S01.E11: The Devil's Mark

[Dejana]

I find it completely unbelievable that people in the U.K. did not learn their own history. I'd have to see actual proof of this, sorry.  The quote could have been learned anywhere.  Said on tv, in a conversation, on a radio show.  It's one of those quotes that is just part of the lexicon regardless of which country it originated from.  Sort of like how Americans are very aware of a number of Churchill quotes.  

 

Basically, even if students in the UK did not learn history (though the idea seems almost outrageous), hearing a well known quote is still something that one has reason to be aware of.  They can even be aware of the quote without knowing who said it.  

 

American here, but the Brits were on the losing side, so perhaps the curriculum doesn't dwell on it. :) But seriously, there was more to the British Empire in its heyday than the American colonies, so losing them might not be as big of a deal or major event there, as it obviously is here. The great American patriotic quotes wouldn't be viewed in the same light by the other side. In America, I've heard way too many accounts of US History classes that only get to World War II or maybe the 1960s by the end of the school year, so in a country with a much longer history, there has to be a lot that is simply not covered/heavily condensed. 

 

Claire had an unusual upbringing/education so I'm going to fanwank that she picked up the quote that way. Still, considering her English background, kind of a stretch. The "problem" with a Churchill quote is with the 2015 viewing audience and what percentage would be familiar, along with getting one that would fit the context of the scene.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Dejana

[bluebonnet]

Ok, so clearly UK students are aware that America is no longer a British colony.  That's all the I needed to have verified.  I certainly wasn't claiming that UK students were required to take entire years devoted to the American Revolution.  Merely that it's something they would have learned.  

 

Nathan Hale's quote isn't just an American quote.  It's often picked up by independence or revolutionary movements.  Thinking the quote was said by Churchill (wouldn't be surprised if Churchill said it in one of his speeches, I've heard it in several historical speeches, and a couple of contemporary ones as well) doesn't mean that it's not part of the lexicon.  

I just see no legitimate reason Geillis couldn't be aware of this quote, especially when she's a fanatical patriot.  

[Pogojoco]

Lotte Verbeek, continuing a long tradition of making the actress look insanely beautiful in the episode in which she dies, was absolutely luminous in this episode. Especially in the scenes in the pit/jail. She was the best part of the episode.

Laoghaire is a terrible person. Sweetheart, I know you love the dude and everyone, cause he's extremely hot and he took some punches for you and then you guys made out, maybe a few times, but testifying against the wife he's obviously very fond of and getting her burned alive isn't exactly going to endear you to him.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Pogojoco

[Meredith Quill]

Ok, so clearly UK students are aware that America is no longer a British colony.  

 

I think among many young people in the UK today, it is more likely they aren't aware it ever was...

 

American here, but the Brits were on the losing side, so perhaps the curriculum doesn't dwell on it. :) But seriously, there was more to the British Empire in its heyday than the American colonies, so losing them might not be as big of a deal or major event there, as it obviously is here. The great American patriotic quotes wouldn't be viewed in the same light by the other side. 

 

I think that is probably pretty close to the truth. :)

[bluebonnet]

American here, but the Brits were on the losing side, so perhaps the curriculum doesn't dwell on it. :) But seriously, there was more to the British Empire in its heyday than the American colonies, so losing them might not be as big of a deal or major event there, as it obviously is here. The great American patriotic quotes wouldn't be viewed in the same light by the other side. In America, I've heard way too many accounts of US History classes that only get to World War II or maybe the 1960s by the end of the school year, so in a country with a much longer history, there has to be a lot that is simply not covered/heavily condensed. 

 

Claire had an unusual upbringing/education so I'm going to fanwank that she picked up the quote that way. Still, considering her English background, kind of a stretch. The "problem" with a Churchill quote is with the 2015 viewing audience and what percentage would be familiar, along with getting one that would fit the context of the scene.

Except when a quote is a rallying cry for revolution and patriotism in general.  It's not a quote that says, "I regret I can only die once for America" but a quote that is suitably vague so as to be used, 300 years later, by various groups.  Churchill quotes probably would have been well recognized.  Half of our perseverance posters are slathered in Churchill quotes.  it just wouldn't be as relevant as a quote that's frequently used to incite patriotism.  

 

Anyway, discussion is veering too far off topic because clearly Geillis left her house during her time in the 20th century and so she had heard this quote before, even if she thought Churchill was the originator of it.  

 

Is there a way the show can pretend that Jamie has no idea how much of a part Laoghaire played in the trial?  When L had only presented a note to Claire, and in private, it's easy for Jamie to claim he didn't know any of this, and that perhaps no one knew.  But now he's openly acknowledged that Laoghaire put the ill intent under the bed.  Everyone in town knows that Laoghaire testified against Claire and even that she orchestrated Claire's arrest and that she did all of this primarily out of jealousy and a broken heart.  Can we truly believe that no one will ever mention this to Jamie or that Jamie just happened to not see Laoghaire there?  Because it's really not the same as no one mentioning that L gave Claire a note.  

[doesntworkonwood]

Ok, so clearly UK students are aware that America is no longer a British colony.  That's all the I needed to have verified.  I certainly wasn't claiming that UK students were required to take entire years devoted to the American Revolution.  Merely that it's something they would have learned.  

