The Books vs. The Show: Comparisons, Speculation, and Snark

[Nidratime]

I agree and I hope the strapping scene and the reasoning behind it are likewise tweaked to make it more "palatable."

[CatMack]

The strapping scene is definitely in, unfortunately.  Here's something Sam said which is the thing that's giving me the most hope right now:

 

To the best of his ability, he’s playing a part and he’s playing the husband and continues to do that in later episodes. He doesn’t really know. He’s doing what he thinks is expected of him, and at times he maybe does things he doesn’t even believe is right. For instance, not going too far ahead, when he has to punish her

 

Now, Jamie in the books does have one line about how he didn't want to hurt her...and then he follows it up with but really he did at the same time want to hurt her, and he's laughing at her while he says it.  Gross.  In general book Jamie doesn't really have a problem with beating Claire from an ideological standpoint, even when he does eventually regret it it's about what she was doing at the time, not the fact that beating your wife so she'll be afraid of disobeying orders is gross. 

 

So to me, I see Sam describing show Jamie as doing things he doesn't think is right including beating his wife, and that seems like a significant change from the books, and I really hope that's how it actually plays out on the show and isn't just Sam talking out of his butt.  I want to see Jamie actually feel bad about what he does and have to work for Claire's forgiveness.  Anything short of that, and her choice will make no sense.  Because they just haven't built the foundation on the show. 

 

So maybe, in the show, he will be really pushed to do it by the other men (and maybe Willie will get punished too, like someone else said), and will feel immediate regret and instead of laughing at Claire's anger like in the books he'll be conciliatory and that's when we'll see more of the bonding happen, when he's trying to get her to forgive him by opening up about himself.  I'm also really hoping they let Claire be more vocal about her side on the show than she was in the book.  The aftermath is going to be very, very important.  At this point I think it's the make or break moment for the series, in terms of general audience approval (I'll stick with it no matter what - book 2 is my favorite - but non book readers have to be able to forgive their romantic lead for domestic violence without the benefit of knowing what happens next). 

 

I'm sticking to what I said before - in the end I will judge the show as a whole when I've seen the first season.  But it's hard not to worry when I know what's coming up and I don't know how they're going to fit everything in so her choice makes sense.  Just based on what happens AFTER Claire chooses to stay with Jamie, I feel like that choice has to happen in episode 12 or 13 at the latest.  And we know the beating happens right when we come back for episode 9.  That means they only have 3 or 4 episodes to take Claire and Jamie from domestic violence (I don't care if it's a modern term, it's what it is and it's how many modern audience members are going to see it) to Claire giving up her entire modern life and husband to stay with Jamie.  Those 3 or 4 episodes better be intensive Jamie/Claire bonding.  Like, OK, Frank got his moment to shine, we get it, they love each other.  I really think we need to not see the 1940s again until Claire has to make her choice.  I really think we need to spend pretty much every moment possible of those episode building the reasons for Claire's choice (and since Jamie has to leave before the witch trial, there's actually even less time to establish the bond).

 

I do think there are legitimate complaints about this latest episode in particular, and in general the way they've built the Jamie/Claire relationship thus far.  But to be fair to the show, I also think I was going to be nervous going into this hiatus no matter what.  I get showing the unpretty sides of history, I understand what Gabaldon was going for, but the strapping scene in the books is just one of those scenes where I disagree with the author.  I don't think she handled it well.  I can live with the scene existing, but the way she wrote it and the aftermath was poorly executed IMO.  So I was always going to be nervous about how the show portrays it.  I feel like if we can get through the next episode without turning the audience against Jamie, they can probably pull the rest off.  They can probably get Claire and Jamie to a good place by the time she makes her choice.  But god am I nervous for the next episode.  I just want it to be over with. 

[Bort]

I have to agree with you on the grabbing-Claire-seconds-before-she-touches-the-stones thing.  Very dramatic moment but why would they do that?  My fan-wank is that the solders who nabbed her recognized her.

I could've sworn that one of the redcoats that snatched Claire was that Corporal Hawkins kid.

[WatchrTina]

 

I did watch the marathon and, since I saw them all condensed in one day, the scenes between Jamie and Claire were fresh in my mind and that did help to balance all the time the show seems to want to give to Frank

That's a really good point.  It is true that they've had to cut Jamie and Claire's 3-day honeymoon at the Inn and the 50 pages of getting-to-know-you-talk-and-sex because it wouldn't work in the TV format.  But they did give us extra scenes at Leoch (the Black Kirk) and a whole lotta smoldering looks and general Jamie-being-charming-and-heroic-and-adorable in those first seven episodes so I'm okay with TeamFrank getting a bit of fan service in episode 108.  Jamie messes up in this episode.  Badly.  He really should have been more careful about when and where he swived his new wife.  And poor Frank has been in torment for 6 weeks. I'm cool with us seeing that.  It won't turn me to TeamFrank but it did earn him more sympathy from me than he ever got in the books and that's a good thing.

