S01.E15: Wentworth Prison

[hammaboo]

Wasn't there more reaction to a woman coming up to the gaol cells when she was wandering through there in the books?  The reaction seemed so ho-hum, move along. 

 

While they show hasn't really wasted much time, it sure feels like they have wasted a lot of time.  I don't feel like they have given some things enough time that (as a show watcher) people can understand why Claire stayed and why she cares so much about him to bring him back from where he goes.  Because the show really only has the time to hit the big things, the small things that tie the whole story into a package get neglected.

 

And I'm saying that as someone who didn't love the books.  I thought they were ok.  I hoped the series version would be better and I'm feeling let down.  Of the two non-book reader watchers I know (one I watch with, one I am friends with), neither of them are very interested at this point of the story.  I am wondering if (what I consider) the fail on the front end to show the relationship has foiled the payoff and drama of the prison scenes? 

 

I think the cell scenes felt rushed.  Like the directors (and then editors) didn't know how to fully use the time and ended up wasting time that could have better been used with a stronger emotional payoff.  I don't know how to have done it better, but the timing just felt off.  Maybe on rewatch it will seem less so. 

 

I have no clue how they expect to wrap this up in one episode.  There's too much left unresolved.

[ulkis]

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

Ah, John Crichton. Now that is a guy who never caught a break. And now that I think about it, he and Claire have similiar trajectories.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I think there were a good number of viewers who had issues with the ending of "The Devil's Mark", in that the show decided to expand the stupid witch trial, instead of showing Claire's struggle to go back to the Stones, to leave Jamie...how that would affect him, and then her deciding she was going to stay and why.  And I'm not happy with Moore's reasoning for this. Sure as those of us who have read the books, we know. But to the nonbook readers? And to not SHOW that the Stones do work? Lazy and sloppy.

 

But, back to this episode.  Like I said in my very first post, I'm glad they did away with not only Claire killing that one wolf with her bare hands (which, please. I just rolled my eyes when I read it), and then to have the pack surround her? Took too much of the book and so unnecessary. It lessened the impact and urgency of Claire getting to McRannoch and then figuring out how to get Jamie back.

 

So, my hope is Moore will realize the importance of all the important scenes from the book and hope they filmed it so it doesn't feel rushed.  But yes, I do want the line from Jamie "Were there...cows?"

[springbarb]

I think there were a good number of viewers who had issues with the ending of "The Devil's Mark", in that the show decided to expand the stupid witch trial, instead of showing Claire's struggle to go back to the Stones, to leave Jamie...how that would affect him, and then her deciding she was going to stay and why.  And I'm not happy with Moore's reasoning for this. Sure as those of us who have read the books, we know. But to the nonbook readers? And to not SHOW that the Stones do work? Lazy and sloppy.

 

Yes! It kind of kills me that people who haven't read the books are left to debate whether Claire made a choice to stay. That's something that should be made 100% clear.

[bluebonnet]

It surprises me how many in the other thread, across the web, and people in real life have said that they want see more about this upcoming war and less about the hero being raped.  I mean, this upcoming war is the rape of an entire country and culture.  It's the same that's happening to Jamie, just on a much bigger scale.  The country is harassed and bullied and whipped by the English until they decide to become laird of their own future and try to fight back only to be stripped and plowed and razed, a wound that continues to be felt even into the 1960's as evidenced by Geillis and it's still apparent here in the 21st century.  Scotland wasn't supposed to survive, but it did.  

 

So, the story is looking at this horrible event and puts a magnifying glass on a single man who wasn't supposed to live, but he did and his story mirrors what Scotland experiences.  But apparently this is all just too much and people want to get back to gleefully watching the story of a country and culture tortured and raped.  It's really frustrating me, especially when Jamie's story is called 'torture porn' and apparently something people don't want to see.  What they really mean is they want actual torture porn, the kind meant to entertain and look cool and leave no lingering emotions.  Like Spartacus and all that flying cgi blood.  Being made extremely uncomfortable and even sick apparently isn't ok because watching the destruction of something is supposed to be fun, yo! gtfo.  

 

Ok, rant over.  I suppose it's possible I would have a different view if I had come in assuming one sort of show, or if i hadn't read the books.   I came in expecting bad because the story was recommended to me by a group of friends who enjoy stories where abusive relationships are sold as loving and romantic (think Twilight and 50 Shades). In a way, I was prepared for uncomfortable and rapey.  Watched the first episode, loved it so much I read the books.  I can't even look at the original trailers for the series and not see the darkness that I know the story revolves around and it's hard to see how others could watch it and think that it was a light and fluffy story about the 18th century Scottish Highlands.  That just wasn't a light and fluffy period of time.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Ok, rant over.  I suppose it's possible I would have a different view if I had come in assuming one sort of show, or if i hadn't read the books.   

 

Confession: When I head this was going to become a series. I was like...yaaawn....Really? Because I remembered how difficult it was to read the first three books. BUT, and I ken this is verra shallow o' me, but when I saw who was going to play Jamie (because I did recall loving the character), and it was one of those shirtless scenes; I think from "Castle Leoch" where Claire was treating him....I suddenly changed me mind. Also thinking, it's a good thing I don't remember the books; I'll enjoy it more.

 

That said, I did, but since I'm not attached to the series like a lot of people here are, I still had issues with what should have been expanded, and what could have been left out.  In the end, though. I'm glad I'm reading them again, even if I continue to have issues with the author's "style" of writing.

Edited May 19, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[islagirl]

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!"