 

Nathan Hale's quote isn't just an American quote.  It's often picked up by independence or revolutionary movements.  Thinking the quote was said by Churchill (wouldn't be surprised if Churchill said it in one of his speeches, I've heard it in several historical speeches, and a couple of contemporary ones as well) doesn't mean that it's not part of the lexicon.  

I just see no legitimate reason Geillis couldn't be aware of this quote, especially when she's a fanatical patriot.  

 

I'm not sure what your point is? Of course British kids know America isn't a British Colony, that's common sense. Whether the majority of them are aware it ever was is debatable. 

 

My point was it's unlikely that they would have learnt about the American revolution AT ALL. I would bet you a fair amount if you asked anyone in the UK (who wasn't interested in history obviously), when the American Revolution took place, about 90% would have a confused look on their faces and not be able to answer at all. The American Revolution is just not important to British people.

 

And just because I thought the quote was from Churchill doesn't mean it is part of the local lexis. I'm pretty sure this was the first time I'd heard it. It just sounds like something Churchill would say, so I attributed it to him, and Claire's from a time just after WW2, so that made it more likely. 

 

It's been a while since I've read the books, but Geillis is fanatical patriot of Scotland, not America. That doesn't mean that she wouldn't be aware of the quote, but if she's trying to get Claire onside, it's far more likely that she'd use a quote that Claire was familiar with. 

[ulkis]

Nathan Hale's quote isn't just an American quote.  It's often picked up by independence or revolutionary movements.  Thinking the quote was said by Churchill (wouldn't be surprised if Churchill said it in one of his speeches, I've heard it in several historical speeches, and a couple of contemporary ones as well) doesn't mean that it's not part of the lexicon.  

I just see no legitimate reason Geillis couldn't be aware of this quote, especially when she's a fanatical patriot.  

 

Was Geillis have supposed to have recognized it? I just thought the joke there was she thought it was a good quote Claire made up, and a lot of the audience knows she didn't make it up.

[bluebonnet]

 

It's been a while since I've read the books, but Geillis is fanatical patriot of Scotland, not America. That doesn't mean that she wouldn't be aware of the quote, but if she's trying to get Claire onside, it's far more likely that she'd use a quote that Claire was familiar with. 

Um, I never suggested that Geillis was a patriot of America.  She clearly isn't.  And Claire is the one who used the quote, not Geillis.  

 

Was Geillis have supposed to have recognized it? I just thought the joke there was she thought it was a good quote Claire made up, and a lot of the audience knows she didn't make it up.

 

It certainly looked to me that Geilis recognized it.  I can't imagine that a fanatical patriot wouldn't recognize a quote that's frequently used to incite patriotism (and no, not just American patriotism). 

 

But really, this is the last I'm responding to this line of commentary.  I can't really tell if people are joking or not and it's just not fun to have people implying that an entire group of people are so ignorant and self-absorbed that they are unaware of the basics of world history.  

Edited April 19, 2015 by bluebonnet

[doesntworkonwood]

Um, I never suggested that Geillis was a patriot of America.  She clearly isn't.  And Claire is the one who used the quote, not Geillis.  

 

Sorry, my mistake. But that doesn't make sense either. Why would Clare know and use a quote that is not popular or known in the UK? 

[ulkis]

Sorry, my mistake. But that doesn't make sense either. Why would Clare know and use a quote that is not popular or known in the UK? 

 

She traveled around the world with her uncle and she met a lot of Americans during the war. The same thought actually flitted through my head - "would Claire know that quote?" - but when I remembered that I thought, oh yeah, I guess she could. She picked up "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ" from an American, so I guess she could have picked that up too. I mean, who knows, she might not even know who said it/why it was said, it was just something she heard randomly somewhere.

Edited April 19, 2015 by ulkis

[Bort]

I can't really tell if people are joking or not and it's just not fun to have people implying that an entire group of people are so ignorant and self-absorbed that they are unaware of the basics of world history.

It's very optimistic of you to think people in general would be knowledgable of world history. But no, they're really not. There's rampant ignorance even about current things. I had a friend of mine comment about how there are 52 states in the US, and she's a TEACHER, mind you, and while I did politely correct her, it took everything in my will power to not tear into her over that.

I recognized the quote but I briefly thought it was from JFK, until I realized 1945 Claire was from before that. I had to look it up to see who said it. I learned it in 8th grade but had forgotten who said it and when. Which, in the end, works for me. Claire and Geilis can plausibly know it but not remember exactly what the context is.

Edited April 19, 2015 by kariyaki

[CatMack]

Moving on...

 

I really appreciate them keeping Jamie crying thinking Claire was gone.  His eyes were definitely wet when he was 'asleep' and then the one lone manly tear when she asked to go to Lallybroch.  Yeah, I'm a softy for men being softies, what can I say.  I'm tempted to just screencap every second of Jamie looking at Claire from this episode, because it was just really breathtaking.  Sam has a good face, and he used it really, really well.

[Hybiscus]

... and back again... (as CatMack tried to move on... hee)

 

Regarding the "I regret I have but one life to give for my country" (that's pretty close to the quote I learned way back in the 1960s, which wasn't quite the same as what Claire quoted), it really did feel odd.  I gotta go with doenstworkonwood here.  Besides being a Brit (right?) the American Revolution wasn't a big deal in Britain.  Heck, it wasn't even called the American Revolution.