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina

[annlaw78]

I'm sticking to what I said before - in the end I will judge the show as a whole when I've seen the first season. But it's hard not to worry when I know what's coming up and I don't know how they're going to fit everything in so her choice makes sense. Just based on what happens AFTER Claire chooses to stay with Jamie, I feel like that choice has to happen in episode 12 or 13 at the latest.

I think the biggest issue, now that the first half of the season is over, is where they chose to break the season, and how much ground was covered before Jamie appears in that window. Cutting out huge chunks of Jamie-Claire dialogue, scenes of their growing friendship, etc. before the wedding, and then truncating the post-wedding period so greatly just renders Jamie Claire's Highlands booty call.

I guess my point is if they knew the last scene before the break was going to be Jamie rescuing Claire, I think they should have put more into developing Claire-Jamie as friends, then spouses, before that. The coyness/hiding Jamie prior to the wedding, I don't get. Up until then, they just trot him out once in awhile for Claire to drunkenly flirt with, it seems. The stable scene in "The Gathering," for example, would have been a good opportunity to have Claire and Jamie talk, and her to appreciate him as a friend.

It just feels ilke the show has been trying to be about more than "Claire and Jamie," which I can appreciate, but now we're at a point where the wedding's happened, the Fort William scene has happened, she's possibly been raped, and now we're about to open the next mini-season with Jamie beating on a repeatedly victimized Claire, who barely knows him, and has been his wife for about two seconds.

Jamie messes up in this episode. Badly. He really should have been more careful about when and where he swived his new wife.

Eh, I don't think the assault/rape is Jamie's fault, no more than if he had gotten shot and killed would it have been his fault, nor the rape is Claire's fault. And it's not as though Claire didn't want to sneak away and roll in the heather with Jamie. They were both victims of a crime, and, romantic protestations of "you have the protection of my body" aside, there wasn't much he could do. Edited September 28, 2014 by annlaw78

[peacefrog]

I much prefer the eye sex of the earlier episodes than the hand sex of this episode.

Watching the earlier episodes all day they actually did a good job of establishing Jamie, albeit slowly and not as completely as the books. I felt like he really regressed in this episode. Not the mistakes he made but he was much more boyish than in earlier episodes. I know he's in love and excited to be having sex with his wife but there is a fine line to be played there and maybe it's Sam's portrayal? He really did great in the earlier episodes.

Edited September 28, 2014 by peacefrog

[WatchrTina]

 

Eh, I don't think the assault/rape is Jamie's fault, no more than if he had gotten shot and killed would it have been his fault, nor the rape is Claire's fault.

Fair point.  I wasn't trying to blame the victim.  I guess I was empathizing with Jamie's point of view.  HE blames himself, in much the same way that he takes part of the blame for John Grey spotting their unshielded campfire in Book 2.

[annlaw78]

Fair point. I wasn't trying to blame the victim. I guess I was empathizing with Jamie's point of view. HE blames himself, in much the same way that he takes part of the blame for John Grey spotting their unshielded campfire in Book 2.

That's quite true, and I'm a bit miffed at Claire (which is admittedly totally unfair of me, given what the character had just been through), that if she had not been raped, it would have been nice of her to clue Jamie in to that, because he pretty clearly thinks she was, and hates himself for it. At this point I'm still not clear she wasn't raped, given her narration about how she didn't want to talk about it. Leaving off the season with the audience, and Jamie, not knowing whether Claire was horribly violated seems like a not-so-inconsequential detail I would have liked straightened out rather than, you know, the Vicar explaining how Claire had been Katnissing in some cave deep in the uninhabited regions of, you know, Scotland, for 7 weeks.

I'll add that (and in full disclosure, I don't recall the scene in the book -- I may have stopped reading, or rather, listening to the audiobook before then) the way that the show left off the relationship with Claire and Jamie, with her being resentful and angry with him regarding what I perceived as her being raped, and his feeling this great shame and distance between them, was not very satisfactory. I guess all is just to be forgiven, swept under the rug by his appearing in the window at Fort William. But why is the show sweeping anything related to the development of Jamie and Claire's relationship under the rug, rather than mining it? Especially if it's in service of a tacked-on, overly long, and unnecessary "Frank's Adventures in Inverness" storyline.

Was Claire raped? Did Claire realize in order to save herself and save Jamie, she'd have to let her attacker get very close to and maybe violate her in order to kill him? Did she have any concern for Jamie, or just herself in that moment? There's some interesting, complex stuff there, perhaps turning the "hero saves heroine from rape" trope on its head, in giving Claire agency in saving Jamie from getting shot. This is especially so, given what we know happens later that Jamie does to protect Claire from BJR. Instead, though, we shift gears suddenly and there's no follow-up conversation between Jamie and Claire about what happened, which, frankly, just doesn't seem at all like the relationship these two have in the books as I recall.

Edited September 28, 2014 by annlaw78

[absnow54]

I'll add that (and in full disclosure, I don't recall the scene in the book -- I may have stopped reading, or rather, listening to the audiobook before then) the way that the show left off the relationship with Claire and Jamie, with her being resentful and angry with him regarding what I perceived as her being raped, and his feeling this great shame and distance between them, was not very satisfactory.

