel through the stones. 

 

I assumed Claire didn't even touch the stones. What if she did and they didn't work? I also thought that maybe Claire chose to stick around to try to save the Scots from their doom. Her foreknowledge is an effective weapon imo. 

 

This whole episode was such a reminder of how much this past can suck and then she just stays, for no reason other than loving Jamie? Especially since her life in the future was pretty nice as well.

 

I know they started the show with Frank and Claire re connecting after their separation from the war, but Frank seemed to be a good guy. I know that's not enough, but the guy is anguishing over her disappearance and I think she owes him something. 

 

I am surprised that Claire admitted the truth to Jamie so soon. I thought it would take ages for him to tell him even a tiniest bit of her time traveling story. I was surprised he wasn't more jealous/upset about Frank.

 

I don't know how it goes in the books, and I don't want to, but in terms of making a tv show, I always lean towards getting to the reveal quicker than later. I don't want hours and hours of Claire not telling Jamie something she knows from being in the future. I'm always a fan of unavoidable tragedy and telling Jamie about what's coming really opens up the storytelling to me. 

 

The reveal that Geillis was also from the future was interesting (although it was nearly impossible to remain unspoiled about that piece of the story) but ultimately, it feels like Geillis's story went nowhere.

 

I was totally unspoiled. I kind of was like, "huh" at the bbq line and it didn't register until she showed the smallpox scar. I suppose having 2 time travelers is a little much.

[magdalene]

I'm not sure I buy Claire not going through the stones at this point. I feel the bond between her and Jamie but after what she just went though, why would she want to stay in the past? I'm not sure I buy that her love for Jamie, great as though it might be, is earthshattering enough to live in a time where women are treated like this, have no rights, where she could be killed for any stupid thing at any moment and die of a thousand other causes that would be preventable in the future.

This whole episode was such a reminder of how much this past can suck and then she just stays, for no reason other than loving Jamie? Especially since her life in the future was pretty nice as well.

 

I don't think I could love anyone enough to be willing to relinquish my rights as a woman and human being like that. Sure the 1940s aren't the 2000s but still, the difference would be staggering.

Yeah, I wouldn't have stayed. No matter how lovely Jamie is and how hot the sex is with him. I am too much of a pragmatist and a realist. But it's clear we are supposed to believe that this is a one of a kind grand passion where you throw everything over for it. 

 

I wonder what the criteria is as to who can travel through the stones. Obviously not everybody can do it.  Is it only women who can. Or can some men do it too.  I bet you though that Jamie can't because that makes it more dramatic.

Edited April 19, 2015 by magdalene

[ulkis]

I'm kind of two minds about it. Realistically, I would want to go back to hot showers. On the other, they're telling a love story and you just kinda gotta go with the flow. I think nara's idea would have been good:

 

I can believe that she chose Jamie, I cannot believe that she would not consider the pros and cons of her options.  In fact, it might have been better to spend a little time with her having the debate in her mind and end the episode with her walking towards the stone.  The fact that she returned to Jamie could have been the very first scene in the next episode.

 

I think it would have helped if Claire's choosing Jamie hadn't come riiiiight on the heels of maybe the worst thing yet happening to her (the other "the worst thing that happened" contender being Randall assaulting her before Jamie rescued her).

 

I mean I think it does help that Claire didn't exactly just come from a time of daisies and roses herself though. 

[Crackers]

Burning at the stake is a horrendous way to go but they both know individually they have another chance in the future. Neither has been born yet. It would be possible to have a core memory of the past life and do a better job the second, third....fifteenth time around. Time travel paradox. Interesting conundrum.

[ganesh]

I wonder what the criteria is as to who can travel through the stones. Obviously not everybody can do it.  Is it only women who can. Or can some men do it too.  I bet you though that Jamie can't because that makes it more dramatic.

 

There was a song during the banquet early on in the season where they sung about it. I don't think it's limited to women. 

 

I mean I think it does help that Claire didn't exactly just come from a time of daisies and roses herself though.

 

Yeah but in 1945, Claire isn't going to be anyone's legal property. She can get a legit job. It's not like she was on the outs with Frank either. I'd be worried about screwing up your own timelime anyway. Which I know the show isn't about. It's reasonable that they may cross paths with Randall again, and he is not that happy. I assume Jamie knows of Randall's importance now, but what happens if they fight again and Jamie has to kill him? 

Not to mention being legal property, but after Culloden, things are going to be way way worse. What if Jamie dies? Unless she's staying partly because she honestly thinks she can stop all that. 