 

When the original Poldark first aired in the U.S., a friend of mine who's much more attuned to this sort of thing, remarked about how different the perception of the war was in England.  It certainly wasn't the Big Deal it is here.

 

Now moving on ... ;) ... to what CatMack said:

 

.... I'm tempted to just screencap every second of Jamie looking at Claire from this episode, because it was just really breathtaking.  Sam has a good face, and he used it really, really well.

Yeah, I'd go for that!

[Starla]

I would love a glimpse into Jamie's thought process when Claire plainly states "I am from the future," a la Marty McFly. Even though he's heard songs about people traveling through the stones, that is surely a WTF moment if there ever was one. The look on his face was priceless, something along the lines of "wait, what?" 

 

I do wish we could have heard her trying to explain planes and automobiles. Maybe in the next episode.

[AheadofStraight]

 

Can we truly believe that no one will ever mention this to Jamie or that Jamie just happened to not see Laoghaire there?  Because it's really not the same as no one mentioning that L gave Claire a note.

 

No one from Leoch was there except for Laoghaire. If they don't veer from the book, I don't believe they ever return to Leoch, right?  With all of Jamie's swashbuckling, I think it is possible to believe he never saw her there.

[tcay]

I think they set up the events well enough that Jamie will assume Colum orchestrated everything and have no reason to believe otherwise. Now why Claire never says anything, I'll never truly buy into, but I think they did cover enough bases to make it believable that Jamie had no idea about Laoghaire's involvement. But yep, that scene in season three will be extra tense. 

[bluebonnet]

No one from Leoch was there except for Laoghaire. If they don't veer from the book, I don't believe they ever return to Leoch, right?  With all of Jamie's swashbuckling, I think it is possible to believe he never saw her there.

 

Ned Gowan was there.  More than that, everyone in Cranesmuir knows that Laoghaire did this.  She's also apparently absent from her own work at the castle.  There is no way people at Leoch will not know what Laoghaire did.  Sure, there is a war and some lengthy imprisonment between now and when Jamie marries Laoghaire.  It just becomes very difficult to believe that he never hears so much as a whisper.  

I think they set up the events well enough that Jamie will assume Colum orchestrated everything and have no reason to believe otherwise. Now why Claire never says anything, I'll never truly buy into, but I think they did cover enough bases to make it believable that Jamie had no idea about Laoghaire's involvement. But yep, that scene in season three will be extra tense. 

I think in the book it made sense.  There wasn't any reason to detail the witch trial.  It didn't matter and it was just a note that Laoghaire gave her in private.  When Laoghaire played such a huge part and everyone knows about it, it seems they'd have to change the narrative to not make Jamie into a hated figure.  Something like seducing him and faking a pregnancy to trick him into marriage, perhaps.  

[chocolatetruffle]

I distinctly felt like she was out of it in that first approach. Her voice was kind of dreamy and she didn't seem to know what she was doing. Jamie pulling her back visibly shocked her, as if the stones had been pulling at her. It's subtle, and a fading visual effect might have helped, but I think there still would have been some room for debate as to whether she was pulled or walked up voluntarily. IMO, some comment beyond "buzzing and blackness" would have helped more. For instance, as she's reaching out, just saying, "It seemed to pull me in." Then Jamie grabbing her back makes a little more sense. Not that his own feelings aren't enough, it's just that the circumstances of her possibly leaving are very different from the last attempt, and I don't believe they've shown her to be so unfeeling as to just walk away without a thought. She would want the time to consider, and pulling her back gives her that. I'm personally filling in the blanks that Jamie saw the "out of it" state and stopped her -- he watches her so closely all the time -- except he took the blame on himself as part of trying not to influence her decision.

 

justmehere thanks for talking me down off the ledge.  I think I'll go re-watch this scene and try to put a more positive spin on it.  :-)

[AheadofStraight]

Someone asked Ron about Laoghaire and the trial in the Q&A:  https://twitter.com/RonDMoore/status/589620669949681665

 

With Jamie knowing how involved Laoghaire was in the trial do you have a plan for how Jamie will forgive her for later ?
Ron: Yes

 

 

 

[tcay]

Whoa. Now that will be rough viewing.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Shit.

 

Now I'm going to have to read the rest of this series again. Like pick up from the beginning and continue on until the end. I don't know if it will be as good as all of y'all are making it sound or not. I hope I won't be disappointed. But then again, it has been 13 years since I stopped where I did.

 

I enjoyed this episode, though I will admit, I read most of the comments here first before watching, so was confused by how Claire didn't figure that Geillis was also a time traveler.  I got the sense, from here, that all her comments, "fucking barbeque...1968" all happened at the same time, which, it didn't. Or I think I also read, the 'language' or way Geillis spoke, should have clued Claire in.

 

Laoghaire is a vile, vile beast and deserves the name of "hosebeast" that my friends gave her years ago.  Really wished that Ned would have brought up that she was never promised to Jamie and that she had a crush on him because he saved her from a beating for her being loose, or whatever. I'm petty that way. Even though I know it wouldn't have changed anything, but it would have made me feel a helluva lot better, to have the "good" townspeople not see her as some pure lassie done wrong by a witch.