There's a scene after the Ft William rescue and before the strapping that I believe they address this. It's in the "you're tearing my guts out, Claire!" I think, and it really gives Claire the opportunity to see and understand Jamie's POV and start to view him as more than just a bed buddy. I really hope the show pays this scene justice, because I think it's very important in setting the tone for the strapping, which at this point, with the setup they've given, is going to be awful.

[mybabyaidan]

I just re read the chapters to refresh my memory.  Claire was most definitely not actually raped.  She realizes Jamie is about to get himself shot, so she signals to him to let him know she has a "plan".  She lets the deserter get pretty close, I think she grabs his neck and pulls him to her just as he is prying her legs open.  That's when she stabs him.   It looks like the show version stayed pretty close to that, just without the unspoken nod to each other that she had something planned.  I really don't think any actual rape happened on the show either.

 

One thing I am glad they left out....Jamie and Claire have sex RIGHT after this happens and when they are still in shock.  I get what Diana was going for in the book, Claire even says that if they didn't come together at that moment, they might never have again.  But still...

 

I did also notice they softened Jamie A LOT when he tells Claire to stay with Willie.  In the book, he is actually pretty douchy about it, and even threatens to tie her to a tree if she won't stay willingly.  Couple that with being stupid enough to leave her alone in the first place, it wasn't Jamie's finest hour.   And they also left out his strapping threat.  So I am hopeful that the actual beating will be toned down as well. 

 

Ok, now that I have mentioned the changes I liked....here are the ones I did not.  I really didn't like that we didn't hear any of Claire's struggle about leaving Jamie behind.  In the book, she mentions that he could recover from losing her, but she also admits that it hurts her to think of it.   It's one of the first times she really admits to herself that she is falling hard for this man.   Ultimately she does try to get to the stones, but it isn't as cut and dry as it seemed on the show.   She was WAY more conflicted.   In the show, it doesn't seem like much of a conflict.  She ran to the stones yelling Frank, even went to put her hands on them.  I didn't like that at all, regardless of how well shot the scenes were.   Again, I actually liked book Frank, but I am finding myself resenting tv Frank. 

 

ETA: Now I am worried about Willie.  I am sure he won't escape punishment either.

Edited September 28, 2014 by mybabyaidan

[WatchrTina]

Take note of these lines:

 

Murtagh - "I still say the only good weapon for a woman is poison." 
Dougal - "Perhaps but it has certain deficiencies in combat."

 

Very funny.  But also, to a book reader, full of foreshadowing to the end of book 2.  Dun, dun DUN!

 

 

She realizes Jamie is about to get himself shot, so she signals to him to let him know she has a "plan".

That is one change I did NOT like.  In the book it shames Jamie that Claire has to defend herself but at least he knew she was going to try and so he abstained from trying anything with the guy holding the gun on him until Claire made her move.  In the episode, Jamie just seems helpless. He even laments later, "I couldna stop him!"  And I agree with others that TV!Jamie probably does not realize that Claire wasn't raped (he and Claire really need to have a wee chat). So he's an even more tormented figure when he shows up in the window than BookJamie.  Or you could say he's that much more motivated to make sure Claire isn't raped this time.

Edited September 28, 2014 by WatchrTina

[glitterpants]

Show!Jamie (...) is a virgin who mysteriously knows how to give a woman a vaginal orgasm....seriously, he's looking like a fraud!  

 

 

That made me laugh! (And I've had the same thought).

 

That's quite true, and I'm a bit miffed at Claire (which is admittedly totally unfair of me, given what the character had just been through), that if she had not been raped, it would have been nice of her to clue Jamie in to that, because he pretty clearly thinks she was, and hates himself for it. 

 

What makes you think he thinks she was? As someone who saw the scene as an attempt that came dangerously close, Jamie's behaviour makes MORE sense that way otherwise I'd have to think his reaction wasn't strong enough. Also, just before they split up Claire says she proved she CAN defend herself, which implies that she did stop the assault in time. But had she not killed the guy, it WOULD have happened, and Jamie blames himself for it. I think that whole situation was scary enough to explain Jamie and Claire's behaviour after that. 

Edited September 28, 2014 by glitterpants

[peacefrog]

I've only seen the episode once but I remember seeing her look at Jamie and he gave a slight nod.

I took her shock for realizing that she just killed someone, but I can see that it was not clear.

[WatchrTina]

I've just realized that the director who directed this episode also directed The Wedding (which to me was practically perfect in every way) and I've just learned that she (SHE!) also directed the last two episodes of the season, which I assume will include Wentworth Prison.  The same director who gave us those lovely scenes from the wedding also oversaw the VERY BAD THINGS that happen at Wentworth.  Ponder that.

[peacefrog]

Not sure where to put this.

I loved seeing little Roger!

A Leaf on the Wind of All Hallows reference? I'll put in spoiler tags in case.

Did it look like Frank was considering Jerry MacKenzie's mysterious disappearance when he was introduced to Roger? It was right after Mrs. Graham mentioned the stones! I got the feeling he was linking the two.

It was probably my favorite moment last night. I love that novella and Frank had a part in it.

