S01.E12: Lallybroch

[jcin617]

Since Clarie has apparently been giving Jamie the cliffnotes version of the future. how much information is she sharing?  Yeah, talking about airplanes is interesting, but she can lay out the entire future history of Scotland to him, which would seem to be a rather big thing.   Moreover, has she shared yet that her future husband is a descendent of BJR?   I mean, there is that whole "we can't kill him if he hasn't sired Frank's ancestor yet" angle.  Or that her husband wasn't (isn't?) actually dead, he just hasn't been born yet - I'm curious what Jamie thinks of that whole situation. 

[ganesh]

When Claire was telling Jamie in the montage like scene right after the stones, I specifically heard her say Culloden, so I think he's aware that they're headed for a big battle. I can see Jamie thinking, "well, now that we know what's coming, we could prevent it." Which I really hope they address. The problem is, they have to avoid fighting altogether because the Scots just don't have the firepower. 

[nara]

Yeah, but the mill is for the clan so obviously that shirt belonged to someone and NOT HIM.

 

It was neat the soldier was getting prepped to see what was wrong/fix it, but that whole stealing of the shirt thing distracted me. I am going to fanwank that the "fixing the mill" guy didn't know the "it's Scotland" guy kept it until later.

The shirt was abandoned, as far as he could tell, so it was fine for him to keep it. If someone had accidentally gotten their shirt caught in the wheel, likely the cause of the blockage would not be unknown and the shirt would have been ripped. If there was a man in sight, the red coat would probably have asked if it belonged to him.

[rozen]

Why do posters keep calling BJR gay when he's assaulted/attempted to assault both genders? Committing pan/bi-erasure to shoehorn him into a box to complain about isn't much better. He's a sexual sadist, he'd probably try to rape anything sufficiently terrified of him. In the flashback with Jenni he was coming off a major high from flogging the crap out of Jamie, I don't think it's surprising he could not generate interest in a girl who's fear response was to completely shut down. And he strikes as the type of guy who would go out of his way to prevent having little bastard Jack Randalls meandering around Scotland. 

 

Drunk ass slap was the best. They actually felt like a real couple rather during that scene. Half the time when they're having heart-to-heart talks in the bedroom they cycle through just about every contrived romance cover pose ever invented and it takes me out of the scene. I love they bookended it with Claire dumping him onto the floor and going into straight mom-mode. I have no idea how he ever thought they were the same age when he clearly shows the deference of a junior to a senior when Claire gets in his face. 

 

Dude, shooting that river scene must have been the worst. Freezing his nads off through multiple takes, and probably unable to eat carbs for a month prior. Much tragedy.

[ganesh]

I've been saying the same thing. Especially since we know for a fact he has descendants. It doesn't mean of course that he has to like women that much to father offspring, so I'm interested in the show addressing this. When BJR first ran into Claire, he looked good to go from what I saw. From a larger pov, binary sexuality seems to me a very modern construct and I think that's part of it. 

[Latverian Diplomat]

Yes, those guys were pretty nice - until they stole Jamie's shirt. What was that about? It seemed so random.

 

 

Yeah, but the mill is for the clan so obviously that shirt belonged to someone and NOT HIM.

 

It was neat the soldier was getting prepped to see what was wrong/fix it, but that whole stealing of the shirt thing distracted me. I am going to fanwank that the "fixing the mill" guy didn't know the "it's Scotland" guy kept it until later.

I believe they were following the English common law precedent of "Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers", which was also featured on Poldark this week, in a big way. :-)

[paramitch]

I liked this episode, even if Jamie's idiocy (however period-appropriate) drove me bonkers. It was utterly hilarious for him to face the sister he fully believes has been raped and forced to give birth to her rapist's bastard child, and then bellow about HIS pain and SHAME. Gah. Luckily, his sister Jenny was able to knock some sense into him (and I love Laura Donnelly, who is always terrific and whose character on "The Fall" haunts me to this day).

 

Was not expecting the penis.  I don't require full frontal in my TV shows, but I think if they're going to show it, show the hero's not the villain's!

As a woman who's sick to death of Penis Fear and nudity double standards on shows like "Game of Thrones," I was really pleased with the decisions in this episode, both with BJR's unexpected (and really disturbing) nudity, as well as Jamie's near-nudity at the mill.

 

That's actually what I was thinking too. I actually don't think he's gay, but gets off on sexual violence. We're all still rather quick to place someone in this box or that box.

<snipped for space>
I'd actually like a scene with Frank. Has he moved on?