[WatchrTina]

A simple way to handle the sci fi element is to show it from Claire's POV.  She hears the buzzing and suddenly everything goes white. Cut to Claire gazing up disoriented and we pull back to see her lying on the ground with Jamie kneeling over her explaining that she started to fade and he grabbed her and pulled her back. Not cheesy and we see that Claire can go back, but she chooses to stay.  Also Jaime has proof that she was telling the truth.  The way they did it left the door open to interpret that maybe she couldn't get through so she accepted that her fate was to stay.

This!  A thousand times this!.  I'm really unhappy with the way the choice at the stones was handled.  It was so rushed. It was so ambiguous.  It was, to me, very unsatisfying.  I could have lived without the sex scene in order to make more time for the torturous decision at the stones.  I get that the torture was internal and that sort of thing is better suited for the written page than the screen but still, it could have been better handled.  I'm really disappointed that Jamie didn't see hard evidence that Claire was telling the truth.  In the books, I always assumed that he decides to believe Claire -- an almost religious, conscious act of faith by him -- but a part of him is not completely convinced and it comes as a complete sock to the guts when his faith is rewarded -- when he sees Claire collapse at the stones and start to fade.  He deserves that reward.  I missed it.

 

I love this series,  I love these actors, but I did not love this episode.  I laughed at inappropriate moments -- which is an absolute mood killer.  I'm a huge fan of Sam's portrayal of Jamie but I struggled with the choices he made in this episode and I found myself resenting the director for letting those choices happen.  I found myself wondering what this episode would have looked like with the writing/directing team that they used for episodes 7 & 8.  I also found myself hating on the hair and make-up team because Sam looked almost too pretty in this episode.  

 

I think this is my least favorite episode so far.

Edited April 20, 2015 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

I'm with you in that I've always read Jamie believing her as a conscious choice.  He believes her because he believes in her and loves her that much.  But that moment when he sees her start to fade with his own eyes is what seals the deal for him and as he says at another place in the book "really knows it deep down."  I can buy that he's maybe already more open to the possibility because he's been raised on tales of magical beings and people who disappeared for 200 years, but as he himself has pointed out, he's also an educated enough man to know that that's mostly just stories.  It's a hard story to swallow either way, and I wanted to see that moment when he absolutely without a shadow of a doubt knows it's true.  The entire rest of the series rests on his knowing it and on the choice she subsequently makes.

 

Despite all this, my least favorite still has to be be Both Sides Now.  I understand what they were trying to do and there were some really beautiful sequences.  I also appreciate that the show has tried to make Frank a more substantial character as opposed to book Frank, who often seemed to rate below hot running water in Claire's mind.  But I'm still unhappy they wasted a full half of an entire episode on him to leave us with a less developed leading man and core relationship heading into the story's biggest scenes.

[Keeta]

Despite all this, my least favorite still has to be be Both Sides Now.  I understand what they were trying to do and there were some really beautiful sequences.  I also appreciate that the show has tried to make Frank a more substantial character as opposed to book Frank, who often seemed to rate below hot running water in Claire's mind.  But I'm still unhappy they wasted a full half of an entire episode on him to leave us with a less developed leading man and core relationship heading into the story's biggest scenes.

 

I understand the choice as well, and it did help build to that awesome scene of Claire and Frank running up Craigh na Dun. However I agree there was a missed opportunity to develop the true male lead during the oh-so-brief honeymoon period before all the sh*t goes down.

 

It's still fresh, but I think my least favorite episode so far is Ep. 10. Despite the beginning and ending, which I loved, I just thought everything in the middle was largely boring, disjointed, or frustrating (or a combination). We could have gotten more insight on Claire's state of mind after the events of episode 9, but didn't, and considering the blowback there I thought she looked very naive in threatening the Duke. Combined with Dougal's overacting (even knowing he was playing up his grief, I just didn't think it worked) a lot of it didn't do it for me. Oh well, they can't all be winners!

Edited April 20, 2015 by Keeta

[nodorothyparker]

Oooh, episode 10 is a good pick for least favorite too.  I've mostly liked all the more visible McKenzie politicking so I cut it some slack, but all the silly running back and forth with the duke did feel like a bit of a time waster when we had had no Claire perspective on everything that had happened since her missed opportunity at the stones.  One of things I think the more rushed pacing has lost is that book Claire increasingly found herself very content with her 1740s life and everything that went with it to the point that she had to remind herself she was still planning to try to go back.  That also makes her choice at least a little more plausible.

Edited April 20, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[greekmom]

Best quote in the episode: "fucking bbq". Hands down.

Add me to the hate list (and right at the top) for Laoghaire. Especially at the point when Claire was being whipped at she comments how she (Laoghaire) will dance on her ashes.  Ugh.  Which I really don't understand is how

Jamie marries her later in the books

(not sure if i needed the spoiler tags but I added them.

 

I also like the fact that Gellis came out and said to Claire 1968 instead of the way it was written in the books.

[absnow54]

I understand the choice as well, and it did help build to that awesome scene of Claire and Frank running up Craigh na Dun.

While it was a beautiful scene, I actually resent it even more now because I think it took away from the climactic moment of Claire actually reaching the stones in this episode. There's been such a dramatic shift in Claire's character since we broke from her POV and now I want to know what's changed in her head from desperately running screaming toward the stones 3 episodes ago to having to be reminded what her husband's name is. I was grumbling about too much Frank in the first 8 episodes, but now there's not nearly enough to support the story they had started to tell. 

