S01.E15: Wentworth Prison

[kieyra]

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

Sorry, I missed this particular drama but stand by my original post.

I get that folks in this thread tend to be staunch defenders of the source material, but I'm also an avid viewer of scripted drama and I believe that a tv show *has* to be able to stand on its own. Whether or not Outlander is doing so is worthy of discussion, and I'm sorry that it's causing infighting. The posting rules in this case seem slightly Byzantine, but I haven't posted in the non book thread even though I really haven't read "the books"; I promise the only dog I have in this fight is "is Outlander a good tv show", and right now I tend to side with the non-bookers that the Wentworth stuff was overkill and felt like torture porn for the sake of torture porn. (I didn't like it any better when it was Theon Grayjoy, FWIW, and good acting or historical realism doesn't make it not torture porn.)

(I know my posts are not going to be popular and I expect a bunch of "quoted" notifications, and that's fine. It's possible RDM will pull it out and win some people back next week.)

[bluebonnet]

It's probably a good idea to nail down some sort of useable definition for torture porn because using the term to refer to violent scenes that makes one feel uncomfortable doesn't seem like a valid definition to me.  

[Nidratime]

the Wentworth stuff was overkill

 

 

The Wentworth "stuff" was in the book, and fortunately I don't need to hide that since you're in the book thread being spoiled. If it was left out, or even just suggested, that would've been a major change from the book and from the long term ramifications of the plot on key characters.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[tcay]

The show is not perfect. I think they botched the decision at the stones, failed to properly show Claire's resolution about her feelings for Frank, failed to show a real period of happiness for Claire before crap hit the fan, etc.

 

But I also don't think anyone was sold a bill of goods. The Garrison Commander, an episode that was almost exclusively show-only material, was very explicit about this world and what BJR is.

 

It's totally fair to discuss what is torture porn and what level of violence is needed in a story. And if non-readers don't have faith that the show will deal with the fallout, then I guess the show hasn't earned that from them (even though we readers know how heavily Jamie's PTSD factors into the future story). However, I don't think the show was ever coy about its boundaries, and there were hints throughout the season as to where all of this was leading.

[WatchrTina]

 

I don't remember Ron Moore or even any of the Starz PR claiming this show was an historical romance

In episode 101 the heroine is almost raped by the first redcoat she meets, knocked unconscious by the first Highlander she meets, threatened with being "put to the test" to determine whether she is or is not a whore, and is only saved from that happening because the most senior Highlander she meets says he doesn't "hold with rape . . . and we've not got time for it anyway."

 

Claire is essentially made a prisoner in episode 102.  A priest threatens her in 103.  She's nearly raped again in 104.  In 105 Angus pulls a knife on her and Jamie feels the need to sleep outside her door to protect her from the risk of stranger rape.  She's physically assaulted in 106.  She's forced into an unwanted marriage in 107 (okay she has a good time on her wedding night but she begins the day sick with grief over what she is being forced to do.)  She's nearly raped at the beginning of 108 and forced to kill a man to defend herself.  By the end of 108 she's stripped to the waist and seconds away from being raped.  Add to that Jamie's stories -- his sister being assaulted by BJR, his having been flogged nearly to death, his surprise at the beating he receives at "Hall" in episode 102, his life being in danger from his own kin in episode 104, the danger from the Watch in episode 105.

 

Anyone who thought his show was a feel-good historical romance hasn't been paying attention.  The Outlander-verse is dangerous and always has been. Very bad things happen.  It's all been right there on the screen.  

Edited May 20, 2015 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

It really is a tough world in Outlander. They've done a good job in laying down how ugly life is there. One of the many themes (more apparent to me in show)is creating a beautiful life worth living amid the horrors and that it is a struggle. There are compromises and hard choices to make. Colum with his lifelong pain and misery is driven to leave a worthy leader for his clan instead of sitting shut away. Ian loses a leg, does everything he can to protect Lallbroch and his family. What he does is not the ideal but he is using the cards he is dealt with. Hugh Munroe loses a tongue and is able to survive. We know Claire's story what choice she has made.

 

As book readers we know what kind of man he becomes. I think I have had trouble with his characterization until this episode because I'm familiar with post-Wentworth Jamie mostly. We know that this event is so huge to him that he struggles every day with it. This episode I really saw that Jamie right from the hangings. We have to hope that viewers will get the payoff from this tragedy that we see.

 

Now we have to watch Jamie become a man he did not think he would be. It's kind of his superhero origin story. 

[AD55]

It's probably a good idea to nail down some sort of useable definition for torture porn because using the term to refer to violent scenes that makes one feel uncomfortable doesn't seem like a valid definition to me.  

My understanding of torture porn is violence inflicted on another that creates in the viewer a heightened sense of arousal that is or borders on the sexual. We might be quick to say that we feel only horror and sympathy for Jamie, for example, but it can be argued that our position as witnesses of the violence makes us complicit in his suffering. Further, our admiration for Sam's performance involves a kind of enjoyment of the scene even if the only emotion we admit or allow ourselves is horror. This is why I said earlier that by inviting the viewer to linger on the violence, the director and writer are teetering on the edge of torture porn.

 

My adult son has been watching Outlander, which he now prefers to Game of Thrones, and we've had discussions about episode 15. He agrees with those who say that by portraying the suffering of a male victim of rape, Outlander is doing something we seldom, perhaps never, see. He has a fairly jaundiced view of his own sex and he maintains that straight men almost always experience some degree of titillation when they see a woman being raped even if they are also disgusted by it. Perhaps this has to do with cultural conditioning or the fact that the rape is usually filmed from the man's perspective or an involuntary physiological response or some combination of the three. He and I have been speculating about how men will react when they see Jamie suffer the humiliation that is usually reserved for women.

 

Those of you who watch Game of Thrones will recall the controversial scene in which Jamie (why does he have to have that name?!) and Cersei have sex beside their recently murdered son's tomb. Whether the sex was consensual was a subject of debate on the Internet, with women overwhelmingly maintaining that it wasn't and men maintaining that by the end Cersei had consented. The male director stated that Cersei eventually consents. Evidently no really does mean yes and if you fuck a woman long enough, she'll come around. This begs the question of how male viewers will feel when Jamie becomes aroused during a brutal rape, especially when we are shown the despair and shame he experiences in the aftermath.