Judging from what we've seen, BJR is willing to rape either men or women indiscriminately, so to me that means that he's bisexual, as well as (of course) a totally crazypants sexual predator who gets turned on by sexual violence.

 

There's no question Frank suffered terribly. But as far as Claire knows, going back is a one way trip. She can't be sure of popping back to the 20th century for a bit and then returning to Jamie again. The indication that she sees this as a one time irrevocable choice between two men is her moment pondering the two wedding rings.

I'd agree with this. I almost feel like we may not see Frank again -- which is a shame, since I really liked the character and liked his relationship with Claire. I also thought it was worthwhile to show that Frank may be a descendant of BJR's but he is caring, gentle and respectful, a far different man. I still can't get over how different Tobias Menzies is in both roles. As Frank he looks almost boyish and his face is so kind, but as BJR, his face looks mean and twisted somehow. Actors are awesome.

 

Claire's relationship with Frank is very 20th century. They get married on a whim as they walk by the courthouse, and spend a tiny fraction of their married life together because of the war. We know from the pilot that the Scotland trip was an attempt at reconnecting. But Claire's relationship with Jamie is life-and-death from the very first moment they meet. It's a way more intense, different kind of love. 

I don't agree with this characterization of Claire and Frank's marriage at all. All evidence on the show is that they had once been "inseparable" and cared about each other deeply until their time together was interrupted by the war. Frank took a much-needed moment to give them a marriage that would belong to Claire just as much as to him, on their own terms. While their second honeymoon in the pilot is wistful and poignant, there's nothing there that tells me that the two didn't love each other deeply (a fact further emphasized, to me, by their shared anguish in "Both Sides Now").

 

I do agree that Claire loves Jamie at this point, and was touched that she said it. But to me, her marriage with Jamie doesn't feel like a marriage of equals to me quite yet, unlike her marriage to Frank. For instance, in the first episode, we saw that Frank and Claire can talk to one another and share a rich array of interests and conversations even aside from the sex. But with Jamie, I still wonder what the two would actually talk about once they run out of personal histories. Right now they're just having lots of sex in between daring escapes (not that there's anything wrong with that, hee).

 

I feel the same way, particularly about the two gay characters. It's like the show is using a sledgehammer to pass judgement on masculinity. Uber macho highlander = good, jump his bones any time you can even if he treats you poorly. Poor old Frank, the civilized man who tries to keep his inner macho man under control = dull, dump him given the first chance. Gay or bisexual men = evil and worthy of mocking at best.

I have to say, I don't really see this. The Duke was fairly openly gay, and his orientation is known and accepted by the men around him. And while the actor plays him as rather fey, to me this was more an aristocratic trait than a sexual one. And while the Duke evidently made a pass at Jamie once or twice in the past,Jamie doesn't seem to see this as a big deal, just that he didn't return the feelings and politely skedaddled.

As far as Black Jack Randall, what's interesting to me is that when Jack makes his proposition to Jamie, Jamie is honest with Claire about considering it, and while he's certainly not happy about the idea of rape, he doesn't actually show a lot of stereotypical straight-male hysteria over what he's just been asked to do, nor is he defensive about considering it. Rather, for him it's a question of honor and power, and so he makes his choice not out of a fear of rape, but out of an insistence on the right choice.

 

I feel like I'm not expressing this well, but I was just kind of surprised and pleased that Jamie admitted to Claire that he totally considered BJR's proposal. It was totally believable to me and made total sense that any person in that situation would at least consider it when the choice was between rape and very likely death by flogging. So I feel like the show has, however oddly, actually offered us some subtlety here and that the gay or bi characters we've met have been reacted to with varying degrees of acceptance thus far.

 

I actually liked the Duke of Sandringham and got the impression that Jamie liked him too. (Yes, Jamie didn't want the Duke to make a pass at him, but they seemed on friendly terms at the duel and he seemed quite happy to introduce Claire to him. ) The Duke was kinda flamboyant, but he kept his cool when the McDonald men were being incredibly rude to him, and encouraged Jamie to do the same.

This. I liked the Duke as well, and felt that both Jamie and Claire responded favorably to him, overall.

 

The scene at the mill was refreshing.  Up to this point, we've only seen one English soldier behave decently to the locals (that young officer in the village who tried to make sure that Claire was ok with Dougal and the men when they were collecting rents).   You have to have a few decent guys who are doing the best they can to keep this interesting.

I really liked that scene too, and it was badly needed for a little balance and texture where the redcoats were concerned. So it was nice to see a polite group of soldiers who treated the women with respect, and with an officer who actually was attempting to do a kind thing by fixing the mill wheel.