[WatchrTina]

 

While it was a beautiful scene, I actually resent it even more now because I think it took away from the climactic moment of Claire actually reaching the stones in this episode.

Add me to the resent list.  The stones are supposed to be SCARY.  I heard the rumbling noise of the stones in the background slightly  during the scene between Claire and Jamie but you got nothing of the feeling of electricity and power that Claire can sense (and Jamie can't).  You felt nothing of her dread of that power. I HATED Claire getting that close to the stones in episode 8, only to be dragged away, mere inches from her goal, by men who mysteriously appear from nowhere.  It was the cheesiest moment in the series so far for me and it robbed the site of the sense of power and otherworldliness that it has in the books.  Ugh.  Claire's decision is the absolute lynch-pin of book one -- of the whole series really -- and it should have been treated with the same care and reverence that was given to the wedding night.  Heck, the unresolved sexual tension in Davy Beaton's surgery in episode 3 was handled with more attention and nuance than Claire's climactic choice at the stones.

 

I haven't watched a second time.  I haven't wanted to.  Maybe it will grow on me on subsequent viewing.

 

On the plus side -- Geillis absolutely owned the first half of the episode.  Fantastic job.

 

On the negative side I could not figure out WTF Father Bane was up to.  I don't think the way that played out made sense.  And Ned -- careful, thoughtful Ned -- pulling a gun in court was ludicrous.

[GHScorpiosRule]

On the negative side I could not figure out WTF Father Bane was up to.  I don't think the way that played out made sense.

I think he was trying to show the court that Claire did some hoodoo voodo witchcraft on him, to have him so...penitent. I didn't buy it for a second.

Edited April 20, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[bluebonnet]

I thought Father Bain was well played.  The first man that stood up for him might have been a plant.  But even if not, Father Bain's look to Claire and Geillis was saying that he knows these people and he knows how they will react to things and how they think, partly because he created their mentality and world view.  She might heal a sick boy but he knows how to puppet string their opinions.

[tcay]

So I wasn't emotionally affected at all by the episode either, but then I read a lot of reviews of it and critics seemed to love it. I'm starting to think knowing all of the events of the book is keeping me from really investing in the scenes. Like a lot of people have said Jamie's reactions were so good, but to me they were distractingly Blue Steel pensive. I know that is his book face, his masking emotions face, but it was one of those "can't unsee" things and I felt pulled out of the scene.

 

The only scene in the show that has gotten me so far was Claire with the changeling baby. Maybe that was because of my foreknowledge of Claire's upcoming difficult pregnancies, but it felt very honest and vulnerable. At the stones it just felt like a checklist of moments that needed to happen. But again, I'm beginning to think I'm just too close to the source material.

[GHScorpiosRule]

At the stones it just felt like a checklist of moments that needed to happen. But again, I'm beginning to think I'm just too close to the source material.

 

I can empathize. It's why I'm glad I read the books over 10 years ago, so remember some, but not all. That way, I'm not as disappointed, I guess? But a handful of my favorite author's books were made into movies (GAH! Lifetimesucks of all networks!) and they were massacred beyond recognition, not to mention miscast, miscast, MISCAST. It's why I refused to watch the last one done. Not gonna see it EVAH.

 

Ahem. Sorry.

 

I can really appreciate so many of the fans who have read the books and who love them, and to not see the pivotal scenes from the books make it to the screen.  As much as I enjoyed this episode, even I felt some emotional punch was just missing there at the end. It seemed all of it was saved for the "trial" which was nothing but extras screaming "Buirn* the WITCH!"

 

*No, that's no' a typo!

Edited April 20, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[Liser78]

This is where I kind of envy the non-readers, I can't tell if the reason for my dislike of some scenes (in all the episodes) is because I am too close to the books.  If I had never read them (or didn't re-read in the break), would I be more in love with the show or less.  I DO LOOOOOOVE it! But I love the books more.  I have been reading the no book talk thread to get a little insist.

 

I did really enjoy and get into the episode, but it felt like it could have been two episodes easily.  I think it would have matched more with the first half of the season if we had a chance too see Claire enjoying married life a bit more and also enjoying life acting as the healer at Leoch, more information about what goes into her decision at the stones.  They could have held off on the arrest and had that be part of this episode, as well as the trial, and we end with Jaime saving her and Geillis' sacrifice. Then we could have had a whole episode of just Jaime and Claire and the big reveal, the decision at the stones could have been developed more, and we could end with them actually coming in to Lallybroch.

 

Just my two cents.

 

I would still rate this in my favorite episodes.

[Dust Bunny]

I agree with my love for the books impacting my viewing of the stones scene. I've seen the episode 4 times now (it was in the background twice, when Starz shows it back-to-back-to-back on Saturday). That scene has grown on me each time. From the love-making scene by the fire the night before, to Jamie's face transitioning from adoration to sadness to resilience while watching Claire by the river, to him moving in front of her when they arrive on the hill, to him drawing his sword for any evil/mystery present, to him touching the stone on arrival, to her being driven forward to the stone while describing what happened before, to him pulling her back, to him walking down the hill without turning around, to the look on his face when she returns to him - it now works for me. 