 

To return to the question of whether Black Jack's treatment of Jamie constitutes torture porn, and I don't think that it does, I have to confess that I enjoyed the episode. I rewatched it, and I've looked at the before and after pictures in Corinne Verzak's photo recap (cf. the Outlander in the Media thread) more than once. While I believe that my enjoyment stems from the brilliance of the writing, directing, and performances, I'm willing to admit that on a subconscious level, the how and why of my enjoyment may be more complicated than that. Even the act of looking away from certain scenes or watching them through our fingers is a strategy that enables us to continue bearing witness to Jamie's suffering. 

 

Sorry to go all psychoanalytic. I've been thinking about this a lot since the episode is being criticized for being excessive in its portrayal of the torture. I believe that it's justified, but I also think it's complicated and bears examining.

 

ETA. That the Game of Thrones director argues he intended to show that the sex between Jamie and Cersei was consensual supports the opinion of those, including myself, who think it's important that we not take the writer at her/his word when it comes to interpreting what's on the page or screen. Do we believe the writer or our lying eyes?

Edited May 20, 2015 by AD55

[mledawn]

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.

 

Her premise right out of the gate puts me off:

Of course, it’s also shown that a good chunk of this fandom doesn’t understand sexual sadism, sexuality, or why rape is bad, but that’s another post for another day.

 

Really? GFY, what a ridiculous thing to say. Lack of understanding on sexual sadism, absolutely - then stop there. What an asshat, I could hardly get past that sentence. Please, DG, enlighten me as to why rape is bad, I have no idea. INSERT EYEROLL HERE.

[absnow54]

For a writer who has written some dubious scenes of sexual consent that are so controversial, people are still debating them twenty years later, DG is really tone deaf when it comes to "educating" people.

[AheadofStraight]

Diana didn't write that blog, fyi. She just posted the link to it. 

[WatchrTina]

Wait wait wait, the words quoted above are NOT Diana's.  Diana posted a link to a fan's blog that she thought was well-written.  The fan's blog is what is quoted above.  Diana didn't write those words.

 

ETA:  Ah, AheadofStraight beat  me to it.

 

BTW -- I don't get what the blogger is talking about because basically her post is all about how good Sam's performance is and that his performance is being overlooked due to people praising Tobias' performance.  That has not been MY experience and, well and let's face it, I'm a bit obsessive about this show.  My experience is that most critics have been equally generous in their praise for all three main actors in this episode.  I haven't noticed Tobias being singled out at all.  And of course here on PreviouslyTV we talk about Sam more than anyone else (or at least that's my impression.)  I sometimes feel bad that Cait and Tobias' don't get enough love from us here.

Edited May 20, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Pestilentia]

 

While I believe that my enjoyment stems from the brilliance of the writing, directing, and performances, I'm willing to admit that on a subconscious level, the how and why of my enjoyment may be more complicated than that.

I'm guilty as charged then because during the repellant kiss I was focused 100% on the sheer beauty of Jamie's neck.

[ulkis]

Has anyone seen or heard the Outlander musical? I wonder how they  . . . handle this part of the book/show on stage. I listened to the beginning of the song but I only listened to like 10 seconds due to my second hand embarrassment feeling.

[chocolatetruffle]

Diana didn't write that blog, fyi. She just posted the link to it. 

 

Thanks AheadofStraight.  I got the link from another site that identified it as Diana's.

[WatchrTina]

 

I'm guilty as charged then because during the repellant kiss I was focused 100% on the sheer beauty of Jamie's neck.

I'm guilty as charged too because on the 2nd or 3rd viewing I start to focus on the stagecraft involved -- the framing of that shot WAS beautiful -- and the actual spit that shows up in that scene (if you look closely each time they pull apart) shows that the actors really went for it with the kiss.

 

So here's an example of a little moment I only noticed on the 2nd viewing.  When Jack is preparing the first hammer blow on the nail, Jamie is staring, aghast, at his hand and then he suddenly turns his head and locks eyes with Claire throughout the ordeal.  A small choice -- but a telling one.  

Edited May 21, 2015 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

I noticed during Claire's attempt to choke Randall with the chain when he pushes her away she loses balance and falls backwards because Jamie was on his hands and knees behind her. It was a little funny.

[AD55]

I'm guilty as charged too because on the 2nd or 3rd viewing I start to focus on the stagecraft involved -- the framing of that shot WAS beautiful -- and the actual spit that shows up in that scene (if you look closely each time they pull apart) shows that the actors really went for it with the kiss.

 

So here's an example of a little moment I only noticed on the 2nd viewing.  When Jack is preparing the first hammer blow on the nail, Jamie is staring, aghast, at his hand and then he suddenly turns his head and locks eyes with Claire throughout the ordeal.  A small choice -- but a telling one.  

 

I'm assuming that you and Pestilentia are being ironic when you use the word guilt, but just in case, I don't believe those of us who admire the stagecraft, writing, and performances on Outlander are guilty of anything. That's just thoughtful viewing. I also don't think there's anything wrong with noticing how beautiful Cait and Jamie are even in the most disturbing scenes. I think torture porn has to do with getting off on the violence. I probably overstated things in my post because I was trying to understand whether the accusations that Moore et all are offering up torture porn have any validity. That's why I was thinking about my own response -- what does it mean that I enjoyed the episode? The violence in the episode does arouse strong feelings, but that's not necessarily a bad thing -- art should provoke an emotional response and what Jamie is going through should arouse our sympathy. There's a link between sex and violence, however, and sometimes filmmakers exploit that, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't think that's what is going on with Outlander. Frankly, I think crossing the line into torture porn is much more likely when the violence portrayed is against women. Because women are more often the victims of sexual violence than men, they're much more likely to identify with the victim than the perpetrator.

[Archery]

Reading some of the critics, you'd think that Episode 15 had nonstop violence. There were two acts of violence against Jamie, and the rest was atmosphere. Creepy groping, an unwilling kiss, pleasure in looking at scars. If people think that was overkill, I don't know what to say to that. You'd see more shocking violence and sexual exploitation is any CSI or Law and Order: SVU Episode. Mainly, the claustrophobic setting was uncomfortable and disturbing, with a growing sense of dread.

On a lighter note, I love when BJR starts listing the various ways he can give Jamie a good death (Roman, hemlock, slit his throat from behind), Jamie goes, "How will I ever choose?" And the line reading is so very SCOTTISH and very funny.

Lastly, I think that viewers need to let the people tell their story instead of getting all spun up about what could go wrong.

[annlaw78]

Reading some of the critics, you'd think that Episode 15 had nonstop violence. There were two acts of violence against Jamie, and the rest was atmosphere. Creepy groping, an unwilling kiss, pleasure in looking at scars. If people think that was overkill, I don't know what to say to that. You'd see more shocking violence and sexual exploitation is any CSI or Law and Order: SVU Episode. Mainly, the claustrophobic setting was uncomfortable and disturbing, with a growing sense of dread.