 

I don't think he discriminates at all.

I agree with this. I think Black Jack has some serious issues and that for him, it's all about power, dominance, and humiliation, respectively. And I do think that he was being honest with Claire -- on some level -- back when he talked to Claire at the table (before Dougal's rescue) about his not understanding his own darkness, and that he doesn't understand why he is driven to do the things he does.

It doesn't make me like him, but it does make him a more interesting villain to me. Even the flashback to the flogging here was interesting, because you see this guy still trying to flog Jamie even when he himself is falling over in pain and exhaustion -- nothing compared to Jamie's pain, of course, but it's just such a strange thing and such a strange dynamic. It's like he simply cannot handle the idea of anyone who will not eventually submit. He's like a bully who will do anything until the person yells "Uncle," even if he himself suffers for it.

 

And last but not least, I did kind of love that he propositioned Jamie in this episode. At last, the subtext has become text!

[Glade]

I just watched this episode, and I really loved it, for the message it gave and the truly heartwarming progress between Jaimie and his sister at the end.  These siblings were really ravaged by the trauma of BJR's abuse; he tried to sexually assault both of them, he physically assaulted both of them, and caused their father's death in the process.  We were able to see Jaimie's PTSD flashbacks as he returned to his home for the first time since it happened.  Unlike in most tv where characters are shown as going through horrible violence and trauma week after week with no consequences on their state of mind, we can see that these events really had an effect on them. 

 

And at the end they came together and put the blame where it really belongs, on BJR (and no, raping men doesn't make him a homosexual, or even neccessarily bisexual.  Men are raped in war=zones, by their parents as children...in many contexts that have nothing to do with sexuality, but are driven by cycles of abuse and violence.).  It was beautiful, seeing two survivors come together in this way, acknoweldging each other's pain and not putting their own as greater..  I could really relate, and I think it's great that even given the brutality of the time they live in, these characters could strive for healing and to be better people. 

Edited May 9, 2015 by Glade

[John Potts]

Could Jamie have been more of a dick in this episode? Even if you assumed (wrongly, if not entirely unreasonably) that her eldest child was Randall's bastard, why assume that her younger one was too? And if you are gong to blame the victim for being raped (regrettably, not uncommon, even today), don't do it in front of the child! And yes, perhaps, while going over the books, you could talk to your sister who's been running things for the past however many years about the state of the estate before you go off about letting people off their rent or beating people up. Particularly as, until the Duke comes through with your pardon (if ever), you are still a wanted man who can't afford to make himself too visible

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2015 at 4:29 PM, ganesh said:

One thing I really liked was when the English soldiers came to the mill, Jenny told Claire to stfu and she actually did.

I know! Almost as if she learned from being partly responsible for one of her friends being burnt at the stake that speaking up ISN'T always the best idea!

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2015 at 5:20 PM, ganesh said:

I know she's the hero of the show, but honestly, not going back to close it out with Frank strikes me as extremely selfish and crass. 

ITA. From what we've seen of them as a couple, her marriage to Frank was a happy one. I can buy Jamie as a preferred choice of husband, but he comes with two hundred years less social progress (You let anyone vote? Even women!?) and infrastructure, plus there's a war on the horizon. Did she go, "well, nobody's tried to rape me for at least a day, so everything in the past is just peachy!"

[guiser]

On 27/04/2015 at 0:17 PM, terrymct said:

The scene at the mill was refreshing.  Up to this point, we've only seen one English soldier behave decently to the locals (that young officer in the village who tried to make sure that Claire was ok with Dougal and the men when they were collecting rents).   You have to have a few decent guys who are doing the best they can to keep this interesting.

Yes, a bit of nuance is so much better than straightforward goodies versus baddies.  However, it is also better in historical terms because I just don't buy a straightforward "evil English soldiery oppress the Highlands" narrative in the period before the '45.

For a start the troops who normally did most of the active policing of the Highlands were Highlanders themselves - the loyal clans in the shape of the Black Watch, formerly the Independent Highland Companies ( for more detail on BW see here). So where was the Black Watch in 1743? On the way to Flanders to fight in the War of the Austrian Succession! Presumably Ms Gabaldon didn't just pick the year 1743 out of a hat! XD  She picked it because with the Black Watch gone the situation in the Highlands would better serve a simple English v Scots narrative!  Ok I take that back because after a bit of googling it seems to be the fault of the tv program which is simplifying the book.

