S01.E15: Wentworth Prison

[peacefrog]

My husband: "Joffrey is a walk in the park compared to Black Jack".

 

Pretty much agree with everyone, wasn't as horrible as I thought but man 16 is going to be rough. The non-book thread is pretty funny. Everyone warned you it wasn't a fluffy romance!

 

Loved the Brutus line.

[WatchrTina]

 

Though, I did get a giggle over the idea of Claire curing him with her magic vagina, because that sort of happens.  Only it's much much worse, and we're left wondering if Claire technically raped her husband.

I laughed as well when that unsullied poster nailed it.  But I have to disagree that Claire in anyway raped her husband. The "technicality" is: did Jamie rape Claire since when he had sex with her he thought (in his opium-ehanced fever dream) that he was taking eye-for-an-eye vengeance by "swiving" (raping) Black Jack.  I say it can't be rape since Claire was a willing participant.  Hell, she orchestrated the events and was very pleased with the outcome.  A few bruises were well worth pulling her husband back from the brink.

[bluebonnet]

I laughed as well when that unsullied poster nailed it.  But I have to disagree that Claire in anyway raped her husband. The "technicality" is: did Jamie rape Claire since when he had sex with her he thought (in his opium-ehanced fever dream) that he was taking eye-for-an-eye vengeance by "swiving" (raping) Black Jack.  I say it can't be rape since Claire was a willing participant.  Hell, she orchestrated the events and was very pleased with the outcome.  A few bruises were well worth pulling her husband back from the brink.

Taking to book thread. 

[theschnauzers]

I watched on demand just after midnight, and then watched the broadcast tonight twice.

 

This was going to be a difficult story arc to film, but I can understand why RDM and the writers chose to do it over one plus episodes. At least what they are using from this part of the book is in order of the book. The first part of the finale in two weeks is going to be as difficult as the Garrison Commander episode with the lengthy confrontation between Claire and Black Jack, even more so with the sadism of BJR. So I'm holding off on saying much until we get the final episode of the season. (No diferent than trying to comment about half of a novel,)

 

And for those new to Starz. they do not schedule new episodes for their Friday night series on three day holiday weekends. Since Outlander part one ended the weekend before Labor Day, we were spared that then; I just wished they had avoided the break before the final episode of the season.

[bluebonnet]

Oh, I completely forgot.  Was anyone else thinking of Roger when McQuarry was hanged poorly?  I really hoped McQuarry would have a Roger-like survival, that he was grab Claire's leg when she was walking out of the boneyard.  

[sara217]

 

I guess knowing that Jamie will actually suffer severe and lifelong problems from this particular event makes it easier for me to accept why this is part of the story.

 

Agreed.  This is contrary to most tv shows also, so it's not surprising that people expect Jamie will bounce back the same as before.  I think knowing that the brutality of the attack has such deep and permanent affect on Jamie makes it more acceptable within the story. That something less wouldn't have broken him, and wouldn't have changed him.

 

 

[Tara Ariano]

Matt's post on the episode:

 

Bloody Hell / Things get hyper-sadistic on Outlander. But is it good television?

[WatchrTina]

Ooooh, there are some good points being made in the "no book" thread.  Not everyone hated the episode.  I'm not going to quote them because I'm afraid that might accidentally bring the poster into this thread by following a notification.  So I shall paraphrase.

 

I loved the comment that in this episode Jamie sees Claire risk herself completely in an attempt to rescue her -- just like he did for her at Ft. William -- and that if he had had any doubts about the depth of her love for him, that act would put all doubts to rest.  Whatever the future holds -- torture, rape, hanging -- he'll go through it knowing he has her love.  He didn't really need that in the book -- Book!Claire's decision at the stones was much less ambiguous and Book!Claire and Book!Jamie have much more quality time together before Wentworth.  But the show has to condense events so I think it was a good observation that Claire's showing up in Jamie's cell is gratifying to Jamie  -- he realizes that she really really does love me!  It is, of course, equally horrifying to him because, as he said, he would never have surrendered to BJR to save himself, but he'll do it to save her.

 

I also LOVED the same poster's comment that it was a bit convenient that MacRannoch was yet another jewelry-giving former admirer of Ellen MacKenzie but that it made at least some sense in that Murtagh and the gang seek his help since he's a known ally of Clan MacKenzie.  She says in her post that "It isn’t as though they conveniently met someone who was willing to sacrifice everything for Jamie," which, let's face it -- is exactly what happens in the book when MacRannoch saves Claire from the wolves.  That made me laugh.  Out of the mouths of unsullied . . . 