On a lighter note, I love when BJR starts listing the various ways he can give Jamie a good death (Roman, hemlock, slit his throat from behind), Jamie goes, "How will I ever choose?" And the line reading is so very SCOTTISH and very funny.

Lastly, I think that viewers need to let the people tell their story instead of getting all spun up about what could go wrong.

For me, it's the accretion of rape/threat of rape being used by the show (and I suppose the books) -- repeatedly -- as a plot device/catalyst/narrative crutch that gives me very little stomach for yet more rape scenes by the same Hitlerian caricature. And, frankly, a character's apprehension of impending rape is a terrible, grotesque thing to see. At least for me.

The show can tell its story, but that doesn't mean it's immune to criticism, simply b/c it's the story the show wants to depict. I don't have to turn my brain off and blindly like the narrative choices that are being made. I like the show, but I have no fealty to the source material, which I haven't read. The show should stand alone as its own entertainment product, and on its own merits.

[ulkis]

Reading some of the critics, you'd think that Episode 15 had nonstop violence. There were two acts of violence against Jamie, and the rest was atmosphere. Creepy groping, an unwilling kiss, pleasure in looking at scars. If people think that was overkill, I don't know what to say to that. You'd see more shocking violence and sexual exploitation is any CSI or Law and Order: SVU Episode. 

 

I agree with everything you said, but I think it's understandable that people found this overkill, mileage varies. Someone mentioned Hannibal in the non-book-thread and how they watched that and were okay with that and not this episode. For my own part, even though I love a lot of the cast and wanted to watch it, I had to drop it.

 

My sister really hated the nail in the hand part and she named some pretty out there stuff that she would have found more acceptable that I in turn was like "what, how could you think THAT'S not worse than that?!"

 

Anyway, to talk about something else for a moment, there were some really good bits of music. I liked the music when Claire was trying to break the chain and then the end credits was probably my favorite since the music at the end of the "Garrison Commander". I don't know if it was quite appropriate to the end of this particular episode, but on its own as a piece of music I really liked it.

[WatchrTina]

I'm assuming that you and Pestilentia are being ironic when you use the word guilt, but just in case, I don't believe those of us who admire the stagecraft, writing, and performances on Outlander are guilty of anything.

Yeah that "guilty as charged" is tongue in cheek -- at least for me. I "enjoyed" this episode on many levels, even as I peeped through my fingers and keened and wailed throughout the first viewing. The people who are in a snit because the show went too dark for them and who declare they won't ever watch this episode again, well, I don't get it. That was a really great hour of television. Brutal yes, but brilliantly executed.

The funny thing is that I fully expect episode 116 to be MUCH harder to watch. If they stay true to the books we are about to boldly go where few shows have gone before. The charming, handsome, funny, beloved, heroic male lead is about to descend into a pit of sheer hell that will make this episode look like a walk in the park. We may break the internet with that one.

Regarding "torture porn" -- I think the movie "Saw" (which I have not seen and have no intention of seeing) is the poster child for that term. What about "Silence of the Lambs"? That's an award-winning movie, with amazing acting, plotting and cinematography. Did anyone call that torture porn when it came out? I don't think they did. Compared to that movie, Outlander is freaking Disney film. So I don't accept that term being applied to this episode. Very bad things happen. The characters are forever changed by them. That's drama. Some really good, ought-to-be-nominated-for-an-emmy, drama.

Edited May 21, 2015 by WatchrTina

[ulkis]

Regarding "torture porn" -- I think the movie "Saw" (which I have not seen and have no attention of seeing) is the poster child for that term.  What about "Silence of the Lambs"?  That's an award-winning movie, with amazing acting, plotting and cinematography. 

 

Yeah, exactly. Those two were also ones I was thinking of when I was thinking of mileage. I've seen bits and pieces of "Silence of the Lambs"  when it used to be on tv a lot, but I haven't ever watched the whole thing and I doubt I will. I don't want to see Saw either.

 

I do admit to a bit of hypocrisy because if Jamie were a woman I'd be giving this episode more of a side-eye.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ulkis

[annlaw78]

The people who are in a snit because the show went too dark for them and who declare they won't ever watch this episode again, well, I don't get it.

That's fine that you have a differing view; I would respectfully suggest that those who do believe the show's rape setting could be turned down from 11 are not merely in a "snit." We have a valid, differing viewpoint. Everyone's mileage varies, everyone has sensitivities or pet peeves partucular to him or her, there's not consensus of thought. And that's what makes for a robust discussion.

[WatchrTina]

 

I do admit to a bit of hypocrisy because if Jamie were a woman I'd be giving this episode more of a side-eye.

Yeah, I have to agree with you there.  Part of what makes this episode so compelling is watching a big, tough, heroic guy deal with this shit-storm.  Maybe a bad-ass women would be interesting too, (like the Charlize Theron character in the Mad Max reboot).  But if it were Claire going though it (or, god forbid, Sansa Stark), I don't think I'd be able to "enjoy" it on any level.

[lianau]

You'd see more shocking violence and sexual exploitation is any CSI or Law and Order: SVU Episode.

But that violence is usually done to the female bit player of the week , not your male lead. And the story is also rarely about said character , it's about a team of investigators trying to arrest the perpetrator . On occasion (sweeps) there will be a victim of the week whose fate will resonate with one of the detectives/CSIs and that will lead to character development for the law enforcement  team member . So in the end we don't feel with the victim because the designated focus of the show is not the person getting raped/maimed/killed. 

[AD55]

Yeah that "guilty as charged" is tongue in cheek -- at least for me.  I "enjoyed" this episode on many levels, even as I peeped through my fingers and keened and wailed throughout the first viewing.  The people who are in a snit because the show went too dark for them and who declare they won't ever watch this episode again, well, I don't get it.  That was a really great hour of television.  Brutal yes, but brilliantly executed.  

 

The funny thing is that I fully expect episode 116 to be MUCH harder to watch.  If they stay true to the books we are about to boldly go where few shows have gone before.  The charming, handsome, funny, beloved, heroic male lead is about to descend into a pit of sheer hell that will make this episode look like a walk in the park.  We may break the internet with that one.

 

Regarding "torture porn" -- I think the movie "Saw" (which I have not seen and have no intention of seeing) is the poster child for that term.  What about "Silence of the Lambs"?  That's an award-winning movie, with amazing acting, plotting and cinematography.  Did anyone call that torture porn when it came out?  I don't think they did.  Compared to that movie, Outlander is freaking Disney film.  So I don't accept the that term being applied to this episode.  Very bad things happen.  The characters are forever changed by them.  That's drama.  Some really good, ought-to-be-nominated-for-an-emmy, drama.