[Petunia846]

Do you think maybe they'll condense time and do the rescue and the strapping scene and then have everybody back at Leoch pretty quickly so that the make-up sex that's about her jealousy of Leery in the book will be about all the conflicted feelings they both have from the near-rape, the rescue from Black Jack, and the strapping? Was there any other big plot point between the strapping and getting back to Leoch that I'm forgetting? All I remember is the ribbing from the other men, lots of painful horseback riding, and Jamie telling her about all the times he got hit as a kid.

[WatchrTina]

The Variety review of episode 108 includes a tease from Ron at the end about what is to come and includes the following line, "Claire goes on the road at one point in a sort of song and dance troupe with Murtagh."

 

Oh.  My.  God.  I know that is just a funny characterization of Murtagh and Claire traveling with Gypsies while looking for Jamie but still . . . that is a hysterical image and I can only imagine what non-book readers make of it.  

[Nidratime]

Link?

[Kiwi]

The Variety review of episode 108 includes a tease from Ron at the end about what is to come and includes the following line, "Claire goes on the road at one point in a sort of song and dance troupe with Murtagh."

 

Oh.  My.  God.  I know that is just a funny characterization of Murtagh and Claire traveling with Gypsies while looking for Jamie but still . . . that is a hysterical image and I can only imagine what non-book readers make of it.  

 

I had totally forgotten about that part of the story. Just one of the crazy things to come.

[WatchrTina]

 

Link?

I just put it in the media thread Nidratime.

[Dejana]

There's some upset about Roger or rather book fans noting his presence which sort of alerts non-book fans to the idea that maybe this isn't some random kid who will never be seen again, and they're considering that too much of a spoiler. While others say the camera lingered on him too long and mentioned his name twice and that's enough of a sign to know he'll have a bigger role down the line. I'm wondering if it would have made a difference if he'd been introduced as he was in the books: before Claire went through the stones, and someone she and Frank discuss in reference to their fertility woes, with Claire considering adoption, while genealogist Frank doesn't think he has it in him to bring up a child not of his blood (oh, if only he knew). I guess people still would've been squeeing about wee Roger, but it would've had the side effect of painting Frank with an attitude about adoption that wouldn't sit well with contemporary viewers. In later seasons he clearly comes around, but non-book fans wouldn't have known that right away and maybe it would've made him slightly less likable to some.

 

As for the strapping scene, it could be written so that the men demand to witness it, to ensure that Jamie actually goes through with meting out "proper" punishment and not be swayed by Claire's "feminine wiles". Frame it so that Jamie's upset to have to go through with this, because it leaves Claire humiliated (remember his gallantry to take Laoghaire's blows for her). Then, you might have book fans bothered that he's let off the hook, and non-book people will still be wondering why the domestic violence angle was introduced at all. Even so, the show's been getting a lot of press from TV writers about how it captures the female gaze and is so feminist, and I suspect a lot of that is going to go up in smoke if the show portrays Claire staying with the wife beater who's all jokey about it. The whole thing's already been filmed, so we'll just have to wait and see how it's done, but I'm bracing myself for the fallout.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Dejana

[Firebunny]

I'm guessing the audience's anger for the strapping is going to be steered towards Dougal.  He's already given Jamie bad marital advice and this past ep he was side eyeing their cuddling.  I'm calling it now (and I'm almost always wrong when I speculate about tv shows); Dougal will pressure Jamie into doing it by saying it's his duty as a husband to discipline his wife and that Claire will never be safe if she doesn't learn her lesson and listen to her husband.  We, of course, will see the subtle cues that Dougal's real motive is to ruin Claire and Jamie's relationship.

 

And, thus, Jamie beats Claire but is absolved of it in the audience's eyes (maybe).

[Kiwi]

I like that idea Firebunny, I can handle Dougal being the bad guy, even if Graham McTavish is making me like him more and more. But I doubt it will absolve Jamie in my eyes, no matter how they do it, I just didn't like that part of the book. I have blocked it (among other things) from my mind and chosen to read the series as if it never happened. Only because if it was me in that situation I would not be so quick to forgive as Claire. YMMV of course.

[mybabyaidan]

I will never be "ok" with the strapping scene, but I choose to see it more as a silver lining kind of thing.  I always hated that Jamie did it so willingly, but....he learns from it.  Claire tells him to NEVER do it again, and he never does.  

[absnow54]

As for the strapping scene, it could be written so that the men demand to witness it, to ensure that Jamie actually goes through with meting out "proper" punishment and not be swayed by Claire's "feminine wiles". Frame it so that Jamie's upset to have to go through with this, because it leaves Claire humiliated (remember his gallantry to take Laoghaire's blows for her). Then, you might have book fans bothered that he's let off the hook, and non-book people will still be wondering why the domestic violence angle was introduced at all. Even so, the show's been getting a lot of press from TV writers about how it captures the female gaze and is so feminist, and I suspect a lot of that is going to go up in smoke if the show portrays Claire staying with the wife beater who's all jokey about it. The whole thing's already been filmed, so we'll just have to wait and see how it's done, but I'm bracing myself for the fallout.