[cattykit]

 

I assume Jamie knows of Randall's importance now, but what happens if they fight again and Jamie has to kill him? 

If Jamie has to kill him, and that's not the established date of Black Jack's death, then the timeline will have been altered and likely none of the events that led to Claire in 1946 finding the stones in the first place will ever happen.  Which would cause an endless loop, wouldn't it, because Claire would have to travel to 1743 for that change, and oh, that's why time travel stories make my head spin.  Every single thing Claire does has the potential to alter world history and her own history.

[Latverian Diplomat]

• Did anyone else notice that the 3 female witness said things that had some sort of basis in fact but the one male witness did not?  (Have we even seen that guy before?) Not sure if there was meant to be a message there… (BTW, the changeling baby’s mother has the most beautiful eyes, especially when they showed her in the woods.)

 

 

Not only that, but Ned had some success undermining the women to the crowd, but the dude lying his ass off was apparently "more reliable" than a woman.

 

Is Nathan Hale someone a British person of the '40s would quote? I had no idea he was that well known to Brits (the perhaps unintended irony of that reference is that from the British POV, at least, he was guilty and received a fair trial).

 

Gellis seemed very troubled by Claire's statement that she came back by accident. Did Gellis rationalize her own time travel as being for a purpose, and then realize from Claire that there was no "mission" and just kind of give up at that point?

 

I think the fix was in the priests "defense" of Claire. He meant for it to backfire, and it wouldn't surprise me if the shout from the crowd that he was bewitched was prearranged.

[Latverian Diplomat]

If Jamie has to kill him, and that's not the established date of Black Jack's death, then the timeline will have been altered and likely none of the events that led to Claire in 1946 finding the stones in the first place will ever happen.  Which would cause an endless loop, wouldn't it, because Claire would have to travel to 1743 for that change, and oh, that's why time travel stories make my head spin.  Every single thing Claire does has the potential to alter world history and her own history.

Or does it? Gellis was actually trying to change things, and it came to nothing. 

 

One way to deal with time travel in fiction is that it can't change anything, that Claire's presence was always part of what happened in the past. Gellis seems to hint that this is how things will work out with Claire too.

[ulkis]

Yeah but in 1945, Claire isn't going to be anyone's legal property. She can get a legit job. It's not like she was on the outs with Frank either. 

 

I mean, yeah it's definitely still not the most rational choice, but like I said, it helps make it a leetle more understandable. I guess she figures if something happens to Jamie she can always get back to the stones too? And if Jamie manages to clear his name, Claire will be in a better place to control what happens to her than if she were a daughter or a wife. Or so many historical fiction novels have told me, heh. I'm not sure if that's strictly true.

 

Is Nathan Hale someone a British person of the '40s would quote? I had no idea he was that well known to Brits (the perhaps unintended irony of that reference is that from the British POV, at least, he was guilty and received a fair trial).

 

Maybe not the name (I'm an American and I know the quote but I didn't know the name of the person was who quoted it, so I have no room to talk anyway :)), but I think there is a good chance they would know it. Plus, Claire traveled around with her uncle a lot and knew Americans during the war, so I definitely think it's believable that she could/would know it.

[terrymct]

Wonder if it occurred to Jamie that she didn't leave because her story wasn't true? And she didn't because she couldn't?

SOMETHING should have occurred to Jamie, even if he loves and trusts her because that was a massive bombshell she dropped on him.

Ok, was Geillis mentioning a barbecue a slip of the tongue because she was scared, which also gave us a little proof that she was from the future, too? There is no way that term had made it to Scotland at that time in history.

I'm assuming Claire didn't actually touch the stones and just walked back. She kind of owes Frank some closure. That's harsh.

That's been preventing me from getting drawn into the Claire-Jamie "omg they're meant to be" romance. When I see them being romantic, I think "Poor Frank".

[terrymct]

Or does it? Gellis was actually trying to change things, and it came to nothing. 

 

One way to deal with time travel in fiction is that it can't change anything, that Claire's presence was always part of what happened in the past. Gellis seems to hint that this is how things will work out with Claire too.

You could also argue that the £1000 Geillis stole and passed to Dougal and the Jacobites wasn't enough to overcome the clear superiority of the English troops and their equipment at Culloden. If she'd taught the Scots how to cheaply build machine guns or a tank or two, it'd be a different story. Killing Black Jack is a different issue. You can kill one man and delete his progeny from history without changing something huge like maintaining the Scottish Clan social structure and potentially putting a Catholic back on the throne. Little changes and impacts could occur without changing the predominate flow of history.