 

I agree that it was brilliant. My son has been enjoying the series, but he says that episode was a game changer for him. He is interested in shows and movies that explore what happens when characters are pushed to their limits and Outlander does that. I don't mean to invoke him as the arbiter of taste, but I have appreciated his perspective since I"m guessing that most, though I hope not all, of us posting here are women.

 

I used the pause button to watch the promo for episode 16 and yeah, it's going to make me nostalgic for the lighthearted fare that is Wentworth Prison. I don't usually have much patience when actors are praised for their "brave" performances. It's their job and the ones on TV and in movies get paid a ton of money to do it. I think it takes more courage to be a minimum wage worker who is treated like crap and lives on the poverty line. But I do think that adjective is appropriate for Tobias's and Sam's performances.

Edited May 21, 2015 by AD55

[Archery]

But that violence is usually done to the female bit player of the week , not your male lead. And the story is also rarely about said character , it's about a team of investigators trying to arrest the perpetrator . On occasion (sweeps) there will be a victim of the week whose fate will resonate with one of the detectives/CSIs and that will lead to character development for the law enforcement  team member . So in the end we don't feel with the victim because the designated focus of the show is not the person getting raped/maimed/killed. 

I cannot say that I feel less for the victim of the week in a crime procedural  because s/he isn't the "designated focus of the show," because  . . . I just can't.

 

But, more than that, TV shows dealing with main characters' assaults are not new.  One of All In The Family's (1970's) most memorable episodes was about the attempted rape of Edith.   Hunter had a very controversial episode in the 1980's -- very intense and graphic for primetime TV, as I recall -- involving the female lead.  Cagney and Lacey. Sons of Anarchy.  Downton Abbey. The Sopranos.  I could go on and on.  And the violence to Jamie's hand pales in comparison to episodes of Deadwood, Justified, SoA, Oz, Vikings, and many more (including the very special craziness that is every season of American Horror Story). 

 

Over the past week, the criticism (widely online) has morphed from "that episode went too far" to "the series has a rape culture that's unacceptable."  And I get turning away from the series generally, if the violence strikes one as being too much; I've stopped watching several critically acclaimed series precisely because of that. But I'm still trying to figure out why this episode provoked such a response when, so far, the sexual abuse has been implied and the actual violence was limited. 

 

I'm not saying that what happens to Jamie (and Claire) in this episode is NBD; it is.  But, for me, it's less that it is graphic, and more the combination of the tiny, claustrophobic cell, dim lighting, extreme closeups, long pauses, and the disconcerting juxtaposition of BJR's reasonable, intimate tone and his BSC words and actions that makes the whole package deeply unsettling.  I guess I just don't agree with my fellow internet commenters and bloggers as to what "torture porn" means.   

If these performances are as great as we seem to agree they are, I hope the Emmy folks don't chicken out in recognizing the actors and the show the way they did with The Wire. 

[WatchrTina]

I really really wish I could hear a well executed-interview with Sam, Tobias and Cait about the filming of this episode but I doubt we will for two reasons:

1. ​This episode is really part 1 of a two-episode story and you can't discuss the first half without discussing the second half.
2. They are hard at work on Season 2.  Sam tweeted that he had a 3:00am call just a couple of days ago.  They need to stay focused on that as I'm sure those episodes are full of their own challenges.

 

Maybe after the final season 1 episode airs the cast will weigh in on these two episodes but I doubt it we'll get anything in-depth.  They need to be focused on what they are working on now and I understand that. I also think that some of what goes on during filming is "magic" (for lack of a better term) that the actors will never be able to explain to us.  I'm curious to know what they were feeling during filming and where they went in their heads to produce those performances but on a certain level, it's none of my business.  It's like Jamie's scars -- it's personal.

[Nidratime]

But I'm still trying to figure out why this episode provoked such a response when, so far, the sexual abuse has been implied and the actual violence was limited.

 

 

In my opinion, all the media attention leading up to the episode, plus STARZ's own PR, plus book readers who were turned off by it in the book, plus the actors/producers themselves talking about how the show "gets darker," all helped to create an expectation that people were going to be horrified and needed to be prepared, etc. They built this up and so people are latching on to that to make a mountain out of a ... smaller mountain -- like this gives them permission to be overly dramatic over something that was definitely "not fun" but in no way as horrific as was advertised. In fact, I'm still seeing people on message boards who haven't watched the episode yet because they don't feel "ready." Compare this to Episode 6, which was definitely promoted as a *good, well done* episode by reviewers and the media but wasn't talked about as such difficult viewing that one has to gird one's loins over it and, therefore, we saw less of these dramatic responses across the net the next day of the show being too violent or overly focused on the torture of a main character, etc. What's funny is, I thought Episode 6 was harder to watch at times than Episode 15. In the former case, perhaps people reacted less over-the-top because the show broke up the "incivility" with the civility of the officers luncheon or because there was a "happy ending" to the episode. I don't know, but a big part of me thinks it has to do with promotion and expectation.

[chocolatetruffle]

Over the past week, the criticism (widely online) has morphed from "that episode went too far" to "the series has a rape culture that's unacceptable."  And I get turning away from the series generally, if the violence strikes one as being too much; I've stopped watching several critically acclaimed series precisely because of that. But I'm still trying to figure out why this episode provoked such a response when, so far, the sexual abuse has been implied and the actual violence was limited. 

 

 

 

I think this episode tapped into one of our basic fears.  We all believe that when we head out the door in the morning that we will return that evening with our body and soul relatively in the same condition as they were when we left.  We all have deep-seeded fears, but we live our lives with the assumption that we are safe.  We don't willingly want to confront those fears.  But this episode and the next make us look at those fears with a close up lens and I believe it's worth doing and here is why.

 

Horrible things do happen forcing us to confront our fears and the aftermath - the toll that it takes to survive.  Often people who are victims of horrific acts say they survived by going to that “safe place” deep inside, a place that the perpetrator couldn’t touch.  BJR followed Jamie into that safe place and destroyed it.

 

Those who haven't read the books may think they can imagine what happens to Jamie in Wentworth, but please trust me when I say that you cannot.  Jamie not only has his worst fears realized but as a result knows that he is no longer “Jamie” but is now only an extension of BJR, the embodiment of Black Jack’s filth.  He can’t be Claire’s husband, Laird of Lallybroch.  That man died in Wentworth’s dungeon.  BJR is with him always, in his waking thoughts and sleeping nightmares.  This is why we must see what happens to Jamie in order to understand (intellectually and viscerally) what it really means to have that safe place inside yourself destroyed. The destruction is systematic and thorough.  We must see it in order to understand the toll it takes on Claire to go into that darkness in order to find her husband and pull him out.