 Apparently troops without local knowledge had proved ineffectual in monitoring the disaffected clans and catching cattle reivers etc. However, there was definitely a downside to setting "loyal" clans on rebellious ones because that was asking clans to police their traditional enemies! So it was not just the presence of English troops that could cause problems!

The British government was warned by more than one person that this removal of the Black Watch would leave the Highlands under-policed. Indeed, even before they were withdrawn it could be argued that the Highlands was under-policed!  In these circumstances I really do not think that the remaining non-Highland regiments would have been throwing their weight around. Any commander who let someone like "Black Jack" rampage around would have had to have been an idiot - influential connections or not!

Indeed what on earth is "Black Jack" doing in the Highlands? It was a pretty unpopular place to be posted. All that rain and unfriendly natives! You'd think with his connections he could do better. Perhaps he has already been "reassigned" from somewhere warm due to his dubious behaviour!

On 03/05/2015 at 4:09 PM, paramitch said:

As a woman who's sick to death of Penis Fear and nudity double standards on shows like "Game of Thrones," I was really pleased with the decisions in this episode, both with BJR's unexpected (and really disturbing) nudity, as well as Jamie's near-nudity at the mill.

Boo! I must have missed the BJR nudity, or maybe it was cut for tv?  :(

Edited September 24, 2017 by guiser
edit to blame tv for narrative and not Ms Gabaldon! XD

[guiser]

16 hours ago, guiser said:

Yes, a bit of nuance is so much better than straightforward goodies versus baddies.  However, it is also better in historical terms because I just don't buy a straightforward "evil English soldiery oppress the Highlands" narrative in the period before the '45.

For a start the troops who normally did most of the active policing of the Highlands were Highlanders themselves - the loyal clans in the shape of the Black Watch, formerly the Independent Highland Companies ( for more detail on BW see here). So where was the Black Watch in 1743? On the way to Flanders to fight in the War of the Austrian Succession! Presumably Ms Gabaldon didn't just pick the year 1743 out of a hat! XD  She picked it because with the Black Watch gone the situation in the Highlands would better serve a simple English v Scots narrative!  Ok I take that back because after a bit of googling it seems to be the fault of the tv program.

 Apparently troops without local knowledge had proved ineffectual in monitoring the disaffected clans and catching cattle reivers etc. However, there was definitely a downside to setting "loyal" clans on rebellious ones because that was asking clans to police their traditional enemies! So it was not just the presence of English troops that could cause problems!

The British government was warned by more than one person that this removal of the Black Watch would leave the Highlands under-policed. Indeed, even before they were withdrawn it could be argued that the Highlands was under-policed!  In these circumstances I really do not think that the remaining non-Highland regiments would have been throwing their weight around. Any commander who let someone like "Black Jack" rampage around would have had to have been an idiot - influential connections or not!

Indeed what on earth is "Black Jack" doing in the Highlands? It was a pretty unpopular place to be posted. All that rain and unfriendly natives! You'd think with his connections he could do better. Perhaps he has already been "reassigned" from somewhere warm due to his dubious behaviour!

Oops! Here is me thinking I'd been super clever and that Ms Gabaldon chose 1743 as the year of Claire's trip because of the absence of the Black Watch, but google tells me the Black Watch is actually in the books. So from now on I'm not going to assume anything on the screen is Ms Gabaldon's fault or indeed to her credit! XD

Now I am watching the next episode called "The Watch" and I really do not know what to make of it...

Edited September 24, 2017 by guiser

[Camera One]

This episode was a nice change of place.  There was still the usual violence/rape, but at least it was in the flashbacks.  Jaime was being unfair to his sister at the beginning when he saw the child, and I could see how she would be angry at his attempt to take over even though she knew more about the running of the estate.  Still, she was rather contemptuous of Claire, so it was hard to completely like her.  I was worried Claire would once again do something she'd regret later when she interfered with the boy being beaten, but thankfully, Jaime and his sister agreed that the boy needed to be saved.  It's hard to know when physical abuse was alright and when it wasn't.  I can't see the show staying in Lallybroch, and they didn't disappoint with yet more turmoil with yet another cliffhanger.  You would think Claire would still be getting over what happened to Gaillus.  How long ago was that?  