[Bort]

Ok, was Geillis mentioning a barbecue a slip of the tongue because she was scared, which also gave us a little proof that she was from the future, too? There is no way that term had made it to Scotland at that time in history.

It wasn't just "barbecue," it was "fucking barbecue," the former being a word that Claire had to explain to Jamie two episodes ago because he'd never heard it before. So yeah, big clue that Claire missed. She apparently needed the smallpox scar before she was able to put it all together.

[nara]

That's been preventing me from getting drawn into the Claire-Jamie "omg they're meant to be" romance. When I see them being romantic, I think "Poor Frank".

I felt really bad for Frank too.  But then I thought that with so many men dying in WWII, a man like Frank would have women throwing themselves at him, so he's likely to find love and happiness with someone else.  Not guaranteed, and doesn't take away from the loss he's had, but I suspect he will be happy in the end.

 

On another topic, it occurred to me that Laoghaire was probably right.  She's the one who was destined to marry Jamie if Claire hadn't fallen through time and screwed things up.  I'd been so focused on Jamie and Claire that I had forgotten that he would have had a different path if Claire had not fallen through time.  He was attracted to Laoghaire and it might have been a good MacKenzie alliance (depending on her status within the clan).  Still hate what she did, but it made me think.

[LetItStop]

Meh. Nothing surprised me except Claire telling Jamie the truth. I too find it implausible that after several attempted rapes, beatings, kidnapping, basically being a prisoner of the laird, forced marriage, and coming this close to burning at the stake that she'd say, "Yep, this sure is where I belong." Outlander, you're going to have to do a lot better than "Because love!!!"

[bookrat]

I just had a really hard time with this episode I guess because I've read a lot about witch trials. Being pregnant is what saved you...at least until the child was born. That took me right out of the episode, that never did Claire say, "you can't hurt her, she's pregnant." How would the crowd know the child wasn't her husband's?

 Even after saying she was pregnant with the devil's child, why would the crowd believe her, or why wouldn't the lawyer argue that it was the "witch" talking and trying to take the life of an innocent child. I can' think of a single case where a pregnant woman was burned or hanged for being a witch. I don't know why both women who were from the future didn't know that a woman with child could not be executed until after the child was born.

[HollyHawley]

I loved, loved this episode, except for a couple of things. I was kind of taken by surprise, by Geillis's sudden, quick self sacrifice. I figured that once she had started the fury, she kept throwing fuel on the fire by feeding their paranoia with more and more about her "relation" with the devil.  I only hope they killed her before setting her on fire.  My second disappointment, was the lack of visible anguish between Jamie and Claire at the stones. I was waiting for declarations of love, and promises to never forget, etc. (that's the pathetic romantic in me) I also was surprised to just suddenly have her back at Jamie's fire.  But, considering he was asleep, makes me wonder if in fact quite a bit of time had passed, and she maybe she did pass through the stones, only to change her mind and come back.  Maybe we'll see some explanation about what she actually did, in the next episode (similar to how they showed the steps leading up to the wedding, after it actually happened).  

[CatMack]

I just had a really hard time with this episode I guess because I've read a lot about witch trials. Being pregnant is what saved you...at least until the child was born. That took me right out of the episode, that never did Claire say, "you can't hurt her, she's pregnant." How would the crowd know the child wasn't her husband's?

 Even after saying she was pregnant with the devil's child, why would the crowd believe her, or why wouldn't the lawyer argue that it was the "witch" talking and trying to take the life of an innocent child. I can' think of a single case where a pregnant woman was burned or hanged for being a witch. I don't know why both women who were from the future didn't know that a woman with child could not be executed until after the child was born.

 

One of the judge dudes yells "Stop, she's with child" as they're carting her off, so at least one person in the scene seems to be aware of the whole "don't burn babies" thing.  

Edited April 19, 2015 by CatMack

[magdalene]

From watching lots of TV dramas over the years I am of the school if I don't see somebody actually die and be dead my default is to assume they didn't die. I didn't see Geillis burn at the stake so maybe she cheated death somehow.  Jamie came back very suddenly and conveniently, and he was with Dougal when he left - so maybe Dougal came back too and he could somehow rescue Geillis. Hey, that's not anymore far-fetched than time traveling through some weird stones.

[RedheadZombie]

I know they started the show with Frank and Claire re connecting after their separation from the war, but Frank seemed to be a good guy. I know that's not enough, but the guy is anguishing over her disappearance and I think she owes him something. 