 

I also just posted some links to reviews and I have to say the one on HitFlix annoyed the hell out of me.  She's apparently annoyed that Claire didn't go into the prison armed to the teeth with guns and knives and slaughter everyone that got in her way.  I think it's a childish, petty review.  I understand, for example, from the books that a woman wielding a flintlock gun is pretty much non-starter.  It's all well and good for Jenny and Claire to waive them around as a threat but in Book 1 Jamie won't even teach Claire how to shoot because she's too small -- the recoil would knock her on her ass and likely break her arm.  It's noteworthy that in the book during the rescue of Claire from Ft William, Jamie's pistol is empty when he reaches the window because he's already fired it.  Good thing too -- if he'd fired while crouched in that window the recoil would likely have knocked him OUT of the window.  So I ignore that reviewer's complaint that Claire should have brought a gun with her into the prison.

 

But she does raise a good point about the knife.  Claire should have been armed -- Jenny gave her a dagger and told her to keep it in her stocking-top, even when she slept.  Where was it?  And in the book Claire does kill someone with her knife.  I do wonder why they changed that.  She said in the last episode that she would kill to save Jamie.

 

It must be really hard to adapt a complicated book like Outlander.  We readers know that Claire had a good idea of where Jamie was before she went looking for him and in the book all those released prisoners make a plausible diversion to mask the fact that Claire is running around loose in the castle.  Murtagh just handing the keys to Claire and then hot-footing it out the front door of the prison is a bit of a lame plan but it's better explained in the book and Claire has better plausible deniability in the book.  In the show, Claire was in Sir Fletcher's room, searching through his stuff when Murtagh knocks out the guard (she was not there in the book) and she is now openly identified as being suspected of involvement in an escape attempt.  Isn't "Mrs. Beauchamp" now going to be an outlaw as well?  It's a problem.

Edited May 17, 2015 by WatchrTina

[CatMack]

Well, that was about what I expected.  This part of the book is relentlessly...unpleasant.  To say the least.  So unsurprisingly the episode devoted to it is unpleasant as well.  That's not a knock against any of the actors, it's just the consequence of having such a dark storyline take up the entire episode.  At least next episode has more light moments to balance it out, even if there's even more torture coming.  

 

The acting was fabulous.  I do think they strayed into torture porn territory a little, but not as badly as they could have (we'll see how bad the rest of it is next episode).  This episode is just completely bleak from beginning to end.  The performances were outstanding and I think they did about as well as they could given the source material, but I doubt it's once I'm going to rewatch.  Ever.  

 

I don't know that there's much more to say really.  This is one of the (sadly few, IMO) times that Gabaldon actually handles the aftermath of the horrible thing she puts her characters through really well.  I think the way this effects Jamie going forward is important.  So I'm willing to put up with the Wentworth stuff because it leads to actual exploration of trauma and PTSD and other interesting character stuff.  But the prison stuff itself is the kind of stuff you just have to plow through to get to the good parts.  It's a necessary evil.  

[Archery]

Well, I wonder if Claire wasn't armed because she thought she'd be searched when entering the prison, high born English lady or not.

I have to ask, reading some of the comments and the PTV article, what constituted the alleged torture porn in this episode? Even taking into account what I know happens in the book (only a fraction of which can end up in Ep. 16), there isn't anything worse than I've seen on basic cable. There's breaking Jamie's hand, nailing it, and the hangings. There was more violence (and more graphic) in the series finale of Justified, or any random episode of Sons Of Anarchy.

[Pestilentia]

 

Ooooh, there are some good points being made in the "no book" thread.  Not everyone hated the episode.  I'm not going to quote them because I'm afraid that might accidentally bring the poster into this thread by following a notification.  So I shall paraphrase.

 

Another good post over there just now about how the violence was justified as the British occupation was designed to completely decimate the Scots and did a damn good job of it as repercussions continue to this day.

It was a terrible time and what we are seeing was likely even far worse in reality.

[Nidratime]

I have to ask, reading some of the comments and the PTV article, what constituted the alleged torture porn in this episode? Even taking into account what I know happens in the book (only a fraction of which can end up in Ep. 16), there isn't anything worse than I've seen on basic cable. There's breaking Jamie's hand, nailing it, and the hangings. There was more violence (and more graphic) in the series finale of Justified, or any random episode of Sons Of Anarchy.

 

Good question. I don't watch any of those other shows and, many times, I don't watch them *because* they are so nonchalant about violence and sex, often without considering repercussions. So, I'm puzzled as to why Outlander is singled out as being so horrible, so graphic, so violent, etc. like no other show tortures, kills, victimizes, shows sexual situations or nudity on a regular basis.