Edited March 1, 2018 by Camera One

[Blakeston]

 

 

6

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

 

On 4/27/2015 at 1:08 PM, AD55 said:

There is evidence that Randall is coded gay -- he can't get it up with Jenny, he asks her repeatedly to turn around, he is attracted to Jamie. Rape isn't about sex but about power. He should get off on her fear. It's only when he is unable to perform that she laughs at him. Notably, he tries to blackmail Jamie into being a willing participant, though obviously consent is impossible under such a threat. I think the show is flirting dangerously with the stereotype of the predatory gay man. Just my opinion, but I believe that's what is insulting to gays. Sandringham, though in a much milder way, is also portrayed as predatory -- in the context of the show there is the implication that he uses his status and power to manipulate; Murtagh and others suggest that the only way to avoid his attentions is to stay away from him. While it's possible that in subsequent episodes we'll discover that Randall isn't gay, thus far, I do think this is more than implied. 

I realize I'm very, very late to the conversation (I just started watching the series on Netflix). But I'm inclined to agree.

It's possible that Randall is just supposed to be an equal opportunity predator. But if that's the case, I think it was a big mistake to reveal that he was impotent with Jenny within minutes of revealing that he wanted to bugger Jamie. I'm sure that seemed to a lot of viewers like an explanation. ("Oh, that's why he couldn't get it up for Jenny - he's into dudes!")

And even if he's supposed to be turned on by men and women alike, that still means they have two queer characters who fit the two biggest stereotypes about queer men from that era - the priss and the cunning predator.

[toolazy]

Randall isn't gay - he's an equal opportunity sadist.  The reason he couldn't get it up with Jenny is because she wasn't showing any fear of him.  Instead, she was laughing, which is not a turn-on for our BJR. 

[Blakeston]

4 hours ago, toolazy said:

Randall isn't gay - he's an equal opportunity sadist.  The reason he couldn't get it up with Jenny is because she wasn't showing any fear of him.  Instead, she was laughing, which is not a turn-on for our BJR. 

He was failing to get hard before she started laughing. Her laughter was a response to his impotence. If she had been laughing from the get-go, that would have been more clear.

If "equal-opportunity sadist" is what they were going for, I think it was a mistake to reveal his impotence with Jenny and his desire to screw Jamie so close together. Judging from the internet's reactions to the episode, a lot of people took those two plot points, introduced almost simultaneously, as proof of him being gay.

[toolazy]

On 7/26/2019 at 3:58 PM, Blakeston said:

 He was failing to get hard before she started laughing. Her laughter was a response to his impotence. If she had been laughing from the get-go, that would have been more clear.

If "equal-opportunity sadist" is what they were going for, I think it was a mistake to reveal his impotence with Jenny and his desire to screw Jamie so close together. Judging from the internet's reactions to the episode, a lot of people took those two plot points, introduced almost simultaneously, as proof of him being gay.

Wasn't he on the verge of raping Claire when Jamie showed up to break her out? Also, he was on the verge of raping Claire when the McKenzies intervened in the first episode.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Wasn't he on the verge of raping Claire when Jamie showed up to break her out? Also, he was on the verge of raping Claire when the McKenzies intervened in the first episode.

Yes he was.

[Anothermi]

WARNING!! ANTICIPATED DECLARATIONS OF LOVE—INCOMING 

(Fast Forward to the ending if you don't enjoy waiting)

Yes, they finally said it out loud. Not that we hadn't seen it before, but now we don't have to wonder about it. 

I appreciated the slower pace of this episode. It took time to give us some history and family dynamics of the Fraser clan—especially brother and sister. 

Jamie's mixed feelings at finally being home was well done. Plus his lack of a real concept of how to be the Laird. He missed formative years with his father due to BJR's arrival at the their home and I did feel that he seemed to be acting out of character when he and Claire first arrived. I was so relieved when Claire took him aside and pointed that plus how distructive that was. 

The show took pains to lead us to accepting that scene and it's impact on Jamie. They started with Jamie taking Claire aside and explaining how they have to put forward a united front. He says: “I need you to trust me here. This is my family, my land, my time. I'm laird, and you are my lady. We should both conduct ourselves as such.” I think that—because he now knows why she's not behaving like he and others would expect—he is able to explain his point in a way that she can accept. He talked about Letitia during that scene and how she—in reality—had a lot of influence on Colum. Claire used that info to know how to tell Jamie he's not being himself and not being a good Laird. I felt that sequence of events unfolded quite organically. 

After a bit of thought, I also believed the antagonism between Jamie and Jenny. He'd heard through Dougal—who had a big infuence on Jamie—that Jenny may have birthed a Black Jack bastard. Claire tried to remind him that was rumour, but what Jamie remembers from that time—and is plagued by—makes him believe it's true. 