 

I know Claire and Jamie are meant to be together, etc.  I'm also willing to buy into that, but not yet.  We saw Claire seeming to be very much in love with Frank, and they seemed very compatible sexually.  She knows he thinks she's been murdered, or (even worse, in her thoughts) that she willingly left him.  He's just so damned likable, that I can't help but feel for him.  They survived prolonged separation and WWII, but not a brief foray into the past?

 

I guess it didn't help that neither Jamie nor Claire reacted much when they met.  They never even seemed sexually attracted to each other.  He's a very sweet boy, and I think that's exactly how Claire saw him.  He definitely seemed to have the hots for Laogahire.  Neither wanted to marry the other, but they ended up having amazing sexual chemistry.  Now I see why that could deeply affect virginal Jamie, but Claire is very sexually liberated and had amazing sex with her husband, too, so I don't think that would have as strong a hold on her.

 

It was sweet that Jamie was so willing to belief Claire's story.  My problem is that I think Frank would be just as believing of Claire's story if she returned.  So when I consider that Frank is just as good a man as Jamie, the fact that Claire not only loves Frank, but is in love with him, and the fact that she's sexually satisfied by both - I don't understand a willingness to stay in a world that almost burned you at the stake, and to abandon your loving husband (Frank), the world you've always known, and all friends and family.  I'm just not buying it at this point.  Plus, I was shocked that Claire is only twenty-five.  I thought she was much closer in age to Frank, who seems about forty.  I think Frank is also more equal to Claire intellectually.  Jamie seems like a sweet innocent boy who has a crush, and the fact that he didn't even convincingly spurn Laoghaire, makes me doubt that he's truly in love with Claire at this point.

[Nidratime]

Is Nathan Hale someone a British person of the '40s would quote? I had no idea he was that well known to Brits (the perhaps unintended irony of that reference is that from the British POV, at least, he was guilty and received a fair trial).

 

 

My first thought was, Claire nursed a lot of American soldiers during the 2nd World War. She learned that phrase, Jesus Roosevelt Christ. I don't see why she wouldn't have picked up Nathan Hale's declaration about having but only one life to give for my country from them as well. It seems apropos, and I can imagine them joking about that declaration in the hospital.

 

Gellis seemed very troubled by Claire's statement that she came back by accident. Did Gellis rationalize her own time travel as being for a purpose, and then realize from Claire that there was no "mission" and just kind of give up at that point?

 

 

I kind of thought Geillis saw Claire as an innocent. Clarie stumbled upon time travel, perhaps unlike Geillis and therefore felt sorry for Clarie for getting mixed up in this whole drama basically by just being who she is ... a basically modern woman stuck in this time period.

 

It does make me laugh a little that with Claire, being from 1945, and Geillis being from 1968 that Claire's "old enough" to be Geillis' mother. If Claire had had more time, would she have asked Geillis about the intervening 23 years? What happened in that time?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[Bort]

If Claire had had more time, would she have asked Geillis about the intervening 23 years? What happened in that time?

Oh, the stories Geilis could've told Claire about bell-bottoms and hot pants…

[nara]

I guess it didn't help that neither Jamie nor Claire reacted much when they met.  They never even seemed sexually attracted to each other.  He's a very sweet boy, and I think that's exactly how Claire saw him.  He definitely seemed to have the hots for Laogahire.  Neither wanted to marry the other, but they ended up having amazing sexual chemistry.  Now I see why that could deeply affect virginal Jamie, but Claire is very sexually liberated and had amazing sex with her husband, too, so I don't think that would have as strong a hold on her.

I got a very different vibe from them than you did.  I felt the sexual tension between the two characters from almost the very beginning, when she was tending to his wound after he was shot.  Then, when they were in Castle Leoch, there were several near-miss kisses.  It's after the scene in which he escorts Claire back to the surgery (which was full of eye sex) that he kisses Laoghaire.  I interpreted it as Jamie being so horny after his interaction with Claire, that he was willing to hook up with Laoghaire, in whom he was clearly not interested before.  After all, Laoghaire was pretty, very interested in him, and available--so why not?  However, it was evident to me all along that there was great chemistry between Jamie and Claire, so her decision now is reasonable (though I still would like a little more consideration of Frank).