[justsaying]

I've been reading reviews (straight press and blogs) since I watched the episode last night, and yours is the first that echoed my point precisely, with some echoing comments that are similarly unique. I was stunned that there were almost no critiques of the veer into "slash fiction, torture porn" (well put in a previous comment). <br /><br />What the fucking fuck, indeed. Not only were the visuals of every detail of graphic sadism unnecessary, they distracted from the performances they were supposed to offer these (excellent, imo) actors a stage on which to show everything they have to offer. Did I appreciate the great performances? I'm pretty sure I noticed something but what's indelible is the hand smashing and nailing. And NAILING btw, we already know Jamie is martyring himself. So, please.<br /><br />This episode is supposed to show us Randall destroying Jamie physically and crushing his soul. Fine, that sets us up for a great psychological journey ahead, no spoiler that's in every ad. By all means leave in the sicko scar licking, violating kisses, psychic subjugation, etc., and glimpses of the physical torture, with some more of the fine accompanying dialogue. <br /><br />Soul destruction runs throughout classic drama and Shakespeare had to settle for acting over gore to make his points. I know this isn't Shakespeare and granted, they're attempting to get closer to cable's sick sweet spot, but a bit of editing would leave enough room for the prurient as well as the creative. If you're telling the truth, Outlander, and "going there" is needed to carry the story, or any nod to your classy cast, let them act to get there.<br /><br />I did read Outlander and I did think, wow this author is one sick f#ck during the torture scenes. But seeing and hearing are that much more visceral than reading. The show is supposed to be an adaptation and this episode cried out for more. To all the readers who reply "it's in the books!" to any criticism of the show, I don't care, I'm not reading, I'm watching.

[Thalia]

I wonder if it is because so many have bought into the idea that Outlander is nothing more than an Epic Love Story, which it certainly is.  But it is so much more.  Gabaldon's books show that even when you're in love life happens, and that life isn't always pretty.  There seems to be a lot of anger in the non-book thread that the story has strayed away from braw men and their kilties. 

 

My only problem with this episode is the last episode.  While there was some important stuff going on last week, I feel it could have been condensed and given more time to Wentworth Prison and its aftermath.  

Edited May 17, 2015 by Thalia

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, I agree this show is no torture porn. The closest it's come to it was in "The Garrison Commander" when Black Jack was telling Claire about when he flogged Jaime until Jamie passed out and called it a masterpiece of beauty or whatever.  I remember seeing pieces of Jamie's skin coming off his back, if you will and the way the blood seeped out and down his back.

 

But there are other shows and have been other shows, that love that kind of stuff so much more. Game of Thrones and Spartacus, I'm looking at you.

 

I'm staying away from all reviews and any spoilery information about the finale, because, as rough as it will be, I don't want to be prepared for it, to the point where it will be unshocking for me, if that makes sense.  This was the most unpleasant, to put it mildly, part of the book, but if I could make myself read it, then I damned well will make myself watch it. I have no doubt that Sam again, will do a phenomenal job.

 

And now I'm off to rewatch the rest. Yes, even "Wentworth Prison" because I missed Jamie's single tear! And that was because my own eyes were blurred with tears.

 

ETA: Okay, as I'm rewatching "By the Pricking of My Thumb", it brought back the discussion up thread about Jamie's right-handedness v. his being a lefty.  Weel, here, as he's talking to Claire, while drafting the complaint against Randall to the Duke of Sandrigham, he's using his left hand to dip the quill in ink, and using his left hand to hand the quill over to Claire to sign.

 

And this is confusing, because I know I read, in the media thread, I think it was, that Moore decided to make Jamie right-handed, because Sam is right-handed. 

Edited May 17, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[justsaying]

p.s. regarding a comment that was posted while I was writing. With or without this psychodrama and it's resolution, I would love to switch from adapted from to based on the this one of the books and have the show remain in the 1700's Scottish highlands with Claire, Jamie, MacKenzies, Frasers, clans, history. Not just for the central relationship but for the great characters, stories and settings I loved. Plenty of trials, tribulations, and drama available.

[AheadofStraight]

GHScorpiosRule - IIRC, Sam said on twitter or in an interview that he did that as a nod to the fact that book Jamie is left-handed. I still think Jamie is considered right handed on the show.

[chocolatetruffle]

That was one of the most powerful hours of television I’ve seen in quite a while.  At times disturbing, tense, horrifying and heartbreaking, I predict that this episode and its companion in 2 weeks will generate a lot of media attention and discussion, good and bad.  This is going to be polarizing and for the showrunners (kudos to Anna Foerster and Ira Behr), cast and crew, that means that they got it right.  I congratulate them all on a job very well done. 

 

The acting by Cait, Sam and Tobias was stellar and deserves any accolades that the industry chooses to throw at them.  I would really like to see Sam recognized for his work here because he showed great emotional depth with very little dialogue – everything you needed to know about Jamie’s journey was etched on his face.  It was a haunting performance.

 

Torture-porn/ slash-fic:  I am rather shocked to learn that there is so much fantasy “sado male-on-male sexual assault leads to love” fiction out there that it’s become a trope with its own name.  Sheesh!  I’m guessing that the “ground-breaking” stuff centers around a romantic-hero protagonist being tortured and raped and the aftermath.