 

This article about religion vs faith in the episode: http://outlandermusings.com/2015/04/20/episode-1-11-the-devils-mark-religion-vs-faith/ sold the show version for me. I had considered this very element before, but the blogger solidified it for me. While I would have liked to see the fade out, there's something very cool about it being Jamie's faith in who Claire is that is the key of why he believes her. It is such a juxtaposition of the need for proof in the trial.

 

Sure, there are still elements I miss. I too would like to hear Jamie tell Claire about his prayer to let her go. And I do hope there are some deleted scenes, including the voice over Claire had while deciding which future she wanted.

 

Still, having watched it a few times now, this works for me. I can appreciate it separately from the book, as I now see it more as (1) Jamie's faith in Claire, (2) Claire's subsequent appreciation in his faith when no one else would do that (especially as demonstrated by just being tried for witchcraft), and (3) Claire's appreciation that Jamie would selflessly let her go out of love for her because he wants what she wants. That brings a new level to their relationship that's kind of cool. I can get behind that.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[ElsieH]

I wonder why they decided to change the 10,000 pounds Geillis stole for the Jacobites to 1000? Seems like 10K would have a much bigger impact than just 1.

 

I am still on the fence about the entire episode. First, they left out the part where Jamie said he would go to the stake with her if she was really a witch. And I really hated that Claire wasn't all upset and hysterical while telling the truth about where she came from. Although, I really did think Jamie was giving her a WTF look at first. But it still seemed like a lot for him to just accept without seeing how affected she was by the telling of it as she was in the book. Also, I really didn't like what they did at the end there. I would have rather they cut the episode off before you find out she decided not to go, so that they could then do a voice over to explain why on earth she would do that.

 

And, as others have said, I'll be mad if they don't include the bit about praying to let her go. And I'm also wondering how they will fit all the backstory with Jenny, Ian, and Randall, or if they will bother. 16 episodes is not nearly enough it seems to cover this book, one of the shorter ones. How on earth will they manage season 2 with just 13?

[Squirrely]

I think, for me, a lot of the frustration I feel lies in the fact that this is a tv series with 16 freaking episodes to cover one book! It made me so hopeful that they'd be able to do it real justice, If they'd ever made a movie I absolutely would not have watched it because there's no way to cover the material in approx 2 hours. No freaking way. But then they go and add extra stuff that never happened (esp in the earlier episodes) that is just not necessary, and ignore key moments between Claire and Jamie.

 

Like in this episode, Jamie and Claire agreed that they could have secrets but always be honest. Well, that was a fantastic -and key- moment in the book (on their wedding night) that felt like it was thrown in and if you blinked you missed it in this episode. It's something that comes back again and again in future books. Maybe Ron and Co should have been required to read the entire series, or at least through Voyager, before creating this show. What he thinks are subtle or unimportant changes have an impact down the line. And that's what so frustrating to those of us who are emotionally attached. We want to see what we know these amazing actors can pull off. Just imagining ample time devoted to the ending of this episode, and all the emotion and dialogue before, during, and after Claire chooses to stay gives me chills! They could have made it every bit as, if not more, magical as it is in the book. The material is there. The actors' talents and chemistry is there. It's just so frustrating!

Edited April 20, 2015 by Squirrely

[chocolatetruffle]

I did really enjoy and get into the episode, but it felt like it could have been two episodes easily.  I think it would have matched more with the first half of the season if we had a chance too see Claire enjoying married life a bit more and also enjoying life acting as the healer at Leoch, more information about what goes into her decision at the stones.  They could have held off on the arrest and had that be part of this episode, as well as the trial, and we end with Jaime saving her and Geillis' sacrifice. Then we could have had a whole episode of just Jaime and Claire and the big reveal, the decision at the stones could have been developed more, and we could end with them actually coming in to Lallybroch.

 

THIS!  I know that in show time Claire has been in 1743 for about 6 months, based on the dates that the stones are open.  But it seems like she has only been married a very short time.  When I try to figure it out in my head being generous with the time line, it comes to about 3 weeks.  Am I missing something?  Does anybody else have a better idea of how long she's actually been married to Jamie?  

 

Claire's decision is not only about Jamie v. Frank but it's also to some degree about 1743 v. 1945.  She has come to accept 1743 because she's been happy there and the good, in her mind at least, has outweighed the bad.  

[ulkis]

I think, for me, a lot of the frustration I feel lies in the fact that this is a tv series with 16 freaking episodes to cover one book! It made me so hopeful that they'd be able to do it real justice, If they'd ever made a movie I absolutely would not have watched it because there's no way to cover the material in approx 2 hours. No freaking way. But then they go and add extra stuff that never happened (esp in the earlier episodes) that is just not necessary, and ignore key moments between Claire and Jamie.

 

I've seen some speculation that there is going to be some material from book 2 in this season, and I'm starting to think that's true.

[AD55]

For the most part I liked this episode.  I thought the trial and all the interactions between Claire and Geillis were terrific. Ned, who has somewhat condescendingly been portrayed as a cozy older man, demonstrates the ruthlessness that must be required of a lawyer who represents the interests of the Mackenzies. The rescue was rushed, but I was glad they retained those lines about Jamie's oath before God to protect Claire. (I hope we find out how Jamie knew Claire was in trouble.) IMO, the reveal was done well – Catriona and Sam were riveting – though I wish Claire hadn't told him about Culloden at that point. One thing that seemed very real to me was that Jamie doesn't want to know about the future, but when he is leaving Claire, she pleads with him not to set foot on Culloden field.