 

Ultimately, “Jamie” is reborn - crippled and scarred - in a compelling moment in the book.  I’m willing to take the journey with the show because this is some powerful storytelling about survivors: those among us who have been taken to unspeakable darkness and yet manage to recover and overcome.  It’s a story of strength, the triumph of resilience over evil, and at its core, it’s a story of love.

Edited May 22, 2015 by chocolatetruffle

[GHScorpiosRule]

What makes this particular assault so hard for some viewers to take (myself included), is that up until now threatened rape has been a narrative device to essentially move the plot forward (namely to bond Claire to Jamie as it sets Jamie up to swoop in and save her, repeatedly, which is fairly typical in a romance-novelish storyline). 

 

Well, not to nitpick, but, Murtagh saved Claire the first time;  Then Dougal saved her in "The Gathering" only to make a pass at her himself, for which she conked him over the head with a stool.  Jamie didn't save Claire from her near-rape by the English deserters--she saved herself, which was something Jamie blamed himself for and believed that Claire blamed him for as well; not protecting her; In "The Reckoning", Jamie did save Claire. As he did in "The Devil's Mark", but that was from a beating/burning because they all thought her a witch.

 

So I don't think the Jamie "swooping in to save" Claire is quite accurate.

[ulkis]

But, more than that, TV shows dealing with main characters' assaults are not new.  One of All In The Family's (1970's) most memorable episodes was about the attempted rape of Edith.

 

See, that just blows my mind. I don't remember ever seeing that one re-run on Nick at Nite, but I suppose if it had aired I would have been too young to understand. And I was going to say that now THAT seems really jarring to me, but I suppose All in the Family was about social issues a lot, so, I guess it's not that much of a stretch. But I guess that went against expectations too because if someone said to me, "howdy, did you see that All in the Family episode where they addressed rape" I would have assumed it would have been about Gloria.

[MedievalGirl]

Or that episode of Little House on the Prairie where an adolescent girl is raped. It was all about how the Ingels family reacts and she leaves town after. It isn't like it happened to Pa or Laura. 

[CatMack]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but when I refer to torture porn a lot of it has to do with how much we're being shown and if it's really necessary or just there because the creators can get away with it.  For my money, they didn't need to show as much as they did to effectively tell the story.  I recognize they could have shown a lot more, and I'm not saying they shouldn't have shown anything.  There's a wide spectrum between those two extremes.  I happen to feel they fell a little too far towards showing to much.  There comes a point where being graphic just distracts from the story.  If it pulls me out of the moment and suddenly I'm thinking about how gross that was instead of being riveted by the emotions of two stellar actors, that's a problem.  Like I said earlier, for the most part I think the show did fairly well with source material that was always going to be miserable to watch, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism.  

 

And frankly, I'm really sick of the amount of talk about non-book readers.  They have every right to judge the show on its own merits, their opinions are just as valid, and I'm really sick of seeing people bitch about it here because they can't respond over there.  I've come here multiple times in the last week intending to post and then changing my mind because the discussion everyone else was having about non book readers was completely off putting.  

 

Maybe we need a fandom drama thread like the Once Upon a Time board has - if you need to talk about other fans and how they're reacting, you could do it there and leave show threads for talk about the show, not other fans.  

[chocolatetruffle]

And frankly, I'm really sick of the amount of talk about non-book readers.  They have every right to judge the show on its own merits, their opinions are just as valid, and I'm really sick of seeing people bitch about it here because they can't respond over there.  I've come here multiple times in the last week intending to post and then changing my mind because the discussion everyone else was having about non book readers was completely off putting.  

 

Catmack, I don't want to speak for others on the board, but when anyone posts here and I find it interesting enough to want to respond, I will respond.  If that poster identifies him- or herself as a non-book reader then that colors how I will respond (since this is a book thread) and for that reason I will designate my comment specifically to them.  I do that because I believe their opinions are valid and my comments would be obvious (and therefore not needed) to book readers.  

 

Because I like discussion and reading the opinions of others, my first instinct is to jump in, no matter what board I'm on.  So even though I totally understand why the rule is in place and believe it is necessary, sometimes I get a little antsy when I have to curb my natural instincts.  Perhaps that is what's motivating some of the discussion here about it.  YMMV and please continue to contribute because I enjoy reading your posts.

[CatMack]

There's a fine line I guess.  I don't necessarily mind responding to a point made by a non-book reader as long as the response is about something related to the show.  It's when we start getting into things like bashing non book readers for not forming their opinions based on what's coming up (which they don't know because they aren't book readers) that I tune out the discussion because it's not interesting or productive.  If it's about the fans or the fandom and not the show, it shouldn't be in the episode thread IMO.  Like I said, if people really need a place to vent about that, maybe we need a fandom thread where that discussion can happen for those who want to engage in it.  

 

To get back to the show, one thing I want to point out, which touches on how non book reader react to the show but also just in general relates to pacing - in the book from the moment Claire enters Wentworth to the moment Jamie makes the deal and Jack throws her out, it's only 15 pages.  15 pages in a work nearly 500 pages long.  Yes, more awful stuff happens after that, but it's told through flashbacks, so it's interspersed with Jamie being cared for and other conversations.  It's not nonstop unrelenting bad things happening.  The showrunners chose to stretch that 15 pages over an entire episode which resulted in an entire episode where basically nothing good happens, it's not really surprising that people are balking at how dark it was.  I don't know how they'll structure the last episode, but I'd like it if they started with the rescue and then do everything with flashbacks - that would maintain more of a balance between the absolutely awful things and the slightly less awful to good things.

[Pestilentia]

 

For my money, they didn't need to show as much as they did to effectively tell the story.  I recognize they could have shown a lot more, and I'm not saying they shouldn't have shown anything.  There's a wide spectrum between those two extremes.  I happen to feel they fell a little too far towards showing to much.

But what did they show, really?

This episode was nothing horrifically graphic that I can recall other than a hand being smashed and nailed.

The tone of the ep was dark to be sure, but to my mind that had more to do with BJR's being creepy than anything else.

[Athena]

Everyone is free to express to their opinions about the show and the books as long as they are civil and respective of your fellow posters. You may express your opinions about the show and its reception, but do it knowing that others have a different viewpoint than yours. While some posters may not read these posts, it does not mean you can comment negatively on posters here or other sites.