 

Regarding Jamie’s hand on BJR’s crotch and why he didn’t squeeze, based on the angle that Tobias grabbed Sam’s wrist it looked to me that BJR was holding the back of Jamie’s hand against him with the palm down and open.  The look on Jamie’s face was definitely one of pain and shock, but I also saw helplessness.  (Nice cutaway to Marley who looked like he wanted to be anywhere else at that moment.)

 

I liked Murtaugh carrying Claire away from the prison after she threw up.  Although she didn’t faint, she was still physically devastated, and it was a gentle, caring thing for him to do (really the only thing that he could do) to help her at that point. 

 

I have just a few minor nitpicks and one big one.  First the minor ones:  Hanging sequence, although well done, went on a little too long.  BJR’s leaving & return to find Claire was contrived, but there was so much tension going on that I can whistle past it.  TM’s characterization of BJR is walking a very fine line between real and cartoon and at times I felt he got a little too close to the cartoon side of that line.  Lastly, I thought the Macrannoch section seemed a bit off.  I can’t put my finger on it, really.  Maybe the transition was a bit abrupt?

 

Major nitpick:  How in the Blue Dilly Hell are they going to cram the remaining plot points into one hour???  This episode should have ended at the rescue, for crying out loud!  The next episode would then start with the aftermath – it is entitled To Ransom a Man’s Soul and that is what we should see.  Caq! It’s so frustrating because something is going to be given the short shrift and logically that would be the Abbey scenes with particular emphasis on Jamie’s healing after Claire’s “ransom” is paid.

 

Overall an excellent episode, but so disturbing I don't think I'll rewatch - at least not for a very long time.

[peacefrog]

I just lost my post :(

 

This episode felt worse than other tv episodes because as someone else has pointed out, we are so invested in Jamie and Claire. These are not secondary characters, we know them and have been in their heads. 

 

Jamie's face is still in my head. This episode was fantastic. Tense, foreboding and emotional. We went through a lot and I'm going to repeat myself Sam Heughan's looks as Jamie is all I can think about. I really haven't been so moved by a performance ever. This episode made me feel.

[ulkis]

.No, the scene came before Claire got there, so before Jamie's promise to surrender. Yes, he was in excruciating pain. But Jamie was also muttering that he would kill Jack. It just felt to me like it would have been almost an instinct to squeeze. To fight. The hand crushing came because he was fighting. Adding that part at all (I think it was added) -- with forcing his hand into Randall's crotch -- it felt like Jamie would have still attempted to hurt Randall.

 

 

Jamie was in excruciating pain.  And he likely was in shock.  I doubt he had much fight in him at that moment, let alone coherent thoughts.  In the book, Randall broke his hand because Jamie had punched him in the nose (if I recall correctly).  Here, hammering the hand seemed to be calculated and cold-blooded.

 

Yeah, that, and Randall is still the one holding Jamie's hand. He could be holding it in a way that, er, doesn't allow Jamie to squeeze.

 

The psychological torture began with the first scene, and you see the partial payoff as Jamie is considering the possibility of dying quickly and with honor.

 

Yeah, and notice too Randall is messing with head by going "why are you forcing me to treat you so abominably?" 

 

I did crack up in a dark humor sort of way at the look on Marley's face when he was watching Randall and Jamie. 

[WatchrTina]

Sorry, move along, nothing to see here.  Ran into technical difficulties.

Edited May 17, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Looks like WatchrTina hit reply before adding her answer!

[ihartcoffee]

Has the reasoning behind why Claire can't kill JBR been brought up on the show?  I can't recall.... 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Has the reasoning behind why Claire can't kill JBR been brought up on the show?  I can't recall.... 

 

Not yet.

[WatchrTina]

 

Major nitpick:  How in the Blue Dilly Hell are they going to cram the remaining plot points into one hour???

Okay, Imma try to reply to this again.

 

I'm always amazed a how much can be crammed into one episode.  Think about all that happened in episode 101 -- establish the characters, foreshadow the stones with the palm-reading, see the pagan dance, foreshadow Jamie with the "ghost" in the square, three sex scenes (okay so one is mostly a squeaking bed) then BANG -- you're through the stones, introduce a whole second set of characters, do some medical treatment. show scenic riding shots, segue into a battle on horseback, add super-sexy "I could throw you over my back and carry you . . . do you want me to do that" conversation, then more medical treatment, aaand Leoch!

 

If they can pull that off I'm confident they can finish the book satisfactorily. I predict that the episode will be back to Claire's point of view so we'll hear about the rescue (and what happened to Jamie) all as flashback.   