 

I was happy Jamie apologized for beating Claire, and like CatMack, I hope we're now done with that. I think the lovemaking scene was important, showing retroactively that Jamie has decided to bring Claire to the stones and wants to imprint her on his memory. I did question the decision to have him tell her about Lollybroch on the way there as it makes it sound as though he's making a case for her staying, but I fanwanked that to mean he wants to spend the little time he has left with Claire telling her what's important to him.

 

It's actually shocking that Moore messed up Claire's choice. As others have pointed out, this is the pivotal moment, and I had to do a lot of fanwanking to make it work at all. I wish the writers had brought in chocolatetruffle as a consultant. The voice overs almost always make me cringe – they're not just unnecessary, but they're usually poorly written. (When I was listening to Jamie's inner dialogue by the river, I was praying that he wouldn't tell us when “I became a man,” but you could tell it was coming. If I hear Claire say she feels adrift in a running sea one more time, I'm going to start throwing things.)

 

Why, then, did the writers drop their favorite technique and ask viewers to infer everything Claire was thinking at the stones? Blessed are those who believe without seeing, I guess, but I would have been a lot happier if Jamie had seen proof that Claire was telling the truth. Even after listening to a 100 Welsh minstrels, a man might have trouble buying that his wife is from the future. I can't decide whether I like that when Claire reaches for the stone, the screen goes black just as it did in episode 8, but I loved the last scene – Jamie's tears and the echo of episode 1 when Claire says, “on your feet, soldier.”

Edited April 20, 2015 by AD55

[ulkis]

Why, then, did the writers drop their favorite technique and ask viewers to infer everything Claire was thinking at the stones? Blessed are those who believe without seeing, I guess, but I would have been a lot happier if Jamie had seen proof that Claire was telling the truth. Even after listening to a 100 Welsh minstrels, a man might have trouble buying that his wife is from the future.

 

I do think his facial expression seemed a bit, "I'm pretty sure you're crazy, but I love you, so I'm just gonna go with it", but maybe I was projecting a bit.

Edited April 20, 2015 by ulkis

[ElsieH]

I do think his facial expression seemed a bit, "I'm pretty sure you're crazy, but I love you, so I'm just gonna go with it", but maybe I was projecting a bit.

 

I thought so too, and because of that, I'm not sure when or if he decided to really believe her. It is a pretty big letdown I think.

[Hybiscus]

While I would have liked to see the fade out, there's something very cool about it being Jamie's faith in who Claire is that is the key of why he believes her. It is such a juxtaposition of the need for proof in the trial.

 

Sure, there are still elements I miss. I too would like to hear Jamie tell Claire about his prayer to let her go. And I do hope there are some deleted scenes, including the voice over Claire had while deciding which future she wanted.

 

I thought I'd read somewhere that Ron said he didn't want to do the "fade out" because he thought it would be too "sci fi"  (which is sort of strange because he's done a lot of sci fi).  But making Jamie's belief in Claire's story about his faith in her worked very well for me.  Your first paragraph summary (which I deleted and can't seem to restore) exemplified all the things I loved about the episode.  While the voice over was from Claire, those scenes are really from Jamie's point of view.  If you hadn't read the books, you might not realize on first watching, but it is all about him preparing to say goodbye.

 

I too was hoping we'd get the bit about Jamie's prayer, but upon thinking about it more, ending the episode just after Claire returned was more climactic. I'm hoping they'll include that conversation at the start of the next episode.  Especially since 112 is written by Anne Kenney. 

 

And, as others have said, I'll be mad if they don't include the bit about praying to let her go. And I'm also wondering how they will fit all the backstory with Jenny, Ian, and Randall, or if they will bother. 16 episodes is not nearly enough it seems to cover this book, one of the shorter ones. How on earth will they manage season 2 with just 13?

Well, there's a lot of filler in Dragonfly in Amber, in my opinion.  I'd remember reading a couple chapters and then think, wow, that didn't add anything to the story.

 

Like in this episode, Jamie and Claire agreed that they could have secrets but always be honest. Well, that was a fantastic -and key- moment in the book (on their wedding night) that felt like it was thrown in and if you blinked you missed it in this episode. It's something that comes back again and again in future books. Maybe Ron and Co should have been required to read the entire series, or at least through Voyager, before creating this show. What he thinks are subtle or unimportant changes have an impact down the line. And that's what so frustrating to those of us who are emotionally attached. We want to see what we know these amazing actors can pull off. Just imagining ample time devoted to the ending of this episode, and all the emotion and dialogue before, during, and after Claire chooses to stay gives me chills! They could have made it every bit as, if not more, magical as it is in the book. The material is there. The actors' talents and chemistry is there. It's just so frustrating!

Wasn't the truth conversation on their wedding night was a deleted scene?  For some reason, I can see it playing out in my head and I'm not that imaginative to have made it up from nowhere.  (Then again, I suppose I could check the DVD, huh?)  Even so, I don't think it was a throw-away line here at all.  It was very key to the moment. This was the time when the truth was absolutely essential.