I've said it before, but I hope they bookend the scene where Jamie volunteers to take Laoghaire's punishment with him volunteering to take Claire's. We're coming off an episode where we've seen Claire threatened twice. Two events that Jamie has witnessed as well. To go into the strapping scene with all of this so fresh, to me, would make Jamie look like a monster. I never cared for it in the book, but within the context of the show it's going to be an even tougher sell. If the idea is Claire must be punished for being disobedient, in Jamie's eyes, shouldn't nearly being raped and mutilated by BJR be punishment enough?

 

If punishing Claire is demanded by Dougal and the rest of the clan, Jamie steps up to take the punishment himself, but Claire, seeing that it will turn her and Jamie into outcasts among the rest of the clan, chooses to take the punishment herself, I think that changes the tone entirely. Jamie will have a new respect for Claire, and since Claire will have given her consent, I think it would make Jamie's playfulness during the actual strapping scene less shocking.

Edited September 29, 2014 by absnow54

[annlaw78]

I've said it before, but I hope they bookend the scene where Jamie volunteers to take Laoghaire's punishment with him volunteering to take Claire's

I love that suggestion! It's going to be quite tonally "off" (and character-assassinating) in having Jamie not stand up for his wife, thinking as he does she's been raped at least once, and very nearly another time. Both of which he witnessed. For him to ever put his hands on her, ever force her physically -- there's just no way they can make that palatable to the show's audience, coming as it does immediately after our seeing our heroine's skirts raised and body bared violently at the hands of others.

[Linderhill]

I haven't gone thru the Unpopular Opinions thread but apropos of nothing we've been discussing is that it really bothers me that Dougal is bald.  I know that this is basically Graham's thing and he's awesome with the baldness but I can't help thinking that shaving your head in Scotland in the 1700's is very impractical.  Yes, he wears a hat most of the time they're out of doors but it just strikes me as being wrong for the time period.  

 

To date that has been my biggest complaint with the casting (besides Sam's lack of red hair which they have dealt with).  

[lianau]

I'm guessing the audience's anger for the strapping is going to be steered towards Dougal.  He's already given Jamie bad marital advice and this past ep he was side eyeing their cuddling.  I'm calling it now (and I'm almost always wrong when I speculate about tv shows); Dougal will pressure Jamie into doing it by saying it's his duty as a husband to discipline his wife and that Claire will never be safe if she doesn't learn her lesson and listen to her husband.  We, of course, will see the subtle cues that Dougal's real motive is to ruin Claire and Jamie's relationship.

 

And, thus, Jamie beats Claire but is absolved of it in the audience's eyes (maybe).

But all of them put the pressure on Jamie (not that he needed any of it ) , they are decidedly icy towards Claire until she gets her strapping and then try to make her comfortable the next day . They all agree  that she needed a punishment for almost getting them arrested or killed and the logical punishment for them is a physical one . Jamie is no exception  here .

I think it would be wrong the change  the scene just to make it more 21st century friendly.

[mitzy]

besides Sam's lack of red hair which they have dealt with.

 

And not very well if you ask me.  Is it really that difficult for a colorist to get it right??   Are they using OTC color??    

[dustoffmom]

 

 

They all agree  that she needed a punishment for almost getting them arrested or killed and the logical punishment for them is a physical one . Jamie is no exception  here .

I think it would be wrong the change  the scene just to make it more 21st century friendly.

 

YES!  This.  I continue to be in wonderment reading so many, many posts on the , apparently, infamous strapping scene.  The gnashing of teeth and endless chatter leaves me thinking that good golly....I really must be old.  :)  I have read all the books, multiple times and have read the first one at a minimum of a dozen times now over the years.  And have stated before that I never, ever gave that scene more than a cursory thought.  It's 1740's Scotland, that is how things were done then!!  Of course the men thought she needed punishing for her dangerous actions and of course they expected Jaime to tend to it and of course once it was done.....all was right in their world.  I always read it that Jaime was so very amused by her reaction to it and the fact that she fought him over it.  I doubt he had EVER come across something like that before.....you deserved it so you took what was due you and moved on.  All that 'drama', in his eyes, over a simple strapping!  It just didn't seem that important to me then, or now.  Heck, I got my butt whupped often as a kid and that was in the 1950's for heaven's sake!  LOL  Count me as among the seemingly few who will be sorely disappointed if they try to psychobabble and 21st century color the scene at all.   For this reader at least, it was a relatively minor scene.   (donning my flame retardant suit now!)  :)

[annlaw78]

But all of them put the pressure on Jamie (not that he needed any of it ) , they are decidedly icy towards Claire until she gets her strapping and then try to make her comfortable the next day . They all agree that she needed a punishment for almost getting them arrested or killed and the logical punishment for them is a physical one . Jamie is no exception here .

I think it would be wrong the change the scene just to make it more 21st century friendly.

Well then maybe he needs to be strong, show some leadership qualities, and tell his comrades that he's not "disciplining" his wife, given what's she's been through, and they can just piss off.

I get what you're saying, that the Jamie character would purportedly think spaniking is totally legit. But even were we to assume all men back then believed they had the right to physically discipline and dominate their wives (and I don't think that's historically true), surely given what he knows that Claire has been through/suffered, he would not think THIS would be a good time to pin her down, raise her skirts, and beat her.