 

Ooooh, I've just had a thought.  You know this is the same director as The Wedding episode.  What if they took a page from that and BEGAN the episode with Jamie and Claire in France and then told the rescue story in flashback with Murtagh explaining to a delirious Jamie.  (BTW I still want a line where Jamie asks "Were there . . . cows?")  That would allow them to hopscotch around and move through the highlights of the story quickly.  Then they could continue to follow the structure of The Wedding with additional flashbacks of what happened to Jamie before the rescue, narrated to Claire by Jamie (that's exactly what happened in the books) happening as Jamie's condition in "real time" deteriorates, followed by the sexual healing scene and the happy hot tub aftermath.  It could work.

Edited May 17, 2015 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Okay, Imma try to reply to this again.

 

I'm always amazed a how much can be crammed into one episode.  Think about all that happened in episode 101 -- establish the characters, foreshadow the stones with the palm-reading, see the pagan dance, foreshadow Jamie with the "ghost" in the square, three sex scenes (okay so one is mostly a squeaking bed) then BANG -- you're through the stones, introduce a whole second set of characters, do some medical treatment. show scenic riding shots, segue into a battle on horseback, add super-sexy "I could throw you over my back and carry you . . . do you want me to do that" conversation, then more medical treatment, aaand Leoch!

 

If they can pull that off I'm confident they can finish the book satisfactorily. I predict that the episode will be back to Claire's point of view so we'll hear about the rescue (and what happened to Jamie) all as flashback.   

 

Ooooh, I've just had a thought.  You know this is the same director as The Wedding episode.  What if they took a page from that and BEGAN the episode with Jamie and Claire in France and then told the rescue story in flashback with Murtagh explaining to a delirious Jamie.  (BTW I still want a line where Jamie asks "Were there . . . cows?")  That would allow them to hopscotch around and move through the highlights of the story quickly.  Then they could continue to follow the structure of The Wedding with additional flashbacks of what happened to Jamie before the rescue, narrated to Claire by Jamie (that's exactly what happened in the books) happening as Jamie's condition in "real time" deteriorates, followed by the sexual healing scene and the happy hot tub aftermath.  It could work.

 

The line was actually "over my shoulder" but yes, I agree that they will do a great job with the finale.

[chocolatetruffle]

I have no doubt that they can cram everything in.  The problem for me is that I don't want it to feel "crammed."  Jamie's healing is crucial and I want it to be given the time that it deserves.  In Kristen dos Santos article she says that the "last 5 minutes" are the payoff for all that's gone before.  I want a longer than 5 minute payoff is all....

 

ETA:  the finale is written by RDM who wrote Ep01 and Ep08, Both Sides Now, FWIW.

Edited May 17, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[WatchrTina]

Well, maybe "crammed" was a poor choice of words on my part.  Does episode 101 feel rushed or overstuffed?  I didn't thing so.  And yet it is chock-a-block full of plot and character moments.

 

 

The line was actually "over my shoulder"

I am blushing at having misquoted one of the best lines from the whole series.  I may have to go back and re-watch ep 101 as penance.

[chocolatetruffle]

No it doesn't.  It's very action-packed.  But the emotional stakes weren't as high and I don't want "action" to take precedence over moments of healing introspection for both Jamie and Claire.  YMMV but I'd feel a lot better about 116 if they had ended Wentworth further along in the story.

[mybabyaidan]

What I don't understand is Claire being called a Mary Sue.  She is far from it IMO.  She CONSTANTLY fucks up.  You can even go as far to say that she fucked up the rescue so badly that she *is* the reason Jamie endures what he has to.  Now I personally don't hold that view, but I have heard people say it before.  If she didn't get caught, Jamie could have gone out fighting.  Now we all know he gets saved, but it's not from her alone.  She doesn't even come up with the big cow idea. 

 

I love and adore Claire, and one of the reasons is that she makes a ton of mistakes.  But she usually owns them.  I guess it's subjective, and I know I am biased because of my fierce love for book Claire, but I just don't ever see her as a Mary Sue.

[tcay]

Someone on the no-book thread brought up a point I wondered about: what kind of tone are these last two episodes setting up for the series? We all know there is more to the series than captures, rapes, and violence, but we have the benefit of the books. There is a lot of space between these big events. But the show boils down the story to mainly the big events, and I wonder if that makes it feel like a roller coaster where everyone is captured, raped, tortured, or otherwise maimed every other episode. 

 

This is probably the darkest the books ever get, though I would argue what Claire suffered in book six comes close. Will the show feel like it needs to "go there" every season, or will they let these two episodes stand as the worst of the lot?

[lianau]

I think there will be a few montages coming up . Rescuing Jamie , the hot poker discussion , montage of him being fixed up , maybe the part with the hand and the removal of the branding of Jacks ring, traveling to the Abbey , montage of Jamie getting sicker , sending Claire back and Wentworth stuff, last rites , Claire's stand in healing , montage of Jamie getting better. Somewhere in there the discussion with the monk about Frank , Jack and changing the past  . Ending the season with the Faith discovery and the France decision .