 

I don't know if Ron has read all the books, but his wife Terry has, as has Maril Davis.  And I believe Anne Kenney and Toni Graphia were big fans of the books, too.  Ron has said he has an obligation to not screw up his wife's favorite books, so I'm putting my faith in him.

 

Seeing so many people here who were really unhappy with the episode got me thinking.  With something you've loved so much for such a long time, we tend to play our favorite scenes over and over in our minds.  We know how we want them to play out, but not everyone's version is going to be equal to ours.  Then there are all the trials and tribulations of screen restrictions (like timing), studio execs (who have complained that certain costumes or shots make Caitroina Balfe look fat), and a myriad of other things I'm sure I can't possibly imagine.  So when what we get doesn't fit with our own expectations, we're disappointed.

 

I'm not saying those who were disappointed in the shouldn't be.  Those who didn't like this episode have made valid points, and I understand where you're coming from.  It just makes me sad that so many people here were so disappointed in something I so enjoyed.

[ulkis]

I thought I'd read somewhere that Ron said he didn't want to do the "fade out" because he thought it would be too "sci fi"  (which is sort of strange because he's done a lot of sci fi).

 

that maybe one of the reasons he didn't want to make it seem too sci-fi though - maybe he didn't want people thinking he was trying to change it too much into his usual genre.

 

studio execs (who have complained that certain costumes or shots make Caitroina Balfe look fat)

 

this seriously happened? sheesh. I mean I can believe it, but it still makes me groan all the same. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by ulkis

[WatchrTina]

Somebody posted this in the "no book talk" thread.

 

 

The good thing is after Jamie learns from Claire how Leery behaved towards Claire Jamie won't ever give her the time of day again.

 

The poor wee lamb is in for a shock in season 3.

[ElsieH]

It's not really that I was unhappy with the episode, it's more that I'm disappointed at the things they left out. I'm not sure the stuff they added for the witch trial is better than the stuff they didn't include. I just think at this point it doesn't make sense that Claire chooses to stay, and a couple of key moments would have gone a long way to explain it. But I'm not giving up, I just wonder what DG thinks of the omissions, and I'm looking forward to where it will go with the remaining episodes.

[bluebonnet]

I can understand the view that Jamie had faith in Claire which led him to believe her, but this explanation does serve to make the episode less satisfying than it already was.  I appreciate that the concept of faith is important to people, but it's not a state of being that I consider desirable.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that Jamie has cause to trust Claire since she has kept his secrets and has exhibited loyalty to not only him but those around them.  Still, even trusting a person doesn't mean accepting a claim that is outrageous.  Because it really is.  Time travel is outrageous.  It doesn't matter if there are songs about time travel.  We have thousands of stories about time travel today, but that doesn't mean that one has cause to trust their spouse's claims that they are from the future.

 

I've found that the show has been an improvement on the books, but here they dropped the ball.  While in the books Jamie trusted that Claire believed the story she was telling and he supported Claire in what she believed, he clearly had a reasonable and healthy dose of skepticism.  I don't find it at all romantic to just blindly believe something one's spouse claims just because love and sex.  Of course, we know Claire is telling the truth but Jamie isn't us.  This blind faith he exhibited is no better than the people at the witch trial who had faith in the claims that Claire was a witch. 

 

This misstep won't turn me away from the show, but it's certainly caused me to lose trust in Moore and co.  

Edited April 21, 2015 by bluebonnet

[WatchrTina]

I watched it again.  I liked the first half less and the second half . . . well I can't say I liked it more, I can only say I disliked it less.  And I chalk that up to the fact that I am so pleased with Sam's portrayal of Jamie up until now that I am striving very hard to interpret Sam's performance in a manner consistent with *my* Jamie.  Cait's performance in the second half is pretty much spot-on and I applaud her for it, especially given the little she has to work with.

 

But yikes, that first half!.  Lotte continued to shine for me but the plot!  The changes from the book!  Claire's being . . . not so smart.  Ned waving pistols about.  Ugh.  It got worse on second viewing.  And I noticed that when Jamie and Claire are hiding as Geillis is carried to the pyre, Laogharie is clearly visible following with Father Bain-in-the-ass.  Surely Jamie saw her.  How are they going to dance around this in season 3?  Ooooh.  I've just had a thought.  Heading off to the speculation thread now.

[Keeta]

I just rewatched and surprisingly liked the first half more than I thought I would, largely thanks to Lotte Verbeek (I still have problems with it, but I was able to enjoy it more). It was interesting to watch line-readings whose underlying meanings seemed super obvious the first time, but then the second time I could see the ambiguity, and why non-book readers might not catch on right away. (ex: Geillis' reaction to Claire's anachronistic Nathan Hale quote) 

[Hybiscus]

Somebody posted this in the "no book talk" thread.

 

 

The poor wee lamb is in for a shock in season 3.

*snort* I've been hanging out in the no book talk thread (mostly just reading) and it has been real hoot. Moreso after this episode than any other. They really are hitting on some key points, and it's so much fun to see what the unsullied are thinking.

[WatchrTina]

You know the actor who accused Geillis of calling down the lightning and then turing into a bird and flying off?  Did anyone else think that actor looked familiar?  Did he also play the priest who married Jamie and Claire?  It was his accent that made me think so but it may simply be that the two actors are from the same part of Scotland.  Still, they looked verra similar -- like they could be brothers if not the same man.