It's 1740's Scotland, that is how things were done then!!

I'm fairly familiar with that historical time period, though granted more as it relates to the ruling class, and this is really the first time I've heard of a systemic expectation and rigid protocol for husbands using corporal punishment on their wives. I don't necessarily take this as gospel. A d the "rule of thumb" thing is an urban legend, though, yes, he olden laws did allow husbands to "discipline" wives. I've just never encountered a historical precedent to this scene. Edited September 29, 2014 by annlaw78

[Glaze Crazy]

I like your thought on bookending Claire's punishment with Laoghaire's at the gathering, with Jamie offering to take her place, absnow54.  I'm enjoying all the theories and speculation about how this will be handled.  I still have confidence that the show runners will do it justice and keep to the spirit of the story, whatever route they take.  Edit: to also agree with lianau and dustoffmom (they posted while I wrote this tome) and say that if they leave it exactly like the book I'm good with that too.  I think it has it's purpose in the overall story, relationship and character development, either way.

 

The wee Roger thing is hilarious.  I feel for the unspoiled who wonder why this little kid elicited such a reaction from book readers.  I love the delicious idea that he might be the child of Jamie and Claire, come through the stones and being cared for by Reverend Wakefield.  I think the very dark hair should have made that idea less compelling, but then again, Brian Fraser and Jenny are dark also. 

 

I wonder how many folks will just get the book(s) and read ahead instead of waiting 6 months?  I'm also looking forward to how new readers, just getting through the book/series take in the adaptation vs. the ones who have been through the books a couple times or read them ages ago.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Glaze Crazy

[peacefrog]

What I wish the most that the show would take from the book at this point in the story is to show how much better a fit Claire is for the 18th century. I don't think it has come across how much of an outsider she is in her own time. She was lamenting that she would have to give up nursing when Frank took his new job because that's what women did. The show has not really touched on that Claire has no friends, no family. Just Frank. I think they are starting to show the camaraderie developing with the highlands but oddly when a voiceover would be a nice touch now it's silent!

[annlaw78]

Heck, I got my butt whupped often as a kid and that was in the 1950's for heaven's sake!

And I was spanked as a child in the 80s, yet I would never accept the proposition that an adult man has the right to physically discipline me. Obviously a parent spanking a small child and a husband spanking his wife are two very different things.

Edited September 29, 2014 by annlaw78

[mybabyaidan]

Diana posted this on twitter, and I thought it was a very insightful read...it's about her thought process regarding Wentworth and why she went so dark, I would have put it in the media thread, but it contains major spoilers (obviously)

 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc3isa

[absnow54]

I get what you're saying, that the Jamie character would purportedly think spaniking is totally legit. But even were we to assume all men back then believed they had the right to physically discipline and dominate their wives (and I don't think that's historically true), surely given what he knows that Claire has been through/suffered, he would not think THIS would be a good time to pin her down, raise her skirts, and beat her.

I agree with this. They have a very limited time to present Jamie as a romantic lead, and they've already wasted a lot of it. It's a tough sell, to me, that Claire would stick around in the 18th century after going through so much violence and trauma in one episode, only to have her husband show NO empathy and then laugh at her when she doesn't want to get spanked. Then after that in a few short episodes she'll be put on trial for being a witch. Why on Earth would she stay? 

 

 

What I wish the most that the show would take from the book at this point in the story is to show how much better a fit Claire is for the 18th century. I don't think it has come across how much of an outsider she is in her own time. She was lamenting that she would have to give up nursing when Frank took his new job because that's what women did. The show has not really touched on that Claire has no friends, no family. Just Frank. I think they are starting to show the camaraderie developing with the highlands but oddly when a voiceover would be a nice touch now it's silent!

I think they're romanticizing the 1940s too much. I really hope in the episode leading up to her big choice that they really delve into Claire's character and why she makes the decision she does, especially since her time in the 18th century is only going to get darker/more dangerous.

Edited September 29, 2014 by absnow54

[Rekilt]

What I wish the most that the show would take from the book at this point in the story is to show how much better a fit Claire is for the 18th century. I don't think it has come across how much of an outsider she is in her own time. She was lamenting that she would have to give up nursing when Frank took his new job because that's what women did. The show has not really touched on that Claire has no friends, no family. Just Frank. I think they are starting to show the camaraderie developing with the highlands but oddly when a voiceover would be a nice touch now it's silent!

ITA completely Peacefrog. Although they sort of tried to established that in the beginning, she never had a home, never stayed in one place, couldn't even have a vase, only saw her husband a handful of times, always walking and exploring places by herself when Frank was ensconced somewhere with other people doing research, the proceeding episodes haven't carried that aspect on. It's not until she goes through the stones that she finally belongs to a steady group of people and gets respect for her healing powers. I think the first scene where she's saving the soldier's leg in 1940's then gets pushed aside by the doctor is very telling. After 5 years of being in the trenches she's pushed aside. But only after a few weeks with the Mckenzie's she's a valuable healer.