[chocolatetruffle]

Someone on the no-book thread brought up a point I wondered about: what kind of tone are these last two episodes setting up for the series? We all know there is more to the series than captures, rapes, and violence, but we have the benefit of the books. There is a lot of space between these big events. But the show boils down the story to mainly the big events, and I wonder if that makes it feel like a roller coaster where everyone is captured, raped, tortured, or otherwise maimed every other episode. 

 

This is probably the darkest the books ever get, though I would argue what Claire suffered in book six comes close. Will the show feel like it needs to "go there" every season, or will they let these two episodes stand as the worst of the lot?

 

I think you are spot-on about the roller coaster effect, especially for non-book readers.  I watched the first half of the season unsullied, and I started feeling that out-of-control roller coaster ride in Ep 08 with the rape attempt, followed by the capture at the stones and then BJR's second rape attempt.  I can imagine that the second half has been a lot to take in.  I've heard it said that in drama, it's the last beat that leaves the lasting impression, so the final moments of the finale will probably color the show's overall tone.  

[Helena Dax]

 

 

THE BAD

Murtagh carrying Claire away from the prison was dramatic and picturesque but also rather silly.  She puked.  She didn’t faint.

 

I think she was having a panic  attack  and if  she was wearing  a corset...

 

I  do  think  this  is a bit of torture porn, which  isn't a  bad thing in  itself. I used to watch Spartacus and I ejoyed every bit of its shameless  gore. But there was a few m/m rape there too and it was nothing like this. These close shots, it's almost filmed like an actual  seduction  because  that's why BJR thinks  he's doing, in his sick twisted way. And if Jamie's rape is a bitter pill to swallow, it's worse  if  you're watching Outlander because you thought it would be another kind of show,  gentler, not so gritty. 

Edited May 17, 2015 by Helena Dax

[ulkis]

edit

Edited May 17, 2015 by ulkis

[Archery]

 

Torture-porn/ slash-fic:  I am rather shocked to learn that there is so much fantasy “sado male-on-male sexual assault leads to love” fiction out there that it’s become a trope with its own name.  Sheesh!  I’m guessing that the “ground-breaking” stuff centers around a romantic-hero protagonist being tortured and raped and the aftermath.

Girrrrrrl, you can't even imagine. I think part of the reaction is based on unfortunate timing. Outlander came out in 1991, before there was widespread fan fiction to be found on the internet. Fan fic was published in magazines, and had at least nominal editing. Nowadays, though, there is all kinds of fan fic out there, some extreme (a lot of it so, so terrible) including slash torture porn and hurt/comfort. If you grew up in the internet age, or read a lot of fic in your particular fandom, it might seem like Outlander hits all the tropes in these last few episodes, that it's this awful literary cliche. But it was written BEFORE they WERE tropes.

I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head: the show was advertised as a time travel romance, and people are upset at the dark turn and content. I just think the suggestion of what's going to happen to Jamie set people of rather than the actual content.

[ulkis]

Girrrrrrl, you can't even imagine. I think part of the reaction is based on unfortunate timing. Outlander came out in 1991, before there was widespread fan fiction to be found on the internet. Fan fic was published in magazines, and had at least nominal editing. Nowadays, though, there is all kinds of fan fic out there, some extreme (a lot of it so, so terrible) including slash torture porn and hurt/comfort. If you grew up in the internet age, or read a lot of fic in your particular fandom, it might seem like Outlander hits all the tropes in these last few episodes, that it's this awful literary cliche. But it was written BEFORE they WERE tropes.

I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head: the show was advertised as a time travel romance, and people are upset at the dark turn and content. I just think the suggestion of what's going to happen to Jamie set people of rather than the actual content.

 

I was watching this with my sister, and I had warned her about the rape, but she said what she really didn't like was the nail in the hand. She said she was expecting a violent rape but she hadn't really expected the gore. Which to be fair, the show really hasn't been that gorey except for the flogging, so I could see how it would take someone by surprise, if they don't normally watch this type of show and had it recommended to them by someone else, like she did.

[ihartcoffee]

I imagine this is all very shocking to the non book reader's. It's some of my least favorite content. I'm ready for it to be over with already.

The look on Murtaugh's face when the guard said 'and whose gonna protect him', I'm loving him more each episode!

Poor Jamie, this episode was tough as hell to watch.

Edited May 17, 2015 by ihartcoffee

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just finished my rewatch of the entire season up to this episode again. It was just as nerve wracking and my heart still pounded, even though I knew what was coming.

 

And yep, I did it again, and I'm not ashamed. Watched through my fingers to see Jamie's face and Claire's, and then shut my eyes when the hammer went down to smash his hand and when Randall drove the nail into Jamie's hand.

 

I'm hoping that the

twitter pictures posted awhile back that show Claire and Jamie after he's rescued, with the scars on his left hand is not the last scene. It's such a lovely image; they're in the grass, and his eyes are closed, but he's fully dressed, and not in the rags we last saw him in

.