[Sakura12]

I wasn't so sure about this show anymore, the past two episodes were not that interesting to me. But this episode more than made up for that. I knew Geilis was from the future too, but I did not expect 1968, that's over 20 years past Claire. I hope she's not dead, I want to know how she got there. Who would give up wearing pants for corsets and puffy dresses? Plus she knows more things than Claire. Claire would be the one asking her questions. I guess I can go with Claire was worrying about being burned alive to notice all the hints Geilis was throwing around. "The you don't want to change anything?" was huge giveaway. 

 

I also wasn't expecting the double whammy of Jaime finding out about Claire in the same episode. Wow, he believed her, that's love. Then he talked about his home all the while taking her back to the stones so she could go home. I don't blame Claire too much of staying, I fell in love with Jamie because of that. Although being weakling that I am I would've gotten the hell out of there, just for being safe from lashings and witch burnings. 

 

Okay, show I'm back to loving you. Please continue. 

[ulkis]

If I were Claire, I would have been like, "are you sure you don't want to try to come with me?? We have hot showers!! And let me tell you about a little thing called toilets."

[SpiritSong]

 

On another topic, it occurred to me that Laoghaire was probably right.  She's the one who was destined to marry Jamie if Claire hadn't fallen through time and screwed things up.  I'd been so focused on Jamie and Claire that I had forgotten that he would have had a different path if Claire had not fallen through time.  He was attracted to Laoghaire and it might have been a good MacKenzie alliance (depending on her status within the clan).  Still hate what she did, but it made me think

I don't think he would have ever married Laoghaire. He was extremely dismissive of her when the bard was performing and she was trying to engage him in conversation. He even called her younger self a snot nosed brat or something similar. And remember the scene where Murtagh scolds Claire for teasing Jamie about her? "He needs a woman, not a girl and Loaghaire will be a lassie when she's fifty". I think Jamie was already in love with, or at least infatuated with Claire. And despite all her faults Claire DOES make Laoghaire look like a child in comparison.

[ulkis]

I don't think he would have ever married Laoghaire. He was extremely dismissive of her when the bard was performing and she was trying to engage him in conversation. He even called her younger self a snot nosed brat or something similar. And remember the scene where Murtagh scolds Claire for teasing Jamie about her? "He needs a woman, not a girl and Loaghaire will be a lassie when she's fifty". I think Jamie was already in love with, or at least infatuated with Claire. And despite all her faults Claire DOES make Laoghaire look like a child in comparison.

Not exactly, he called her and the other children snot-nosed bairns, but he was making fun of his 16 year old self, he meant 16 year old him thought himself amazing and wouldn't have deigned to notice the little kids.

But I agree with you about that scene, he was already all about Claire. I wouldn't say he dismissed her, just barely noticed her.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

On top of all that, Jamie is the nephew of the laird. Would he really marry someone like Laoghaire who is a servant at the castle?

[nara]

I don't think he would have ever married Laoghaire. He was extremely dismissive of her when the bard was performing and she was trying to engage him in conversation. He even called her younger self a snot nosed brat or something similar. And remember the scene where Murtagh scolds Claire for teasing Jamie about her? "He needs a woman, not a girl and Loaghaire will be a lassie when she's fifty". I think Jamie was already in love with, or at least infatuated with Claire. And despite all her faults Claire DOES make Laoghaire look like a child in comparison.

I meant, if Claire had never fallen though time, he would have married Laoghaire. Without the comparison to Claire, Laoghaire would have looked good and he might not have seen her petty nature--at least, not before they married.

On top of all that, Jamie is the nephew of the laird. Would he really marry someone like Laoghaire who is a servant at the castle?

It's not clear how Laoghaire is related to Colum, but Jamie is an outlaw and working in the stables, so I don't think it would be too off. Colum may have encouraged the match (into the family) to make aJamie a better potential heir. Plus, Jamie apparently wanted to wait until marriage for sex, so I imagine he'd want to marry pretty soon.

[absnow54]

On top of all that, Jamie is the nephew of the laird. Would he really marry someone like Laoghaire who is a servant at the castle?

I'm confused about Laoghaire's place. I assumed she was higher born since she carries the MacKenzie name and lives in the castle, but then again, we also know she's Mrs. Fitzgibbon's granddaughter... I thought Jamie implied in the episode before the wedding that he was not a suitable match for someone like Laoghaire because he was a broke fugitive (an undersell since we now know he owns Lollybrach.)

[zoey1996]

 

I'm not sure how realistic a witch trial in 1743 is either. Most witch trials ended in the 1600s and even Ned pointed out that laws against witchcraft had been repealed in Great Britain ten years earlier. 

This may not have been a legal trial, more of a mob mentality with the charges trumped up to appease the citizens of the area.