 

Absolutely this.  Even if Claire herself doesn't say it, give some thought to who Claire would be in each world - give her some agency aside from who she loves. The Claire I see would choose the life of adventure and growth, where she is useful and valuable, over the quiet life as the Oxford professor's wife chatting over tea in the kitchen with the other wives.  We all wonder about the road not taken, and Claire got a chance to walk that road.  Add in the passion for Jamie and I think she realized she could never go back to 1940, knowing what she gave up in 1743. 

 

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.

 

I always think people would enjoy it (and everything else) so much more if they would quit borrowing trouble from the future.  So much stress over something that may not come to pass.  Go ahead and rail against the crew if they screw it up.  But at least give them a chance to show what they can do before you freak out about it.

[AD55]

I just reread all of the comments and liked a bunch of them. You all have said pretty much everything there is to say, but a few random thoughts:

 

Agree to infinity and beyond with all who praised the acting. I was speechless. It's a shame that this kind of show seldom receives Emmy nominations.

 

I thought Claire hearing Jamie scream was a shout out to his hearing her at Fort William.

 

I didn't think I could love Murtagh more, but damn.

 

I thought Murtagh carried Cait, not so much because she couldn't walk but because he felt helpless and needed to do something for her.

 

I do think the episode teeter-tottered on the edge of torture porn. No doubt that the camera lingered unnecessarily long over the worst parts. For me, what rescues it is that movie/TV violence has become so cartoonish (<cough> Game of Thrones <cough>) that we're inured to it Violence should be disturbing. Full disclosure, I really like Spartacus, GofT, Vikings, etc, but I appreciate that Outlander is doing something different. I haven't sorted out my feelings on this, but I think what distinguishes Outlander is that we are shown the effects of violence -- on the subject of it, the loved ones, and even the perpetrator. We should care that people are being hurt and not just find the violence icky.

 

I can understand why people who were hoping for more politics and social commentary are disappointed. When Gabaldon treats historical stuff, it's almost always a MacGuffin used to further the love story. I also have to acknowledge there is a Perils of Pauline/Paul element to Outlander. I'm not bothered by this – I'm in it for the love story -- but I probably would be if I'd signed on for something else.

 

Since it has come up in this thread, I will say that I find Jamie's arousal during the rape to be improbable if not downright ludicrous. That's not because I don't believe it happens. It's because I don't think anyone as severely injured as Jamie could be aroused by anything. I broke my arm once and then had surgery on it. It wasn't nearly as serious as what Jamie endured, but once the nurse was late with the pain medication, and it felt like someone was holding a blowtorch under my arm. Sam Heughan could have walked into the room stark naked and I wouldn't have cared unless he was carrying a hypodermic needle loaded with morphine, but I'm supposed to believe a man whose hand has been hammered and nailed to a wooden table (“Holy Christian imagery, Batman!”) can get it up while being buggered by a vicious sadist.

 

I do think that Claire is a Mary Sue character, but I'm taking my thoughts on that to the unpopular opinions thread.

[ulkis]

edit

Edited May 21, 2015 by ulkis

[Hybiscus]

Lastly: is Sam Heughan the king of the single tear? Discuss.

I am really, really late with this reply, but here it is:

 

No, that honor goes to Jensen Ackles of Supernatural.  His ability to produce the single tear has inspired its own acronym, OPT (One Perfect Tear) and a song "A Single Man Tear."

[bluebonnet]

 

I do think the episode teeter-tottered on the edge of torture porn. No doubt that the camera lingered unnecessarily long over the worst parts. For me, what rescues it is that movie/TV violence has become so cartoonish (<cough> Game of Thrones <cough>) that we're inured to it Violence should be disturbing. Full disclosure, I really like Spartacus, GofT, Vikings, etc, but I appreciate that Outlander is doing something different. I haven't sorted out my feelings on this, but I think what distinguishes Outlander is that we are shown the effects of violence -- on the subject of it, the loved ones, and even the perpetrator. We should care that people are being hurt and not just find the violence icky.

 

Agree very much with this.  I'm not really interested in the love story but Outlander keeps me invested because it's doing something different with that love story, more it's doing something different, and humane, with the violence.  

 

 

Since it has come up in this thread, I will say that I find Jamie's arousal during the rape to be improbable if not downright ludicrous. That's not because I don't believe it happens. It's because I don't think anyone as severely injured as Jamie could be aroused by anything. I broke my arm once and then had surgery on it. It wasn't nearly as serious as what Jamie endured, but once the nurse was late with the pain medication, and it felt like someone was holding a blowtorch under my arm. Sam Heughan could have walked into the room stark naked and I wouldn't have cared unless he was carrying a hypodermic needle loaded with morphine, but I'm supposed to believe a man whose hand has been hammered and nailed to a wooden table (“Holy Christian imagery, Batman!”) can get it up while being buggered by a vicious sadist.

I disagree here. Often arousal and pleasure can be conflated.  Arousal is physiological.  We don't really have much control over the arousal part apart from disrupting the stimuli creating the arousal.  A person in a coma can be made aroused.  A person in pain can be made aroused.  Deriving pleasure from that arousal is entirely different.  So while someone with a broken hand might be made aroused, unless they are a masochist, they likely wouldn't derive pleasure from that arousal.  But our connection with pleasure and arousal is what makes arousal during rape so humiliating and also leads to intense shaming (think public officials who use arousal as evidence something is not 'legitimate rape').  We want to feel as though we have control, but manipulating the sexual organs is generally going to create a response, whether one wants it or not.  