Jenny—for her part—has spent 4 years thinking Jamie was killed because he tried to defend her. She has mixed feelings upon learning he's alive. Happiness and then anger upon hearing his accusations—which went far beyond what initially caused his worst fear. It felt parallel to his anger at Claire for getting caught by BJR a second time. 

Both of them dug into the anger instead of the hurt it stemmed from.

Jenny's changed point of view is triggered by seeing Jamie's back. 

Jamie's by the stern talking-to that Claire delivered. 

Their reconciliation was presented as both opening up their hearts to each other again, not onesided.

I've haven't mentioned Ian yet—I have some time-frame issues related to him—but he played a pivotal roll in assisting Claire to understand the family dynamic she could see going awry. 

 

Random information I picked up from this episode:

Claire is 27 and Jamie is 22 and that he thought she was younger than him! I loved his joke that when he turns 40 she'll be 245.

Jamie's response to all the new things in the world of the future is one of curiosity, not incredulity. e.g. Thinking of what the world would look like from thousands of feet up instead of how impossible it seemed. 

Jamie had a brother named Willie who died before his father did. Have we heard of him before? Was he a first born or later? Inquiring minds want to know.

What happened when BJR took Jenny into the house after knocking out Jamie. She's impressive.

Jenny is a proto-feminist. Mostly because of this: “And if yer life is a suitable exchange for my honor, tell me why my honor's not a suitable exchange for yer life? Or are ye telling me that I may not love ye as much as ye love me? Because if ye are, Jamie Fraser, I'll tell you right now it's not true.”

The time-frame issue I have with Ian stems from learning how old Jamie is. We learn that they were both in the war in France together (or at least one of the wars in France—which were numerous in that century) and that Jamie brought Ian home to Scotland after Ian lost his leg. 

Jamie's been gone from LallyBroch for 4 years. He would have been 18ish when BJR arrived, so he and Ian would have gone to war earlier, making Jamie 16-17 years old when they went? I know boys that young—or even younger—fought in wars back then. But Ian said Jenny nursed him back to health when he got back, yet he was not around when BJR arrived even though Jamie was back home. Plus Jamie would have known about the two of them if Jenny had been caring for Ian when Jamie returned. So I hope this missing piece is provided in future because it is going to niggle at me.

Lastly, I think we got Jamie's reason for rejecting BJR's proposition before the second round of flogging. He'd just seen his father and it was brief but moving. He told Claire that he wanted his father to be proud of him, so he couldn't allow BJR to break him. It seems a lot of Jamie's decisions are based on what would make his father proud of him.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Anothermi

[gingerella]

This episode had such a completely different feel to it from the previous 11 episodes. ‘Lallybroch’ sounds so happy go lucky but the place looks like a poor man’s Castle Leoch. It’s dark, brooding, and seems joyless in the vibe it gives off. Perhaps that’s just because Scottish dwellings of size were made of stone and few windows so it’s dark and foreboding of no fault of its own, but it just looked unwelcoming to me.

Jenny Fraser. What a way to greet your sister after four long years. I thought the anger that poured out of Jaime immediately, with the accusations about her child being BJRs bastard, I mean dude, finesse the situation a wee bit, until ye ken the situation, aye? I was surprised to learn that Jenny thought Jamie was dead, and that nobody had sent word to her that he was alive. She knows there’s a price on his head but she also thought he was dead? Calling continuity please, something isn’t right with that. If he was dead there’d be no price on his head, am I right? 

I like Ian a lot, he seems like a good guy and an ally and friend for Claire, but he also comes across as sort of weak, not someone who can help out when the shite hits the mill wheel, so to speak. 

The redcoat scenes are giving me anxiety, I feel akin to anytime a white walker scene came on in GoT. How is it that these redcoats are all over the place all the damn time? Of course someone is going to find out Jaime is there FFS, why would he think otherwise? Stuff like that annoys me because it’s glaringly obvious. 

Yes, I LOVE YOUs we’re finally said! And while I liked how Jamie told Claire he'd been hot for her ever since she rode in front of him within hours of first meeting her, I must admit they weren’t as emotional declarations as I thought they’d be. And no sexy time scene after saying the words? I feel gypped Show! But seriously, Jamie and Claire don’t seem to fit at Lallybroch, they just seem better suited for some other type of place though I don’t know what that would be. 

So @Anothermi, it’s true,BJR is into boys and wanted to bugger Jamie. And he was probably turned on by the beatings, he’s a sick fuck. When they showed him trying to rape Jenny and he couldn’t get it up, the writing was on the wall. It was interesting how detached Jamie was when he was talking about it, and how he wouldn’t have mined if it got him released the same day, but he was smart to not go ahead with it because as Claire says, he likely wouldn’t have honored his words, and it would have made Jamie appear more broken by him, which is what he really wanted. 