 

If you do not like the comments about the show from the Non-Book readers, please stick to the Book Talk topics.

 

One last note, we do not want anyone to beat a dead horse. We do not have a boards on boards rule, but sometimes, it's best to change the topic and focus on some other detail about the show and books. Thank you.

[annlaw78]

But what did they show, really?

This episode was nothing horrifically graphic that I can recall other than a hand being smashed and nailed.

The tone of the ep was dark to be sure, but to my mind that had more to do with BJR's being creepy than anything else.

The lingering shots on Jamie's anguish at his impending rape were horrific to me. The dilemmaBJR presents Jamie -- I assault You or I assault your wife -- goes way beyond creepy, to me. Mileage varies.

Ditto everything Catmack has said. Book readers have had 20+ years to wrap their heads around BJR's sexual assault of Jamie. For those of us who are learning the story through the show, this is really quite shocking and appalling.

So I don't think the Jamie "swooping in to save" Claire is quite accurate.

The first big speech Jamie has is that no one will touch her when he's there to protect her. He fights off clansmen in the garden at the Gathering. He escorts her around the Castle for her safety. He sleeps outside her door when they're on the rent trip. I think much of Jamie and Claire's relationship is forged on his protecting her from peril, most of it sexual in nature (and her patching him up when he gets hurt).

I could understand if the story wanted to use that set-up to have Claire actually save Jamie in turn, but that's not how the story is going.

Edited May 21, 2015 by annlaw78

[Pestilentia]

 

The lingering shots on Jamie's anguish at his impending rape were horrific to me. The dilemmaBJR presents Jamie -- I assault You or I assault your wife -- goes way beyond creepy, to me. Mileage varies.

Well it was difficult but to me fell far short of being what I would call graphic.

To me graphic would mean... well, graphic like penetration and so on.

Not facial expressions no matter how heart wrenching they might be.

[Dust Bunny]

 

I don't know how they'll structure the last episode, but I'd like it if they started with the rescue and then do everything with flashbacks - that would maintain more of a balance between the absolutely awful things and the slightly less awful to good things.

 

I'm almost sure this is what's going to happen. The question will be how many minutes they give to the rescue, the flashbacks, Jamie's sickness, Claire's prayers, the redemption, the strengthening of Claire & Jamie's relationship, and however they chose to close out the season (announcement, cliffhanger, tease, etc.). There's A LOT to cover in 65 minutes. 

 

I'm going in positively, thinking this will be a wonderful episode. At the very least, there should be some tremendous acting. Any of the episode's weaknesses will come from the writing or editing (i.e., pacing). 

[WatchrTina]

 

I thought Episode 6 was harder to watch at times than Episode 15. In the former case, perhaps people reacted less over-the-top because the show broke up the "incivility" with the civility of the officers luncheon or because there was a "happy ending" to the episode. I don't know, but a big part of me thinks it has to do with promotion and expectation.

I completely agree that all the PSA tweets and warnings about how "dark" things were going to get are feeding the reaction to this episode.  I understand that those reviewers who were given advance copies of the show were given episodes 115/116 together and I think they had a really hard time separating them in their minds.  So yeah, some of the press reaction we've seen is, I think, colored by their knowledge of what is coming and let's face it, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

 

I completely agree that episode 106 is much more gory than 115. I mean that bloody back with the dangling flesh <<shudder>>.   One difference, however, is that hearing about a story in flashback, about someone that you know is already healed from the experience (physically anyway) and is in a safe place (relatively speaking) is different from seeing an assault in "real time" with no foreknowledge of how, or even if he survives.  So psychologically, I do think 115 was more grueling -- especially when the Wentworth scenes end with the scariest line ever:  "Shall we begin?"  And yeah, the look of fear on Sam/Jamie's face reacting to that line was more chilling to me than unconscious Jamie dangling from the lash post.  

 

I was interested to read that hand injuries are some of the most excruciating injuries a person can suffer because of all those sensitive nerve endings.  It explains how Jamie could withstand 200 lashes in 106 without crying out but could not help screaming when the mallet hit him in 115. That's another reason this ep was worse -- the pain inflicted is clearly worse.

 

The other thing that makes this episode worse is the uncertainly and foreboding.  The lashing scene was public and as horrible as it was, Jamie knew what he was in for. He'd been through it once already.  In this episode his fear comes from dreading what is coming, not knowing what to expect, and knowing he's all alone, with no witnesses to intervene.  And we're right there with him -- especially the non-book readers -- because once you see Jack crush Jamie's hand and then nail it to a table you know that ANYTHING can happen in this dungeon.  Aaaand we have a whole extra week to anticipate it. Damn.

[AheadofStraight]

 

Book readers have had 20+ years to wrap their heads around BJR's sexual assault of Jamie. For those of us who are learning the story through the show, this is really quite shocking and appalling.

 

Just for the record, some of us are new book readers who read because of the show. :)  

[paramitch]

I loved this episode, although I found it of course haunting, dark and difficult. But honestly, as dark as this was, I found it incredibly worthwhile viewing. For one thing, it -- to me -- gave us a reason for all the rape subtext to the show this season by having events culminate in this incredibly unexpected (for viewers) way: It's not Claire who's raped, but JAMIE.

Immediately, this subverts expectations, asks us as TV viewers to rethink our assumptions on "Outlander," Claire, Jamie, BJR, rape, power (and powerlessness) and more. I found this episode haunting in ways I didn't expect. And full disclosure: I've only read the first book and -- confession -- I loved the first half but really didn't like the second half -- the romance felt tedious, and the book's increasing obsession with Jamie/Claire sex was boring, unsexy and offputting (like, by the end I simply wanted Claire to find a good gynecologist). But then something changed, and I was riveted by the outcome of the Jamie/BJR situation because (1) I never, ever expected it, and (2) it changed my view of everything that preceded it in the book.

I feel the same here, and -- unlike the book -- I've really liked the show all along (the actors and landscapes have made the show for me), but just as with the book, for me this episode was a game-changer. Just stunning. 

 

All season long, the non-book viewer is set up for a grand finale in which Claire must be rescued a triumphant final time, probably however only after BJR's evil comes to fruition and she's raped. It's been foreshadowed all along. And yet what we're given instead is a situation in which Claire -- wonderfully powerful and strong -- must rescue Jamie. And in which Jamie -- in a situation incredibly unique for a man on television and certainly in fantasy literature as well -- must face the certain prospect of rape, violation, powerlessness, and humiliation. Typically a woman's lot in fantasy (ahem, just check out the latest episode of

"Game of Thrones."