 

In short, arousal =/= pleasure.  There are physiological responses we just can't help.  

[Helena Dax]

In the first season of GoT, Dany was raped. In  the first season of Outlander, Jamie is going to  be raped,  Claire has been almost raped at least three times and Jenny was almost raped once. 

[ulkis]

I stand corrected, I haven't watched the first season of GoT in a long time. I do still feel like it was much rougher watching in general, but maybe the seasons are just getting jumbled in with the first one in my head.

[Nidratime]

I've never seen GoT. (Don't have HBO.) But, I did hear about the wedding where the pregnant woman -- among others -- was murdered, so I don't think GoT can be held up as some bastion of moral rectitude relative to Outlander. ;-)

[SpiritSong]

 

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. 

 

It's been weeks and I still can't get over how badly they botched the last scene at the stones. To me, it is THE pivotal point in the entire book. Claire agonized for hours over what to do, who to choose. Her anguish was terrible to read, and I have no doubt Catriona could have pulled it off, had she been allowed. But all we got in the show was her looking at both wedding rings for a minute or two, then okay on your feet Jamie, looks like I'm staying. Grrr.

I think this last episode did show how very much she loves Jamie. She is willing to do damn near anything for him and I think that came across quite clearly. Even when she screws up (and I agree there is no way she's a Mary Sue) at least she is trying to do the right thing. I look forward to more of their relationship. If I never saw BJ Randall again it would be fine with me. That character is so unrelentingly evil that he's become one note. Not interesting to me-he's just someone to fast forward through.

[tomp]

This show has descended into utter drivel

 

I presume it's some sort of fiction based in historical fact but can anyone tell me where Wentworth is located in Scotland never mind a prison.

 

It seems to want to portray the story as English against Scots Highlanders when the facts are that it was generally Lowland Scots against Highlanders

 

I found this episode stomach churning and totally unbelievable, they didn't bury the dead but threw them down some sort of chute to lie unburied outside....really? 

 

I know it's only a show but this is how some folk get their Historical education these days and this is complete fantasy.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I know it's only a show but this is how some folk get their Historical education these days and this is complete fantasy.

 

Then I feel sorry for those that think they are getting Scottish history from this show. Because it is a fantasy show. It's fiction, based on a fictional series. No one who is watching should be thinking that this show is a documentary.

[annlaw78]

This show has descended into utter drivel

 

I presume it's some sort of fiction based in historical fact but can anyone tell me where Wentworth is located in Scotland never mind a prison.

 

It seems to want to portray the story as English against Scots Highlanders when the facts are that it was generally Lowland Scots against Highlanders

 

I found this episode stomach churning and totally unbelievable, they didn't bury the dead but threw them down some sort of chute to lie unburied outside....really? 

 

I know it's only a show but this is how some folk get their Historical education these days and this is complete fantasy.

I agree. There's a lot of hand-waving, 'cause, history, and I don't think this is a terribly accurate portrayal of the time period, which is post-Enlightenment Scotland, not the Dark Ages. Witch trials weren't still common, women could venture ten feet from a gallant hunk without getting raped, and the Redcoats weren't a bunch of sadistic miscreants. Edinburgh (which I understand is lowlands) was a seat of learning, culture, theology, literature, etc.

That the warden made a comment that he could tell Claire was a Christian was bizarre, b/c everyone would have been -- RCC, COE, or COS/Presbyterian.

[AD55]

 

Then I feel sorry for those that think they are getting Scottish history from this show. Because it is a fantasy show. It's fiction, based on a fictional series. No one who is watching should be thinking that this show is a documentary.

 

Totally agree with this. And it's not just fantasy. Folks who watch the Tudors, Downton Abbey, or, God help us, Reign, for their historical accuracy need to reconsider.

[ulkis]

I agree. There's a lot of hand-waving, 'cause, history, and I don't think this is a terribly accurate portrayal of the time period, which is post-Enlightenment Scotland, not the Dark Ages. Witch trials weren't still common, women could venture ten feet from a gallant hunk without getting raped, and the Redcoats weren't a bunch of sadistic miscreants. Edinburgh (which I understand is lowlands) was a seat of learning, culture, theology, literature, etc.

That the warden made a comment that he could tell Claire was a Christian was bizarre, b/c everyone would have been -- RCC, COE, or COS/Presbyterian.

He meant that he could tell she was a good/religious person in general, which is another way the term was used then. He didn't mean he could literally tell her specific religion.

I don't think the show has portrayed the redcoats as sadistic, just specifically Randall. His superior officer didn't like him, a lot of the younger ones only did his bidding out from pressure, and he has to hide a lot of his actions because he knows he'd get in trouble for them.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ulkis

[bluebonnet]

I don't the show has portrayed the redcoats as sadistic, just specifically Randall. His superior officer didn't like him, a lot of the younger ones only did his bidding out from pressure, and he has to hide a lot of his actions because he knows he'd get in trouble for them.

ITA.  Randall seems despised by all those he works with, even Marley.  BJR only continues on because he's protecting by a powerful man.  Even our protagonists couldn't do much against him.  Kill a random courier or foot soldier and it's business as usual.  Kill an officer and hell raineth down.  

 

The redcoats have only been shown as bad in that they are an occupying force, which is generally frowned upon, and they are an occupying force that is hostile to the loved ones of our protagonists.  

[CatMack]

See, this is why I get frustrated by fandom. When it comes to rape, torture, and wife beating, it's excused as being historically accurate so what do you expect. But when people point out things that aren't historically accurate, suddenly it's just a fantasy show and you shouldn't expect historical accuracy.