The scene when Jenny sees Jamie’s back for the first time, that was intense in that it seemed that Jamie didn’t realize his back was showing, he was just freezing his balls off, literally, and wanted some privacy to get out of the stream.Her reaction in seeing the scars spoke volumes about what her brother had endured, and she knew nothing about it or so it seemed. 

The end annoyed the hell out of me because I am feeling like every episode it seems someone is either almost raped or killed OR Claire and Jamie are being separated. I don’t know if I can take soon to be six seasons of this. At some point Im going to need them to be safe somewhere so they can grow the story without always being in fear of something bad happening.

ETA: I liked learning more about Jamie’s father and I hope we learn even more about him, and his mother too.

And I also wanted to say that Claire and Jamie didn’t feel like Claire and Jamie, if yo know what I mean. I suppose that was because Jamie was playing out what he thought being Laird was about, and Claire was trying to get the lay of the land. But they felt like a slightly different couple than the one I’ve become invested in, so I hope they get back on track.

ETA2: So Mrs. Fitz sends a trunk of personal goods (Jaime's or Claire's or both?) to Lallybroch? So if Mrs. Fitz knows they're headed there (and how would she know?!), that means others know, like maybe creepy Leery...uch, please no. And also, would that mean Culom would know too? I should think Mrs. Fitz sending Jaime and Claire's personal items to them without his permission would be a no no. Also, again, Jenny doesn't know Jaime is alive but she's just received a trunk with his belongings all of a sudden, after four years?!?

And not fornothing but where are the Scottish pearls?!? We've not see them at all since the wedding night. Are they destined for the Milk Carton Missing List too? Along with Claire's original tartan wrap which finally seems to have been picked up by someone between the 2nd and 3rd time she was at the Stones...

Edited March 20, 2021 by gingerella

[SassAndSnacks]

13 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I appreciated the slower pace of this episode.

I really love this episode.

It isn't until Jamie and Jenny reconcile that you really understand that such a huge part of who Jamie is has been missing.  His sister helped bring that piece of his life back to him.  I also cannot imagine the guilt he felt over his father's death - not ever really knowing what happened, believing he caused it to happen, and never being able to say goodbye and make peace with it.  

13 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I think that—because he now knows why she's not behaving like he and others would expect—he is able to explain his point in a way that she can accept.

Yes!  And I would think that this will only enrich his already uncanny ability to frame things for her in a way that she will understand.  But, Claire being Claire, will she listen?  She does here and her approach definitely worked.  

 

I love LOVE some of Jamie's one-liners in this episode.  

Claire - "Hair of the dog?"

Jamie - "I need the whole hound."  

Also very much appreciated the incredibly realistic snapshot of married life, when Jamie comes to bed drunk, slaps Claire on the ass, and the "Are you F-ing serious?" look she gives him in return.  It's like someone spied on my life and put it in a tv show set in 1743.  

 

As to all of your other questions and comments, I willna tell.  

[gingerella]

15 hours ago, Anothermi said:

He'd just seen his father and it was brief but moving. He told Claire that he wanted his father to be proud of him, so he couldn't allow BJR to break him. It seems a lot of Jamie's decisions are based on what would make his father proud of him.

 

1 hour ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I also cannot imagine the guilt he felt over his father's death - not ever really knowing what happened, believing he caused it to happen, and never being able to say goodbye and make peace with it.  

These two comments are making me think about the effect Jamie's father's death had on him. If I understand correctly, his father had a heart attack watching his son be flogged a second time. I f/f'd through that flogging scene as I dinnae watch the super violent stuff, but I ken what's happening. But I might miss some nuances along the way as a result. Does Jaime know that his dad died that way or does he only know he died, and not that it was a direct result of watching his beloved son be tortured? I can see now that Jamie wants to live a life of honor to honor his father, he probably gets his honorable side from his dad, and his openness to love from his mother I would guess. It makes sense in this context, that he decides early on not be a serial fornicator like Angus, not even with wee beasties, but rather that he will save himself for marriage to his one true love. That would, at least to me, make sense as to why he remained a virgin until his marriage to Claire. Jaime has morals. He also has heart, as witnessed by him giving back his tennant's last money after a poor season. He is always striving to do the right thing for others.