)

 

I've liked Sam as Jamie all season long, but I've also wondered if it was just good casting -- he's beautiful and charming and flirtatious, and handles action scenes well, I wondered if maybe that was enough. He hasn't been asked to handle nearly as much subtlety as either Catriona or Tobias, both of whom (for me) have made the series a tour de force in many, many episodes. (Tobias meanwhile is someone I've always liked, but the real fun is that I never, ever would have cast him in either part here and he's absolutely blown me away with his performances, both as the sweet, boyish Frank, and as the hopelessly twisted, sadistic BJR.)

 

So here, I was really stunned, moved and impressed with the work Sam did. I felt that the direction and writing took a lot of thought, and incorporated a lot of little nuances that many others might have skipped or overlooked. In so many moments, we saw Jamie's face reflect not just awareness of his situation (and the requisite fortitude and bravery) but also this very difficult to describe innocence -- an astonishment at his dawning realization of what he was actually facing, and a combined fear, resolution, and despair that absolutely broke my heart. There are so many times in this episode where Jamie is simply struggling to compute the magnitude of just how twisted BJR is, and part of that is also his coming to terms with the realization that this guy's feelings go way beyond "I hate you and I've decided to rape you now" (which I think he'd have handled with a fair amount of resigned distaste) -- but instead encompass this terrifying and horrible combination of love, hate, lust, dominance, and more that are much more familiar to women typically than men in these scenarios. 

 

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!"

I cheerfully disagree with these and several other posters' implications that fans of Frank must be simplistic, misguided, or backward. I have only read book one, but while I admit that Book Frank barely registered with me, I absolutely loved Show Frank, and don't think my preference for Claire with Frank means I'm misguided or wrong. I simply prefer their relationship. It feels more grown-up and equal.

Claire and Jamie are lovely, but I haven't -- quite yet -- been persuaded that they actually know each other. I just don't. I find myself wondering what the heck they'll talk about if/when they are ever allowed to stop running, fighting or having sex to do so. Meanwhile, "Both Sides Now" broke my heart and I will always wonder how Frank is doing on the show, and hoping he's recovering from his loss (and worse, from his imagined betrayal). I also don't think that Claire would ever have been content with being some demure good little professor's wife with no life of her own -- and nothing we've seen makes me think Frank expected that of her. What I saw was a man who embraced how strong and brave she was and who expected her to have her own outer and inner life -- even on their second honeymoon, for instance. What's interesting, is how is life stuck as Jamie's 1700s-era wife any better or preferable? I guess the biggest flaw with the story for me is that I cannot imagine any woman willingly choosing to stay in Claire's position -- she has nothing ahead but the prospect of a brutal existence, painful childbirth/medical prognoses and a vastly shortened lifespan. Even with the prospect of lovely Jamie, yeah, I'd still have been running for those stones.

 

[Farscape] 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 love that you brought up Farscape, and I also agree that this episode's exploration of issues that we just don't see on most TV are part of what make it worth discussing.

 

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.   

Wonderful points. I absolutely love the way you remind us that Jamie and BJR is a clear reflection of what England is also doing to Scotland at this very time. My mother was a clan matriarch, and most of my ancestors were wiped out in the Highland massacres. Watching what the English are doing in this show is just painful because it spotlights this very specific blindness to the English at this particular time. I think your metaphor is incredibly vital to understanding the show and what makes Jamie's life (and way of life) worth fighting for.

 

Anyone who thought his show was a feel-good historical romance hasn't been paying attention.  The Outlander-verse is dangerous and always has been. Very bad things happen.  It's all been right there on the screen.  

What I especially love is that you spotlight that the ongoing theme of rape and the danger of violation that has been constantly present for Claire -- is now a reality for -- not Claire (as expected) but for poor Jamie. For me that makes the entire season worth reevaluating and reexploring. It's not about sex. It's about power and domination and how terribly those things can manifest between men and men as well as between men and women. I think it's worth exploring and this is what sets these final episodes apart for me.

 

My adult son has been watching Outlander, which he now prefers to Game of Thrones, and we've had discussions about episode 15. He agrees with those who say that by portraying the suffering of a male victim of rape, Outlander is doing something we seldom, perhaps never, see. He has a fairly jaundiced view of his own sex and he maintains that straight men almost always experience some degree of titillation when they see a woman being raped even if they are also disgusted by it. Perhaps this has to do with cultural conditioning or the fact that the rape is usually filmed from the man's perspective or an involuntary physiological response or some combination of the three. He and I have been speculating about how men will react when they see Jamie suffer the humiliation that is usually reserved for women.

Your son's response to this episode really echoes mine, especially in how we compare "Outlander" to "Game of Thrones." I won't go into GoT too much, but this week more than ever, there are reasons I felt that GoT let me down, while "Outlander, in a very strange way, delivered. It treated rape as a horrific event and in a way and point of view that I haven't quite seen before. Rape in GoT is -- to be fair -- violently depicted, but it almost seems humdrum, an expected and common event (for instance, fellow viewers will remember a past episode in which

multiple rapes take place CONSTANTLY in the background of one episode, and so casually that I seriously did not know if I would ever be able to keep watching again

). Seeing Claire be the hero and Jamie faced with the helpless prospect of his own violation broke my heart. The show's direction and staging took his situation very seriously and by doing so, never downplayed either Jack's twistedness or Jamie's gradually dawning fear and horror. 

 

My experience is that most critics have been equally generous in their praise for all three main actors in this episode.  I haven't noticed Tobias being singled out at all.  And of course here on PreviouslyTV we talk about Sam more than anyone else (or at least that's my impression.)  I sometimes feel bad that Cait and Tobias' don't get enough love from us here.

 

I always liked Tobias in the few things I'd seen him in, although I often found him a surprising casting choice. But he would then infuse the character with this unexpected vulnerability (Brutus in "Rome" for instance), so I was interested to see what he would do here. And at this point, at the very near end of the season, I absolutely think the guy deserves all the Emmy awards ever. He's just uncanny. I don't know how he makes Frank seem so adoring, almost boyish, and vulnerable, then turns around and paints this complex and very dark portrait of the sadistic BJR. Also, out of a ton of disturbing and incredible moments from him here, perhaps his single best moment was simply the look on his face when Claire whispered to him the date of his impending death. For one moment only, he looked terrified. Just brilliant work from both Caitriona and Tobias there.