Pick a side. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either historical accuracy matters and it's valid to call the show out on its inaccuracies, or it doesn't matter and you don't get to use it to excuse sexist writing.

[Nidratime]

Maybe we should just say, this is a work of fiction just like all the other books that shows are adapting where people are being raped and beaten and murdered and call it a day.

[WatchrTina]

 

I will say that I find Jamie's arousal during the rape to be improbable if not downright ludicrous. That's not because I don't believe it happens. It's because I don't think anyone as severely injured as Jamie could be aroused by anything.

I think it is interesting that in the very first scene McQuarrie, as he is facing the hangman's noose, tells Jamie he's got a hard-on.  I doubt if the idea of being hanged aroused him.  His junk was simply responding to all the adrenaline coursing through him -- adrenaline with a side of anger, fear and despair.  In the book, Jamie tells Claire "Fighting gives ye a fearful cock-stand" so the idea of getting an erection from adrenaline was introduced there as well.  I have no idea if either of those fictional points is realistic (and I hope never to have reason to know if they are realistic) but it looks to me like the TV writers have at least tried to introduce the notion that an erection does not necessarily equal sexual desire.  Buy yeah, given that Jamie is fainting from pain already the idea of him getting an erection at all seems far-fetched, much less having an orgasm.

 

My goodness I'm starting to feel like one-half of Masters and Johnson.

[annlaw78]

I don't the show has portrayed the redcoats as sadistic, just specifically Randall.

BJR is not the only English soldier portrayed as a heartless sadist, though.

The Redcoat deserters raped/attempted to rape Claire and were chuckling about making Jamie watch before killing him. The Redcoats crucified Highlanders and left them to rot. None of the Redcoats interceded when BJR was publicly flaying Jamie -- and as captain, he'd hardly be the highest ranking officer at Fort William. The Redcoats are hanging Scots en masse, the suggestion being without due process/proper trials. They're dumping the hanged bodies out a Corpse chute, rather than burying/releasing to their families. The Redcoats are being portrayed not simply as fierce foes, but as caricatured monsters.

Edited May 19, 2015 by annlaw78

[Glaze Crazy]

Didn't officers in the British Army buy their commissions?  I would suspect it was a lot harder to demote them or get them out.  I think BJR would almost have to resign or die.  I also don't think the redcoats are all portrayed as evil, mostly just indifferent to the local populace or feeling superior to them.  "It's Scotland sir."  Or the officers in "The Garrison Commander" and their casual insults to Dougal and the local life in general.  

 

I do believe life was hard for the Scots who lived in areas where the British Army were housed and probably suffered from it.  I think it was mentioned when they were at Lallybroch, how the army takes whatever they want or need for the troops from the local farms and people, so I can also see how falling under their jurisdiction for any perceived crime would result in possible harsh treatment also.***  How harsh, well, I guess you could just say it was bad and move on, or you could use the possibility that a sadistic man could take advantage of his upper hand in the situation and now you have a fictional story of BJR and JAMMF and their adventures in a fictional prison in an un-stated location somewhere in Scotland.

 

I hope no one is getting a history lesson from fiction books, teen-orientated television shows or even The History Channel, LOL.  I do give DG credit that she seems to do a lot of research for background for her storylines, but I think even she's said she also uses creative license to write the fiction she wants to write for her characters.  I doubt you could find a singular person from the 25 years-plus these books cover who had personal connections to Charles Stuart, King Louis (whatever Roman Numeral), multiple real historical Frasers, an heroic American general, a treasonous American general, etc, etc, etc.  Fiction, it's a wonderful thing.  I choose to suspend belief just a little, time travel not withstanding.  MMV.

 

Not all of Scotland supported Catholic James Stuart's return to the throne, probably not even 50% of the population, and probably very few in the Borders or south of Edinburgh/Stirling/Glasgow.  Those regions more closely identified with England and most had moved over to Church of Scotland (Protestant) during the 1500's reformation, so would be less likely to support a Catholic king.  I think a character in a future book is noted as being a rare Protestant Jacobite.

 

***eta: not that using a situation from this fictional story is a replacement for actual history, but I think a similar situation, in part, resulted in at least one real British colony successfully declaring independence from the crown to go their own way. 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Glaze Crazy

[WatchrTina]

I've been reading a historical novel set in the early 1700s and was interested to learn that after Cromwell, when Charles II was restored to the throne (James' older brother) he claimed to be Protestant (Anglican) but was "tolerant" of Catholics (and he converted to Catholicism on his death-bed).  The one group he persecuted were the Scottish Presbyterians.  So yeah, they were definitely not supporters of restoring Charles' openly Catholic little brother James to the throne after he was deposed.

[AD55]

See, this is why I get frustrated by fandom. When it comes to rape, torture, and wife beating, it's excused as being historically accurate so what do you expect. But when people point out things that aren't historically accurate, suddenly it's just a fantasy show and you shouldn't expect historical accuracy.

Pick a side. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either historical accuracy matters and it's valid to call the show out on its inaccuracies, or it doesn't matter and you don't get to use it to excuse sexist writing.