Oh, and I'm certain that whatever those men are doing at Lallybroch at the end of this episode, I think they were tipped off by that bitch, Leery. She would rather have Jaime killed and let him live as a martyr in her sick and twisted head, than have him be safe and happy with Claire. She is the polar opposite of Jamie, who was willing to let Claire go back to her own time in order to keep her safe and happy.  Bitch.

[Camera One]

Rewatching this episode, I was thinking it would be a nice peaceful episode of Jaime's home, but I had forgotten about the harsh flashbacks which thrust viewers back into the violence and gore.  

The issues and conflict between Jaime and Jenny were well done and made a lot of sense in the context of the story.  

17 hours ago, Anothermi said:

The time-frame issue I have with Ian stems from learning how old Jamie is. We learn that they were both in the war in France together (or at least one of the wars in France—which were numerous in that century) and that Jamie brought Ian home to Scotland after Ian lost his leg. 

Jamie's been gone from LallyBroch for 4 years. He would have been 18ish when BJR arrived, so he and Ian would have gone to war earlier, making Jamie 16-17 years old when they went? I know boys that young—or even younger—fought in wars back then. But Ian said Jenny nursed him back to health when he got back, yet he was not around when BJR arrived even though Jamie was back home. Plus Jamie would have known about the two of them if Jenny had been caring for Ian when Jamie returned. So I hope this missing piece is provided in future because it is going to niggle at me.

I didn't even think about the timeline, and those are excellent questions.  

I was wondering why Jaime had to fight in France... was there conscription?  Or did he sign up voluntarily?  If that had been the case, he wouldn't have had as much time to learn how to manage the estate from his father, who surely did not expect to die so young.  I would have liked to see more of Jaime's father. 

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

I was wondering why Jaime had to fight in France... was there conscription?  Or did he sign up voluntarily?

I found it odd that this was the first time we learned that Jamie went to France to fight...We didn't know that before, did we?

[Beeyago]

I think there are definitely some timeline issues in this series. It can get maddening.

[Cdh20]

I think Jamie went to fight in France with Ian after he escaped from prison when he was 18 or 19. I think Diana has a timeline for this somewhere, you could ask in the “ ask the book readers” thread. 

10 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I really love this episode.

It isn't until Jamie and Jenny reconcile that you really understand that such a huge part of who Jamie is has been missing.  His sister helped bring that piece of his life back to him.  I also cannot imagine the guilt he felt over his father's death - not ever really knowing what happened, believing he caused it to happen, and never being able to say goodbye and make peace with it.  

Yes!  And I would think that this will only enrich his already uncanny ability to frame things for her in a way that she will understand.  But, Claire being Claire, will she listen?  She does here and her approach definitely worked.  

 

I love LOVE some of Jamie's one-liners in this episode.  

Claire - "Hair of the dog?"

Jamie - "I need the whole hound."  

Also very much appreciated the incredibly realistic snapshot of married life, when Jamie comes to bed drunk, slaps Claire on the ass, and the "Are you F-ing serious?" look she gives him in return.  It's like someone spied on my life and put it in a tv show set in 1743.  

 

As to all of your other questions and comments, I willna tell.  

I love this episode too, and drunk Jamie is so cute! 

 

Also interesting gingerella that you don’t think they belong here, or that they will stay here forever! It is Jamie’s home! 

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

I think Jamie went to fight in France with Ian after he escaped from prison when he was 18 or 19. I think Diana has a timeline for this somewhere, you could ask in the “ ask the book readers” thread. 

I love this episode too, and drunk Jamie is so cute! 

 

Also interesting gingerella that you don’t think they belong here, or that they will stay here forever! It is Jamie’s home! 

I wouldn’t be able to ask any time lines because we Unsullieds take our Unspoiledness pretty seriously. 

I know Lallybroch is his home, he just doesn’t seem to fit there, at least not now or anymore.

[Cdh20]

17 hours ago, gingerella said:

I wouldn’t be able to ask any time lines because we Unsullieds take our Unspoiledness pretty seriously. 

I know Lallybroch is his home, he just doesn’t seem to fit there, at least not now or anymore.

I can so appreciate you taking your unspoiledness seriously! I think I enjoyed the first 2 seasons the most because of my complete unspoiledness, which was ruined once I started looking things up! It was my own undoing.

[mythoughtis]

On 9/23/2017 at 11:00 PM, guiser said:

Boo! I must have missed the BJR nudity, or maybe it was cut for tv?  :(

All you missed was unzipped trousers and an obviously CGI/fake  male appendage.  It was rather large/red for someone who wasn’t able to get aroused even by his own hand.