 

And I totally forgot that Menzies played Brutus in HBO's Rome, so that line went straight over my head.

 

I don't know how I'll make it through the next two weeks.

Edited May 17, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[Glaze Crazy]

I'm loving the non book readers thread.  I hope they and others elsewhere stick with the series for the future story payoffs to all this brutality going on at this point.  At least, I'm hoping the next episode shows how this one lays the groundwork for who Claire and Jamie become as they move forward.  I continue to hope TPTB are able to convey that in the limited time they have left for this season.  There are so many places in the book series where beloved characters have to deal with violence and horror of the era they are living in.  There are also so many good moments that come to those characters too.

 

I wonder if the reviewers who are wringing their hands about this descending into darkness after the sweet swashbuckling love story it seemed to be at the beginning will draw in some interest of folks who might have resisted it in the beginning due to said perceived sweet love story?  It seems like it would have a negative affect, but I hope what it does overall is make the point that this ain't no happily-ever-after bodice ripper, ala "The Impetuous Pirate."

 

ETA: re: Similar violence on other shows.  I watched all of Sons of Anarchy and The Walking Dead (so far) and I didn't see this episode as any more violent or bloody in comparison to some of the stuff that's been shown on either of those shows.  (Even the SoA showrunner showed the character he was playing being raped in prison.)  The only difference might be that the blood and gore on those shows can be so OTT ridiculous as to become comical, IMO.  This series feels more human so I can understand where viewers are feeling sickened, which is good since I think, in my case anyway, we as viewers can easily become desensitized to it when it's played primarily for the shock value.  As a book reader I never got the sense that Gabaldon was trying to shock her readers, just tell a story that required the main characters to be truly invested in their own and each other's survival.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Glaze Crazy

[Dust Bunny]

 

I'm loving the non book readers thread.  I hope they and others elsewhere stick with the series for the future story payoffs to all this brutality going on at this point.  At least, I'm hoping the next episode shows how this one lays the groundwork for who Claire and Jamie become as they move forward.  I continue to hope TPTB are able to convey that in the limited time they have left for this season.  There are so many places in the book series where beloved characters have to deal with violence and horror of the era they are living in.  There are also so many good moments that come to those characters too.

 

I like your hopeful take, Glaze Crazy. The non-book readers thread makes me sad; I hope you're right. I think for many non-book viewers the finale will come down to the episode's clock management. There needs to be a worthy amount of hope and happiness in relation to the darkness and despair. 

 

For some non-readers, the show apparently hasn't depicted Jamie and Claire's love well enough. Some viewers pine for Frank, which I think is a misfire on the writers' side. Though I talked myself into being ok with the stones and fireside scenes of "Devil's Mark", the poor depiction that Claire chose to stay is a major fail (some viewers truly believe the stones didn't work). Thus, I'm really, really, really hoping the finale can better depict the growing depth of Claire and Jamie's mutual love and commitment. 

 

At least I talked my uncle and aunt non-book readers to hang with it. Sometimes contextual warnings work.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Dust Bunny

[Nidratime]

For some non-readers, the show apparently hasn't depicted Jamie and Claire's love well enough. Some viewers pine for Frank, which I think is a misfire on the writers' side. Though I talked myself into being ok with the stones and fireside scenes of "Devil's Mark", the poor depiction that Claire chose to stay is a major fail (some viewers truly believe the stones didn't work). Thus, I'm really, really, really hoping the finale can better depict the growing depth of Claire and Jamie's mutual love and commitment.

 

 

The pining for Frank puzzles me, since I don't find him more compelling than Jamie (and all the time we've spent *with* Jamie) or even Dougal! I think the wish to get back to Frank is actually code for wishing Claire could get back to the 1940's so we can be rid of the violence of the 18th Century, Jamie's fugitive status, Black Jack, and the looming Scottish Rebellion -- not necessarily some tremendous longing for the Frank character.

 

Yes, let's go back to the 1940's so we can watch a show about Claire's adventures as an English professor's wife at Oxford. The second season can be called "Hello Again, Mr. Randall!"

Edited May 18, 2015 by Nidratime

[GHScorpiosRule]

As much as the non-book thread frustrates me, I have to also shake my head. One poster said they thought Claire would be constantly time traveling between the 1940s and 1740s, not remaining in the 18th century, and how this show's violence is on the same level as Game of Thrones, which I find...baffling.

 

Anyhoo, it will come as no surprise to ye all, that I dreamt of Sam/Jamie last night, because, aye, I went ahead and watched "Sassenach" and "Castle Leoch" again*, after giving in and clicking on the screen caps for the finale. I'm soooo weak.  

 

*I feel like I did when I got the blu ray edition of Last of the Mohicans, which had restored 95% of what the Director's Cut had removed from the theatrical version--which had me rewatching it, back-to-back, like 10 times.  And Daniel Day-FUCKING-Lewis was nothing short of Brutally Beautiful in that movie.