 

I mainly agree but with a quibble. While I don't think one should go to a show like Outlander for a history lesson, it is reasonable to critique the choices a writer makes when said writer defends them on the basis of historical accuracy.  Gabaldon and the showrunners went to the mat for the historical accuracy of the wife beating while freely admitting that the boar hunt was an anachronism. Viewers may justly ask why. I don't give a damn if writers conflate events or mess with geography, and writers will usually cop to those inaccuracies. Defending wife beating or your fascination with rape and torture on the basis of historical accuracy is a different animal. We live in a time when politicians are talking about "real" rape, so-called civilized nations have legalized torture, and wife beating is as common as it ever was. Writers who create distance from those realities by suggesting they were acceptable or tolerated in the past but aren't now need to be called out on it. I realize that some will say that the difference is that we no longer think those things are acceptable even if they do happen, while eighteenth-century Scots were just fine with them. I call bullshit on both of those assumptions, and thus do believe it matters if the writer has the hero of a piece engage in appalling behavior and then defends him for it. That's having your cake and eating it, too.

 

ETA. This is why I generally prefer that writers use the historical drama and fantasy genres to critique our own period as opposed to offering half-baked history lessons. Battlestar was great at this.

Edited May 19, 2015 by AD55

[AD55]

I think it is interesting that in the very first scene McQuarrie, as he is facing the hangman's noose, tells Jamie he's got a hard-on.  I doubt if the idea of being hanged aroused him.  His junk was simply responding to all the adrenaline coursing through him -- adrenaline with a side of anger, fear and despair.  In the book, Jamie tells Claire "Fighting gives ye a fearful cock-stand" so the idea of getting an erection from adrenaline was introduced there as well.

 

My goodness I'm starting to feel like one-half of Masters and Johnson.

 

I thought McQuarrie said he had been told that being hanged gave you a hard on, to which Jamie replied he had heard that you just shit yourself. But yeah, I don't have a problem believing violence is arousing to men since testosterone inspires both.

 

I did know that men who are paralyzed have children and that comatose patients can be given hard ons. I think that Bluebonnet is probably right when she says that pain is not an impediment to arousal, even when the pain is not part of consentual sex play. It still strikes me as somewhat unlikely that a person in Jamie's state could be aroused, but I'm no expert. I believe orgasm releases endorphins that would allerviate the pain, which might be why the body overrides the brain in such cases.

 

I'm starting to feel like the other half of Masters and Johnson.

[ulkis]

BJR is not the only English soldier portrayed as a heartless sadist, though.

The Redcoat deserters raped/attempted to rape Claire and were chuckling about making Jamie watch before killing him. The Redcoats crucified Highlanders and left them to rot. None of the Redcoats interceded when BJR was publicly flaying Jamie -- and as captain, he'd hardly be the highest ranking officer at Fort William. The Redcoats are hanging Scots en masse, the suggestion being without due process/proper trials. They're dumping the hanged bodies out a Corpse chute, rather than burying/releasing to their families. The Redcoats are being portrayed not simply as fierce foes, but as caricatured monsters.

But some of them, not all of them, which is what your original statement said/implied. And certainly the Scots have not been portrayed as uniformly victims either.

I mean, I don't know, maybe other people watch this and think, wow, the English were all evil bastards. I don't get that impression, at all.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ulkis

[bluebonnet]

BJR is not the only English soldier portrayed as a heartless sadist, though.

The Redcoat deserters raped/attempted to rape Claire and were chuckling about making Jamie watch before killing him. The Redcoats crucified Highlanders and left them to rot. None of the Redcoats interceded when BJR was publicly flaying Jamie -- and as captain, he'd hardly be the highest ranking officer at Fort William. The Redcoats are hanging Scots en masse, the suggestion being without due process/proper trials. They're dumping the hanged bodies out a Corpse chute, rather than burying/releasing to their families. The Redcoats are being portrayed not simply as fierce foes, but as caricatured monsters.

The defining characteristic of the attempted rapers was that they were deserters, not that they were Redcoats. I agree they probably were sadistic.  It was implied that the unknown redcoats who crucified the Highlanders did so out of retaliation and/or punishment.  The redcoats at the site where BJR flayed Jamie were not cheering him on.  They were averting their eyes and exhibiting expressions of people who know something is wrong but are powerless to speak up.  That the redcoats at Wentworth were documenting the events suggested that these prisoners were receiving legal punishments for crimes they had been tried for.  No one at the hangings looked like they were deriving pleasure from this.  You have a point about then just dumping the bodies, not because it's sadistic, but because it's stupid.  In the books it at least makes sense as we are given the excuse that it's the dead of winter and the ground is too hard to dig graves whereas here we can see that graves can be dug and also not burying them is a ridiculously huge health hazard.  

 

If you're seeing the redcoats as a whole portrayed as caricatured monsters, it's likely because you naturally side with the POV with which we experience the story and maybe even perhaps a general opposition to occupying forces.  Our POV characters can see the redcoats as nothing but monsters.  However, we should keep in mind what we are seeing alongside the actions of the redcoats.  We have the Watch going around bribing Highlanders, burning down the homes of people merely rumored to be sympathizers to the redcoats.  This same Watch is also known to turn in Highlanders to the redcoats in orderWe have Dougal purposely humiliating his own nephew in order to gain money. 

 

Apart from our time with BJR, the longest we've spent with the redcoats is when one comes to Claire's rescue after seeing her mistreated in a village.  She has dinner with a bunch of high ranking officers.  The exhibit ignorance and bigotry, though not sadism.  

[Pestilentia]

FWIW I saw the corpse chute/dump as a semi-daily trash heap that was likely cleaned out every day/week or so and bodies buried in mass graves elsewhere. Yes, there was a skeleton which would suggest otherwise, but there really weren't as many bodies as that rapid fire hanging process we saw would produce over the long term.