I know it's hard to get all the nuances into a 1 hour show and not be boring but I hope they figure out how to convey why she's going to make the choices she does and why we as adoring fans have accepted those choices for 2 decades. That includes making Jamie more Jamie like and not just a side character, which is how he seems to me right now.

[peacefrog]

My favorite thing about Claire and Jamie is that they are at their best when together, whether on the battlefield, at a dinner party or trying to get out of a sticky situation. Working together you see the respect that they have for each other and how much a team they are, not only during romantic times. They are different but equal. The only instance on the show so far(that I remember) is in "The Way Out" with the boy in the pillory. Oh wait I guess going to the Black Kirk might count a little.

One of the reasons the first book is not my favorite is that it was too much of them saving each other. I guess in that respect the show is staying true to the source material, LOL.

I love the part on the horse where they are both wrapped in his plaid because he needed her to help him put it there so they did it together.

[CatMack]

There was a brief preview for the return and it included a short clip of Jamie holding Claire somewhere in a forest.  This could theoretically be after the witch trial, but I think based on clothing (it looks like Claire's cloak, not Jamie's plaid that she's wrapped in in some production stills that are already out for the return to the stones) and just the fact that it makes more sense for them to release a few clips of the next episode not one down the line, it's probably soon after the rescue.  That already is a change from the book.  In the book he jumps straight into being pissed at her, won't hold her even though she's shaking, starts yelling at her about people trying to make him watch her be raped (way to make it about you, Jamie).  They have a brief hug after they're done screaming at each other, but Jamie never really comforts her physically or emotionally, just jumps straight into beating her (another reason I hate that scene - it really is so out of character from every other time one of his loved ones is attacked throughout the series).  So I'm taking that brief clip as another hopeful sign that the show is going to give us a much more caring, gentle Jamie, who's pushed by the others into doing something he doesn't want to do, and who takes care of her emotionally afterwards (like he does to all the kids he later straps throughout the series) rather than laughing at her. 

[Nidratime]

My favorite thing about Claire and Jamie is that they are at their best when together, whether on the battlefield, at a dinner party or trying to get out of a sticky situation. Working together you see the respect that they have for each other and how much a team they are, not only during romantic times. They are different but equal. The only instance on the show so far(that I remember) is in "The Way Out" with the boy in the pillory. Oh wait I guess going to the Black Kirk might count a little.

 

 

Well, this is probably not what you were going for, but they did work together to kill off those redcoat deserters who were attacking them. She knifed one and he knifed the other.

[peacefrog]

Yes you're right and I think it counts!

[Firebunny]

 

I think they're romanticizing the 1940s too much. I really hope in the episode leading up to her big choice that they really delve into Claire's character and why she makes the decision she does, especially since her time in the 18th century is only going to get darker/more dangerous.

 

 

1945 is about the only time I can reasonably believe a modern person would choose to stay in the 18th century and not return to their own time period.

 

I mean, if Jamie took me to the stones and asked me to choose I'd say, "Our's is a tragic love story."  I don't care if he was my one and only soul mate, I'd choose tampons over him.

 

But in 1945, you have horrific world wars every generation, organized large scale genocide and a new weapon that can end all human life.  (Also, I'm not sure, they may not have had tampons.)  As dangerous as 1743 may have been with all the would be rapists running around, it may very well have looked more hopeful than 1945.

 

It would be nice if the show touched on that a little bit.  But then, of course, she wouldn't be choosing Jamie, she'd be escaping the future.

[annlaw78]

But in 1945, you have horrific world wars every generation, organized large scale genocide and a new weapon that can end all human life. (Also, I'm not sure, they may not have had tampons.) As dangerous as 1743 may have been with all the would be rapists running around, it may very well have looked more hopeful than 1945.

I think women just had sanitary belts (like garter belts -- women's underthings were like tap pants) and sanitary napkins that you had to WASH and REUSE, argh! The Cazalet Chronicles, set in that time period (great series about one family during WWII, especially women) had a rather fascinating (and obviously, memory-searing) paragraph about that.

 

 

I agree with this. They have a very limited time to present Jamie as a romantic lead, and they've already wasted a lot of it. It's a tough sell, to me, that Claire would stick around in the 18th century after going through so much violence and trauma in one episode, only to have her husband show NO empathy and then laugh at her when she doesn't want to get spanked.

I just read the spanking section in the book.  I get Jamie's supposed to be a man from a different time and all, but I'm still troubled and grossed out by his entirely high-handed, domineering, and condescending speech to Claire, let alone the physical abuse.  Frankly, it makes me query whether Claire is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. 

Edited September 29, 2014 by annlaw78

[Dejana]

In America at least, tampons were commercially available by the 1930s, but I don't know the UK and if the war had any impact. In the books, Claire doesn't really mention that as one of things she'll miss about the twentieth century, and there are recurrent mentions of how she's lived without running water or electricity at various points in her life. I think it was in The Outlandish Companion that Diana Gabaldon discussed some of her reasoning for making Claire from the 1940s, so that when she went back in time, there would be a clear difference in the two worlds, but she would be able to adapt. If she'd been a 27-year-old English woman from 1990, it might have been a different story. Also, she knew she wanted the story to jump forward some decades without having to set the story in the future (given that the first book was published in 1991).