Thanks for this chance to share my own take here. I know this episode is getting some flack (especially by that awful Hitfix recapper, who rather insultingly can't seem to get her mind around Claire being smart enough to even infiltrate the fort, although it ain't exactly brain surgery). And I found it complex, moving, and thought-provoking, and liked the season thus far a great deal. The actors, direction, writing and production design give the characters and situations a nuance that I felt the book too often lacked. I'm terrified for next week. But I wouldn't miss it.

Edited May 22, 2015 by paramitch

[Archery]

paramitch, your whole post: YES. 

[ulkis]

Here's a bit of an unpopular opinion I suppose - I don't think Tobias Menzies was particularly amazing. I mean, he was great, but there was never a moment where I was like "give that man an Emmy!" And it wasn't necessarily him - I just don't think the part/writing called for anything required any acting that was stand out, Randall is just kind of a regular crazy villain role. But the bloggers/critics saw both episodes so maybe that comes in the next episode.

 

ETA: I should add, I am talking about this specific episode.

Edited May 22, 2015 by ulkis

[Nidratime]

I thought he was fabulous in Episode 6.

[chocolatetruffle]

I also thought he was great in Ep06 and in the flashbacks in the Lallybroch episode.  I thought in this episode he was overall very good - not necessarily Emmy-worthy, but good, with one exception: the look on his face when Claire tells him the date of this death.  THAT was genius!

[islagirl]

 I also don't think that Claire would ever have been content with being some demure good little professor's wife with no life of her own -- and nothing we've seen makes me think Frank expected that of her. What I saw was a man who embraced how strong and brave she was and who expected her to have her own outer and inner life -- even on their second honeymoon, for instance. What's interesting, is how is life stuck as Jamie's 1700s-era wife any better or preferable? I guess the biggest flaw with the story for me is that I cannot imagine any woman willingly choosing to stay in Claire's position -- she has nothing ahead but the prospect of a brutal existence, painful childbirth/medical prognoses and a vastly shortened lifespan. Even with the prospect of lovely Jamie, yeah, I'd still have been running for those stones.

 

I think we're just seeing different things from Frank.  I really like show Frank, but what I saw on their second honeymoon is a man who was fine with bringing her along on his expeditions or allowing her to go off on her own, but never actively took part in something that was about Claire.  We never saw them have an activity or conversation focused on her interests, despite many conversations and visits focused on his genealogical quests. If she wanted to do something related to her unique interests, she was on her own. She played the dutiful wife following her husband (except when it came to sex, where they were again out of balance with her initiating every encounter). Overall, I see a lot of her accommodating him, but very little him accommodating her.  Perhaps it would have been okay with her over the long haul if she'd never gone back, but after being thrown back and experiencing a world where she was useful and needed and loved with a passion that matched her own - and by someone who loved who she actually was, as opposed to a role she was adapting herself to - she couldn't go back to what she'd had in the future. 

 

Mileage will vary, of course, that's just what I see.

[paramitch]

I think we're just seeing different things from Frank.  I really like show Frank, but what I saw on their second honeymoon is a man who was fine with bringing her along on his expeditions or allowing her to go off on her own, but never actively took part in something that was about Claire.  We never saw them have an activity or conversation focused on her interests, despite many conversations and visits focused on his genealogical quests. If she wanted to do something related to her unique interests, she was on her own. She played the dutiful wife following her husband (except when it came to sex, where they were again out of balance with her initiating every encounter). Overall, I see a lot of her accommodating him, but very little him accommodating her.  Perhaps it would have been okay with her over the long haul if she'd never gone back, but after being thrown back and experiencing a world where she was useful and needed and loved with a passion that matched her own - and by someone who loved who she actually was, as opposed to a role she was adapting herself to - she couldn't go back to what she'd had in the future. 

 

The way I read the situation was that Claire was delighted to do these things with Frank for a variety of reasons -- because they were on holiday and it was fun, because she enjoys learning and was truly interested, and because (most of all) they were so exciting for him, so she wanted to join him to share in his excitement and curiosity. Her doing so, to me, makes the pilot very moving at many moments because there's this sort of undercurrent that the two of them are just kind of basking in their time together after the horror and separation of war.

 

I don't agree that we never see a situation in which Frank accommodates Claire's interests in a similar fashion -- perhaps my favorite example of this is when he looks at her lounging in the chair and knows she's thinking of going back to the stones to get that plant, just because that's the way she is and he knows her that well. Several times, he shows awareness and almost self-consciousness that his historical fascinations might be boring for her, and instead she responds playfully and with real interest -- asking questions, forcing the door in the castle to see inside, for instance, and paying such close attention that she later makes repeated and active use of the information he gave her once transported back in time.

 

Most of all, I think Show Frank's deep feelings for Claire can be best judged in the "Nothing you could do could ever affect my love for you" speech. It remains one of my favorite moments on the show, and what's interesting is that while I absolutely know Jamie loves Claire, I do not ever see him making the same speech to her. It's just not how he's built (see also his treatment of his sister after he thinks she wounded his pride by bearing a bastard to BJR). 

 

I definitely love the fact that so much of what we're discussing here is certainly in the eye of the beholder. For me, "Outlander" just wouldn't work if it were about Claire escaping a lesser present relationship to find a better or truer love in the past. For me, it's far more interesting if each point in the triangle is equal -- if Claire loves Frank deeply, and is then faced with the dawning awareness that she can be in love with Frank and yet find herself falling in love with Jamie too. I would definitely admit that Claire's feelings for Jamie (especially since the wedding) have gotten incredibly intense and powerful, but I also feel that part of that is that he is so often the only thing standing between her and death or despair (and same for her with him). Jamie is the one and only thing, I feel, keeping her in this time and place.

 

So I like the fact that Claire's love line is forked, not broken -- two different paths to two different loves. Perhaps the most beautiful metaphor for this is the moment when Claire regarded both of her wedding rings in the wedding episode. I like the idea that her love for each man is a separate thing.

Meanwhile, I absolutely do want to add however that Claire's love for Jamie in this episode -- and his for her -- was really powerful for me here however, and just gorgeously acted. Their feelings for each other were believable and heartbreaking -- as was each person's willingness to suffer on behalf of the other. Claire's leavetaking of Jamie in the prison was devastating.

 

Last but not least -- I forgot to mention it earlier, but I was so sorry at McQuarrie's fate. I liked him enormously and found his unexpected liking for Jamie both sweet and kind of adorable. When the two of them were waiting to be executed, I just wanted the two guys to hug, escape in Jack Sparrow style, and then go off drinking in a pub somewhere. I was hoping so badly, like others mentioned, that he might be spared (or even that he might still be alive when Claire fell next to his body in the end.