 

Anyway, I like the show and that's about all I have to say about that. I watch TV for fun and if I didn't enjoy what I was watching I wouldn't watch it. The torture/rape aspect of this doesn't seem to bother me because I know they are actors.

 

I wanted to put a "(duh!)" in that last sentence but thought it would be viewed as too judgmental of those who are upset. I guess folks are allowed to be appalled and disgusted by things they watch on tv but for the life of me I don't understand why anyone would continue to watch if they felt that way. I am appalled and disgusted by many things in real life and I certainly don't watch tv shows about them to fill my free time- I work to eradicate them. I can hear the eyes rolling for 'yay me.' I know I am likely out of line with boards on boards but honestly had to say it.

While I am in dangerous territory I will also say that I think the prohibition of our posting in the No Book thread has turned things very divisive somehow. Things are feeling very contentious around here lately and I hate to see that. Sometimes those folks need to be gently talked off the ledge so to speak and we are not allowed to do that any longer.

[tomp]

The Redcoats were not an occupying force, it was a Government force stationed in Scotland and made up from folk of all parts of Britain, they were there to keep the peace, indeed Scottish regiments were involved at Culloden and at previous battles.

Lowland Scots, the majority, and the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh wanted nothing to do with the rebel force who threatened to burn the city of Glagow down unless they handed over supplies and money

The Jacobites were no more than a rebel force within the country, there were many Jacobites in England but they did not rebel.

Many of the Highland clans did not want anything to do with the rebellion and only did so through promises and allegiance to the Stuarts

This show is a romantic fiction but it portrays historical events in a totally one sided manner with no believability

The Author should have done some research

[annlaw78]

That the redcoats at Wentworth were documenting the events suggested that these prisoners were receiving legal punishments for crimes they had been tried for. No one at the hangings looked like they were deriving pleasure from this.

If you're seeing the redcoats as a whole portrayed as caricatured monsters, it's likely because you naturally side with the POV with which we experience the story and maybe even perhaps a general opposition to occupying forces. Our POV characters can see the redcoats as nothing but monsters.

I'm not naturally siding with the POV characters, I'm bristling at the questionable historical accuracy, as Tomp lays out so well below, of suggesting the British troops were a marauding, Nazi-Ish occupation/colonial force. Scotland wasn't Post-1939 Poland, nor even Ireland. The Union of the UK occurred when the King of Scotland succeeded to the English throne -- it was hardly by the tip of the spear. That the Rebels object to their king's German descendants on the throne, fine, but it's not as though one day the British troops just decided to march north of Hadrians Wall and conquer and occupy a neighboring sovereign nation.

A writ of execution that can be stayed on the authority of one captain is likely not the product of a fair and impartial trial, but you're right, I'm just assuming there was not a trial. There could have been.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but I guess my overall point is I don't need BJR raping and torturing Jamie repeatedly to understand and empathize with the Highlanders.

Edited May 19, 2015 by annlaw78

[GHScorpiosRule]

 I'm just assuming there was not a trial. There could have been.

 

There was. In the book as well as in "The Search", Dougal told Claire that Jamie had had a trial and found to be guilty and would hang.  He thought it was a done deal, hence him coming on to her again to marry him, since Jamie would be dead in a matter of days.

[annlaw78]

My bad, I should have said a fair trial.

While I am in dangerous territory I will also say that I think the prohibition of our posting in the No Book thread has turned things very divisive somehow. Things are feeling very contentious around here lately and I hate to see that. Sometimes those folks need to be gently talked off the ledge so to speak and we are not allowed to do that any longer.

Im not sure it's a matter if talking us non-book readers off the ledge, so much as understanding that up until a couple of eps ago, the show presented BJR as wanting to sexually assault Jennie and Claire, and physically assault Jamie. It's hard to process BJR's sexually assaulting Jamie. It seems to come a bit out of left field.

And, for what it's worth, I'm not just disturbed or squeamish because our hero was subjected to sexual violence, and that has upset my gendered expectations. I'd also really love to never see another unwanted hand trespass under Claire's skirt. There has to be some conflict on the show, other than "who's getting raped this ep?" That well is dry, and it was back when Dougal and other clansmen were pulling this in The Gathering.

Edited May 19, 2015 by annlaw78

[WatchrTina]

nevermind

Just weighing in to remind people that you do have the option of hiding future posts from individual participants of these boards.  There's an "Ignore" feature in the "Settings" area of your user profile (little head-and-shoulders icon above.)

 

Meanwhile, back on topic, I posted a link to a photo-recap in the media section that contains a before-and-after comparison of Jamie's face from the beginning and end of the episode, contrasting his defiance to Jack's original proposal vs. that moment when he is forced to submit and a single tear rolls down.  Gutting!

Edited May 19, 2015 by WatchrTina

[tcay]

There is a reason BJR is doing what he's doing, on a larger scale. Spoiler for a future book:

Sandringham wants the highlands whipped into a rebellious frenzy. BJR is there to terrorize people, but obviously gets a bit sidetracked with his obsession for Jamie.

[chocolatetruffle]

The Redcoats were not an occupying force, it was a Government force stationed in Scotland and made up from folk of all parts of Britain, they were there to keep the peace, indeed Scottish regiments were involved at Culloden and at previous battles.

Lowland Scots, the majority, and the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh wanted nothing to do with the rebel force who threatened to burn the city of Glagow down unless they handed over supplies and money

The Jacobites were no more than a rebel force within the country, there were many Jacobites in England but they did not rebel.