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, this is kind of like the book comparison to another hero from another series that I remember my friends and I talking about, and saying how much Jamie, in that scene, in the finale's window, was like Roarke, the hero in J.D. Robb's In Death Series, in the Judgment in Death. Of course the two situations are totally different. (Apologies if this doesna belong here, I didna ken where else tae put it)

 

Here, Claire is about to be raped, but I love how Jamie tells Jack "I'll thank ye tae take your hands off my wife."

 

Now, in Judgment, we have Eve, A badass Lt, NYPD cop in 2059, who is in a heated moment with an ex, who is still hung up on her, and tells her so. All he's done is grab her arms and pull her close, which made her think WTF? and she would have removed his hands all by herself.  Buuuut....

 

In comes Roarke, a man with a shady criminal past...Old World Charm, but grew up as a street rat in the alleys of Dublin, Ireland, and made himself into one of the richest men in the world. He and Eve are soul mates and love each other beyond reason.  But the present murder case has them on opposite sides as to how to handle an old enemy of Roarke's who is involved. So, he's already pissed at Eve when he comes up on this scene, and framed in the doorway, says the exact same words, in a voice where the Irish comes out when he's angry.

 

Okay, I just had to get that out.

 

And on this note, I bid you all adieu for about a month, as I've got major surgery coming this Friday, which will have me out of commission until the end of October.

[annlaw78]

And on this note, I bid you all adieu for about a month, as I've got major surgery coming this Friday, which will have me out of commission until the end of October

Best wishes for a swift, complication-free, and comfortable recuperation!

[Firebunny]

Yes, speedy recovery. 

[Kiwi]

I wonder how many folks will just get the book(s) and read ahead instead of waiting 6 months?  I'm also looking forward to how new readers, just getting through the book/series take in the adaptation vs. the ones who have been through the books a couple times or read them ages ago.

 

I am one of those "folks" although I read the book after episode two aired and was done before episode three. I have to say I feel like I may have read to fast because I don't remember some details and the show and books have all merged into one. I might have to reread (what a chore ;) ). Anyway my sole purpose for reading the book was because I wanted to know if Claire ended up telling Jamie that she was from the future, and I was glad she did but I didn't really like that part of the book it was so fast. I did love how Jamie, despite not understanding how, was willing to believe her, but I was hoping they would have a real conversation about it with Claire explaining how different things are then. My hope is that the show deals with this better than the book, that they go into detail when she does tell him. Maybe the strapping scene could be brought up again then (not sure if it was in the book or not) with Claire telling him how different things are then and Jamie realising why she was so against him hitting her and being ok with doing it.

[bluebonnet]

Y'all, tampons have been around for thousands of years.  Women have been taking care of the crimson tide since the beginning of time.  Millions of women around the world today do not have access to commercially available feminine hygiene products.  I once had to use coconut husks in a tiny island village and while mildly uncomfortable the first day, it was barely noticeable once I got used it.  Periods are annoying no matter when or where you are and commercially available products don't really make them better, save for the feeling of cleanliness (and my own experiences have taught me that that feeling is more allusion than anything, but one's mileage will vary).  I camped and traveled extensively in my 20's and it often wasn't possible to use my menstrual cup for a variety of reasons and when there weren't products available, I'd have to get crafty.  Coconut husks are still the strangest thing I've had to use, though it was surprisingly very absorbent.  I just think tampons and pads would be low on Claire's list because it's something so easily adjusted, but even more so since she lived a life living in places where these items probably weren't readily available, at least not at a reasonable cost.  Plus, there was the war and I'm not sure access to pads would have been easy on the front line.  

 

One thing I definitely sympathized with Claire about was the lack of hot running water.  No matter how hard I tried, I could never get used to the feeling of a cold shower or the tedious task of heating water in order to bathe in warmth.  Even in the hottest of climates, cold bathing sucks.  Even tepid water sucks, no matter if it's from a running pipe or a bucket.  

 

I don't think people give themselves enough credit.  Humans are good at adapting.   If you've ever had a storm knock out power in your area for a significant amount of time, it's agonizing at first because you want your lights and your stove and your internet.  After the first day or two, you just adjust because you have to.  

 

And now a question about the show....do y'all think Nessie will make an appearance when they travel near Loch Ness?  I can't remember exactly where it happened, if it was before or after Claire's strapping.  I just remember that it happened and that one of the dudes caught Claire staring at the monster and used that as evidence at her trial.  I figure Willie would be a good candidate.  I kinda want to see how they would render Nessie on screen, but I guess it's not entirely necessary.  Would it be enough for Willie to use the fact that Claire ran to the stones at the trial?  I doubt he actually saw anything but her running and yelling though it could be possible that her hands actually did touch the stones for a moment and she started shimmering or something.  I really want to see Nessie, but perhaps it makes it too fantasy too soon?  

[mybabyaidan]

I read somewhere that Ron cut that out completely.  I'll have to go check and see if I can find it though.