Edited May 18, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[tcay]

I keep looking at the thread too and it is getting a bit frustrating. They are all assuming the show will not properly deal with the fallout of sexual assault, but this is one of the few shows on air that actually has the narrative space to do it. GoT is awful about this; lead characters have been raped, but there are so many other characters and stories that any possible repercussion is ignored in service of the larger story. Rape really is just a plot device on that show. On Outlander, it is going to completely change Jamie and if they follow the books, the effects will be felt throughout all of season two (and longer).

 

Seems like people are sticking it out for the finale, but I hope they come back for season two.

[WatchrTina]

I'm going a bit far afield now but I recall a scene in another show I loved -- Farscape -- where the hero, John, is sexually assaulted by a woman (drugs were involved).  Now Farscape was a SciFi/dramady with with a strong comic element and so John's buddy, Dargo, jokes about his having to "take one for the team" and John banters back "technically it was two" but there was a quick scene were you saw John, alone, contemplating what just happened and his body language says it all -- he's practically curled up in the fetal position.  It was a thoughtful nod to the fact that sexual assault of a man -- even a straight man assaulted by a woman -- does have psychological ramifications that are all too often ignored.

 

I wonder if some of those critics'  comments about "ground-breaking" territory in the last episode are less about the rape and more about showing the PTSD aftermath of male-on-male rape?  I'd love to think that was so.

Edited May 18, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Keeta]

I keep looking at the thread too and it is getting a bit frustrating. They are all assuming the show will not properly deal with the fallout of sexual assault, but this is one of the few shows on air that actually has the narrative space to do it. GoT is awful about this; lead characters have been raped, but there are so many other characters and stories that any possible repercussion is ignored in service of the larger story. Rape really is just a plot device on that show. On Outlander, it is going to completely change Jamie and if they follow the books, the effects will be felt throughout all of season two (and longer).

 

Seems like people are sticking it out for the finale, but I hope they come back for season two.

 

Agreed, very frustrating to read. I can understand if you simply don't want to see graphic violence in your entertainment. I'm honestly not sure how I'd be reacting if I hadn't read the books and hadn't been able to prepare myself. 

 

I really just want to remind people of Claire's quote from the pilot:

 

"I do know this: even now, after all the pain and death and heartbreak that followed, I still would make the same choice."

[chocolatetruffle]

I like your hopeful take, Glaze Crazy. The non-book readers thread makes me sad; I hope you're right. I think for many non-book viewers the finale will come down to the episode's clock management. There needs to be a worthy amount of hope and happiness in relation to the darkness and despair. 

 

I couldn't agree more.  When I read the book, I NEEDED to know that Jamie would be o.k., that he could get past it.  By the end, I wanted more assurance so I jumped right into DIA.  Imagine my shock when I read the first page!  I really hope they don't do a time jump at the end to Claire and Frank in a hospital, cause I don't think I could take it.

 

Speaking of Frank, 

 

 

...I think the wish to get back to Frank is actually code for wishing Claire could get back to the 1940's so we can be rid of the violence of the 18th Century, Jamie's fugitive status, Black Jack, and the looming Scottish Rebellion -- not necessarily some tremendous longing for the Frank character.

 

Yes, let's go back to the 1940's so we can watch a show about Claire's adventures as an English professor's wife at Oxford. The second season can be called "Hello Again, Mr. Randall!"

 

I think you are probably correct Nidratime.  I also think the show went out of its way to show what a great guy Frank is, but didn't show any of his flaws.  The one scene of Frank's reaction when Claire swears at the dinner table after burning herself would have gone a long way to illustrate that Frank was not always accepting of who Claire is and tarnish the St. Frank halo a bit.  Ah well, on to the finale...

[GHScorpiosRule]

I also think the show went out of its way to show what a great guy Frank is, but didn't show any of his flaws.  The one scene of Frank's reaction when Claire swears at the dinner table after burning herself would have gone a long way to illustrate that Frank was not always accepting of who Claire is and tarnish the St. Frank halo a bit.  Ah well, on to the finale...

 

Taking response to the Book v. Show Thread.

[chocolatetruffle]

Just got back from the non book thread and I can really empathize with what they are going through over there.  It brings back memories of what I went through when I read it.  I had to steal myself to get through that portion of the book by telling myself over and over that there are 7 more books so Jamie survives.  I hope they stick with it.

[peacefrog]

 

I wonder if some of those critics'  comments about "ground-breaking" territory in the last episode are less about the rape and more about showing the PTSD aftermath of male-on-male rape?  I'd love to think that was so.

I hope so also. I hope they make it clear that while Jamie's body reacted physically to BJR that he did not enjoy it. That one comment in the non-book thread has me worried that they will view it as a slash fiction trope.