Many of the Highland clans did not want anything to do with the rebellion and only did so through promises and allegiance to the Stuarts

This show is a romantic fiction but it portrays historical events in a totally one sided manner with no believability

The Author should have done some research

 

I thought about taking my response to this to the Comparisons thread but since a lively discussion of this topic is going on here I'll go ahead it post it here.

 

Regarding the debate about historical accuracy in works of fiction, "historical accuracy"  is irrelevant to the discussion of the books/show.  This is a basic rule of fiction: as long as the history is consistent within the world of the story then real-world relevancy is unimportant.  For example, if Jamie says he punished Claire because that's how it was done in his personal history, then it's irrelevant that it's not historically accurate to real life 1743 Scotland because it's true in Outlander's world.  Time traveling nurses aren't historically accurate either.  Anyone (including the author, herself) who uses the "it's accurate to the times" argument to justify or criticize the spanking scene is just wrong, wrong, wrong.  It irks me every time I read it.  The scene is justified because in Jamie's world and the world of Outlander at large, corporal punishment is reality.  

 

In the world of Outlander, the Redcoats are an occupying force in the Highlands, sometimes benevolent and sometimes ruthless.  The historical conduct of the British in our world is again, irrelevant to the world of Outlander and can't be compared.  We can and should compare the Outlander story to our own experiences, ideas and emotions. That is the fun of reading the books and watching the show.  But denigrating the show/books based on a lack of accuracy to real-world Scottish history is not justified here.

 

OK - I'm stepping down off my soapbox now....

Edited May 19, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[annlaw78]

I thought about taking my response to this to the Comparisons thread but since a lively discussion of this topic is going on here I'll go ahead it post it here.

 

Regarding the debate about historical accuracy in works of fiction, "historical accuracy"  is irrelevant.  This is a basic rule of fiction: as long as the history is consistent within the world of the story then real-world relevancy is unimportant.  For example, if Jamie says he punished Claire because that's how it was done in his personal history, then it's irrelevant that it's not historically accurate to real life 1743 Scotland because it's true in Outlander's world.  Time traveling nurses aren't historically accurate either.  Anyone (including the author, herself) who uses the "it's accurate to the times" argument to justify or criticize the spanking scene is just wrong, wrong, wrong.  It irks me every time I read it.  The scene is justified because in Jamie's world and the world of Outlander at large, corporal punishment is reality.  

 

In the world of Outlander, the Redcoats are an occupying force in the Highlands, sometimes benevolent and sometimes ruthless.  The historical conduct of the British in our world is again, irrelevant to the world of Outlander and can't be compared.  We can and should compare the Outlander story to our own experiences, ideas and emotions. That is the fun of reading the books and watching the show.  But denigrating the show/books based on a lack of accuracy to real-world Scottish history is not justified here.

 

OK - I'm stepping down off my soapbox now....

I see your point about show verse v. historical reality, but I would say historical fiction needs to actually be true to the period to be successful. This isn't a fantasy series set in a fictional world like Middle Earth or Westeros.

Hurrah for lively discussion!

[tomp]

I see your point about show verse v. historical reality, but I would say historical fiction needs to actually be true to the period to be successful. This isn't a fantasy series set in a fictional world like Middle Earth or Westeros.

Hurrah for lively discussion!

Exactly

[lianau]

 You have a point about then just dumping the bodies, not because it's sadistic, but because it's stupid.  In the books it at least makes sense as we are given the excuse that it's the dead of winter and the ground is too hard to dig graves whereas here we can see that graves can be dug and also not burying them is a ridiculously huge health hazard.   

Maybe they only dumped the prisoners without families there . And we don't know what kind of animals live around there and would enjoy a readily delivered meal so it's not clear how long the bodies would lay there intact.

[bluebonnet]

Maybe they only dumped the prisoners without families there . And we don't know what kind of animals live around there and would enjoy a readily delivered meal so it's not clear how long the bodies would lay there intact.

We know there are wolves.  It's generally not the best of ideas to provide steady meals to dangerous wildlife.  Still, it's not smart to drop decaying bodies into a hole and just hope that the wolves will take care of it.  In winter, maybe.  But even then it would make more sense to burn the bodies.  It's really a sort of dumb plot device to get Claire out of the prison without BJR knowing about the open door, but it looked cool so I'm glad it's there.  At least they didn't have her fighting a wolf with her bare hands.  

Edited May 19, 2015 by bluebonnet

[SunDevil]

I found this episode well done, but very difficult to watch, and I'm not surprised in the least that it is turning people off the show. Honestly I was trying to get my husband to go to bed early so I could watch it without him. Some people just can't appreciate a bleak drama. With all the swashbuckling, levity, and sex, and no clear arc, you aren't fully prepared when the intensity of the drama is amped-up to this degree.

 

It quite reminded me of the episode of Six Feet Under where David picks up a car-jacker.  It just wasn't the show people had grown to expect, and they weren't happy about it.

[kieyra]

A page or two late, but I'm a sort of non book reader (made it 25% through book 1, gave up, read Wikipedia summaries instead), just wanted to defend the unsullied. It's not their fault--lots of people watch TV shows with a reasonable expectation of being able to enjoy it even if they haven't read the source material. That's the entire reason the word "unsullied" is part of the greater fandom lexicon now. Once I read the Wikipedia summaries, I think I posted something in the book talk thread wondering if audiences were going to make the jump from the kind of show this appeared to be in the first few episodes to the (very different) show it will apparently have to become instead. I think we reached the first part of that cliff with this episode (and as someone who has watched every single hyper-violent show mentioned in both threads, I honestly think RDM just used too heavy a hand and is not yet used to the premium cable space--the balance is off, or else so many people like me wouldn't be hitting the FF button repeatedly).