There were still witch trials in the US well into the 18th century.  The last witch trial in Virginia was in 1802.

In this article from The Guardian, it's stated, "James I's statute was repealed in 1736 by George II. In Scotland, the church outlawed witchcraft in 1563 and 1,500 people were executed, the last, Janet Horne, in 1722."  but it doesn't say there were trials than didn't end in conviction and death, so in the 1740's there may or may not have been trials.  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/13/secondworldwar.world

[chocolatetruffle]

I meant, if Claire had never fallen though time, he would have married Laoghaire. Without the comparison to Claire, Laoghaire would have looked good and he might not have seen her petty nature--at least, not before they married.

 

If Claire had never fallen through time Jamie would never had made it back to Leoch.  He would have died as a result of his dislocated shoulder.  The group was going to leave Jamie behind If Rupert couldn't put the joint back in the socket. He would have broken Jamie's arm in the attempt, leaving him unable to ride or fight.  The Redcoats were bearing down on them.  They would have had to leave him behind with a loaded pistol so that he could, as he put it "determine me own fate."  Nope, Jamie was never fated to marry anyone other than Claire.

[absnow54]

If Claire had never fallen through time Jamie would never had made it back to Leoch.  He would have died as a result of his dislocated shoulder.  The group was going to leave Jamie behind If Rupert couldn't put the joint back in the socket. He would have broken Jamie's arm in the attempt, leaving him unable to ride or fight.  The Redcoats were bearing down on them.  They would have had to leave him behind with a loaded pistol so that he could, as he put it "determine me own fate."  Nope, Jamie was never fated to marry anyone other than Claire.

That's a really good point! I never thought of it that way. Claire spent a lot of time in the first few episodes piecing Jamie back together. If the dislocated shoulder didn't get him, I'm sure the bullet wound would have. Jamie didn't just need a woman, he needed a proficient healer to keep up with his reckless lifestyle. 

[nara]

If Claire had never fallen through time Jamie would never had made it back to Leoch.  He would have died as a result of his dislocated shoulder.  The group was going to leave Jamie behind If Rupert couldn't put the joint back in the socket. He would have broken Jamie's arm in the attempt, leaving him unable to ride or fight.  The Redcoats were bearing down on them.  They would have had to leave him behind with a loaded pistol so that he could, as he put it "determine me own fate."  Nope, Jamie was never fated to marry anyone other than Claire.

Great!  I am actually a "Claire and Jamie were destined to be together" believer, so I like your thinking!   Maybe Laoghaire is the real witch because she lured me to her POV! Thanks for bringing me back.

[iMonrey]

 

Gellis seemed very troubled by Claire's statement that she came back by accident. Did Gellis rationalize her own time travel as being for a purpose, and then realize from Claire that there was no "mission" and just kind of give up at that point?

 

I read that scene differently. My interpretation was that Geillis was worried that Claire was there to try to change history, and she was seeking reassurances that Claire did not, in fact, have any agenda, and that all she wanted to do was get home. That may have been Geillis's main issue with Claire to begin with, that she was suspicious Claire was on some kind of mission to screw up history which might result in a change to Geillis's own history.

 

 

I'm confused about Laoghaire's place. I assumed she was higher born since she carries the MacKenzie name and lives in the castle, but then again, we also know she's Mrs. Fitzgibbon's granddaughter..

 

Mrs. Fitz is related to the Mackenzie clan by marriage (though I'm not sure exactly how) so she's more than just a lowly servant. 

[ganesh]

I thought Gellis said she went back to help bonnie Prince Charlie?

[taanja]

So wait. What? Geillis was from 1968 ( the future) and went back in time to try to change history? Did I get that right? because she really really wanted Bonnie Prince Charlie to be king? Ooookaaay? But cool I guess? I am basing that on when she asked Clare --- so you don't want to change anything? You just want to go home? and also when she said ---so all of this was for nothing?

 

And Clare chose not to go back to her own time cuz now she has a profound love for all things Jamie? Despite almost being burned alive as a witch --- not to mention witnessing Geillis being dragged naked through the streets to be burned alive as a witch. Oh and also finding out that Collum McKenzie didn't lift a finger to try to save her from being burned alive as a witch? Well all I have to say is ---Clare isn't very bright!

 

 But I guess we wouldn't have a show if she went back to her own time lickity split. So there is that. Otherwise I enjoy this show. So beautiful and yet brutal --- kind of like the time period Clare has foolishly decided to remain in!