Anyway, if audiences thought they were getting one kind of show and are getting something else, there's little point in blaming them for their confusion. There's also no point in blaming them for assuming Jamie's emotional fallout will be treated one way or another, because we have no idea how *RDM will actually handle it*. Some of the posts have bordered on mocking non-book-readers for their ignorance, which just doesn't seem fair. They are reacting to the product they are receiving, the same way unsullied GoT viewers do.

Edited May 20, 2015 by kieyra

[Nidratime]

Anyway, if audiences thought they were getting one kind of show and are getting something else, there's little point in blaming them for their confusion. There's also no point in blaming them for assuming Jamie's emotional fallout will be treated one way or another, because we have no idea how *RDM will actually handle it*. Some of the posts have bordered on mocking non-book-readers for their ignorance, which just doesn't seem fair. They are reacting to the product they are receiving, the same way unsullied GoT viewers do.

 

 

I don't remember Ron Moore or even any of the Starz PR claiming this show was an historical romance as defined by modern day media analysts, who are also ignorant about the romance genre, but leave that aside. It was ignorance built upon ignorance. Moore and company -- and Gabaldon and the actors -- have been nothing less than honest in saying that the story gets dark. They said this over and over and over. The book readers have said, the story gets dark. Why was the audience led astray? Who led them astray? I don't get it. Was it their own assumptions about bodice rippers WHICH THEY'VE NEVER READ? I just don't get where someone was fooling someone into watching the show, expecting something they didn't get.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[ulkis]

Anyway, if audiences thought they were getting one kind of show and are getting something else, there's little point in blaming them for their confusion. There's also no point in blaming them for assuming Jamie's emotional fallout will be treated one way or another, because we have no idea how *RDM will actually handle it*. Some of the posts have bordered on mocking non-book-readers for their ignorance, which just doesn't seem fair. They are reacting to the product they are receiving, the same way unsullied GoT viewers do.

 

I think maybe people are getting a bit defensive because we can't go in there and talk about it with the non-book-readers. (That is not a criticism of the rule, I understand why it's in place, but I'm just explaining I think it explains a bit the tone of the posts here.)

 

I keep going back and forth as to whether I would realize I would know if I hadn't read the books. I think in the episode where they flashbacked to Randall giving Jamie a "choice" I think they made it clear where this was going but that's easy for me to say when I already know.

 

It's funny how mileage varies though. I didn't have trouble at Jamie's smashed hand but when I was watching another show where they revealed a man's frostbitten toes and he had to cut it off himself, I got squeamish. It was quick and bloodless but the gangrenous toes grossed me out.

[bluebonnet]

A page or two late, but I'm a sort of non book reader (made it 25% through book 1, gave up, read Wikipedia summaries instead), just wanted to defend the unsullied. It's not their fault--lots of people watch TV shows with a reasonable expectation of being able to enjoy it even if they haven't read the source material. That's the entire reason the word "unsullied" is part of the greater fandom lexicon now. Once I read the Wikipedia summaries, I think I posted something in the book talk thread wondering if audiences were going to make the jump from the kind of show this appeared to be in the first few episodes to the (very different) show it will apparently have to become instead. I think we reached the first part of that cliff with this episode (and as someone who has watched every single hyper-violent show mentioned in both threads, I honestly think RDM just used too heavy a hand and is not yet used to the premium cable space--the balance is off, or else so many people like me wouldn't be hitting the FF button repeatedly).

Anyway, if audiences thought they were getting one kind of show and are getting something else, there's little point in blaming them for their confusion. There's also no point in blaming them for assuming Jamie's emotional fallout will be treated one way or another, because we have no idea how *RDM will actually handle it*. Some of the posts have bordered on mocking non-book-readers for their ignorance, which just doesn't seem fair. They are reacting to the product they are receiving, the same way unsullied GoT viewers do.

Some of that frustration you're seeing here might be a bit because we are also being insulted.  A couple of non-book readers even make it a point to come in this thread and imply we're all a bunch of torture loving idiots for finding any enjoyment with this story (not to mention this non-book reader is then reading all the spoilers here and going on to post in the non-book thread and further inciting anger and insult).  

 

Plus, critiquing audience perception is often part of the tv discussion.  The scene at the stones and how different members of the audience perceived it is a super valid discussion, for example.  

Edited May 20, 2015 by bluebonnet

[Nidratime]

(not to mention this non-book reader is then reading all the spoilers here and going on to post in the non-book thread and further inciting anger and insult).

 

 

Yes, and that is kind of unfair. They are no longer "Outlander virgins" but they can pretend to be so.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[chocolatetruffle]

DG posted a blog today praising Sam Heughan's performance in this episode, since TM is getting all the media attention.  It is an amazingly accurate summation of what an actor has to go through to portray This part really stood out:

 

"Sam Heughan had to go to a place where he lost complete control to another person. This wasn’t a BDSM situation where, ultimately, the submissive partner has control. This is torture. And rape. This is a situation where a person’s control over themselves, their choices, their basic right to say no is violently taken from them. They are left with nothing. THAT is where Sam Heughan had to go. He had to go to the place of a victim and he had to properly portray that. He had to find that place and he had to put it out there so that, with one tear and a horrified look, we could understand that this strong human being was being knocked down to a place none of us ever want to be. And that is what makes his performance so damned incredible."

 

I agree 1000% with everything she says in the blog.  Here is the link if you'd like to read more.