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

[CatMack]

Yeah, the chemistry test question just made me

 

 

Oh, and I just realized something that ties both the the strapping/aftermath discussion and my hopes for seeing more of scenes that Gabaldon skips through together - I think actually seeing Claire tell Jamie about the future (instead of a couple sentences of "I told him about this and this and this and he wanted to know more about airplanes" narration) could help as well.  I don't even need extra dialogue directly addressing the strapping in particular (though I wouldn't complain if we got more than the two lines from the book), I just want to see Jamie as he learns how different life was for Claire and how much she had to adapt and cope with when she came back.  As the books go on we get little bits and pieces here and there of Claire talking about modern things and Jamie being bemused or delighted, but I was always disappointed how quickly she sailed through Jamie learning Claire's origins and coming to terms with exactly what that meant.  I want to see him learn about her life and being on the front lines of a war and realizing the tightrope she's been trying to walk between getting home and not getting dead.  I want to see him understand just how fucking awesome she is (not perfect, but let's face it 99% of us would have been dead after a couple days if this happened to us). 

 

 

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about making changes due to current events. We were talking about changes from book to screen.

 

Completely separate from the Ray Rice discussion, I completely agree with you about those scenes.  I saw a video from TVGuides cover shoot with Cait and Sam and Cait mentioned the strapping scene and how they wanted to be careful about finding the right balance - she didn't give anything away as to how it plays out, but the fact that they are aware it's a dicey situation that needs to be handled with care is mildly comforting. 

Edited September 13, 2014 by CatMack

[bluebonnet]

Yeah, I don't think it will change anything.   I just still really think that it will be downplayed a tad to not have people hate Jamie.  And like someone else said, it's not airing until after the break so people will "forget".

 

That reminds me though, I remember one of the panels I watched, where someone asked if Sam and Tobias had to do a chemistry test.  I was a little taken aback my that, to be honest.  It's not like BJR and Jamie had some torrid love affair, the man is obsessed with him and tortures and rapes him.    I don't know, it just kind of made me go...Ummmmm....strange question.  

I don't think it was such a strange question as it's something I've been privately wondering.  It has to be believable.  Two actors can be really amazing with the craft and do a technically good job on a scene can still come off as being unbelievable.  The chem test would be viewing how well the actors can play off one another.  Can these two actors literally do the thing they are asked to do together and are they able to be believable while doing it?

 

I am curious, what was the answer to the question?

[mybabyaidan]

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about making changes due to current events. We were talking about changes from book to screen.

 

No clarification needed.  I think that scene DOES need to be altered though, or it will turn casual watchers off Jamie completely.  I think it's one thing to READ the strapping scene, but it will be something else to SEE it.   The Ray Rice thing is actually a good metaphor to that.  It was one thing to hear he did these things, quite another to see it happen.   Obviously the 2 situations are not the same at all (one is fictional, one is very very real....the context is different, etc) but it goes back to a lot of what Ron has said at length about adapting this book.  It CAN'T be just a literal translation.  The book medium is very different from the tv medium.  There are things you can do with the written word that you can't do with a tv show, and vice versa.

 

I never thought I would go on and on so much about 2 pages in a book.  I need an intervention I think.   I am sure I'll be more neurotic towards the end of the Season, so I apologize in advance.

 

ETA: bluebonnet, in that context, yes it makes sense.  But it was posed as "I know Sam and Cait had a chem test, what about Tobias and Sam?" making it sound, I don't know....romantic instead of what it is.  It just rubbed me wrong.  Tobias and Sam just kind of smiled at each other and Ron said "Those tapes are sealed"  I'll go and find where it is and get the link.

Edited September 13, 2014 by mybabyaidan

[peacefrog]

That's a good point. A good way to handle the strapping is to NOT try to get the audience/Claire accept it as the way things are in the 18th century, but to have Jamie accept/learn that it is NOT the way it is for Claire/audience. One way to do that is how you said, by filling in many of those missing beats from the book of. Actually seeing Jamie's reactions to 20th century views and things could help.

It's still a very dicey situation to play on tv.

[CatMack]

I don't think it was such a strange question as it's something I've been privately wondering.  It has to be believable.  Two actors can be really amazing with the craft and do a technically good job on a scene can still come off as being unbelievable.  The chem test would be viewing how well the actors can play off one another.  Can these two actors literally do the thing they are asked to do together and are they able to be believable while doing it?

 

I think the problem is with the specific term "chemistry test".  Many actors "read" together to see if they work well together, but for a lot of people "chemistry test" specifically refers to if they were tested for romantic/sexual chemistry.  Since Black Jack and Jamie's relationship is one of abuse, rape, and torture, worrying about the sexual chemistry of the actors is creepy.  I think if the question had just been "did you read scenes with Tobias during casting" it wouldn't have been a big deal, but "chemistry test" has specific, and in this cast unfortunate, connotations for a lot of people.  It's kind of a semantic argument, but if you're sensitive to the way popular media tends to portray rape and especially male rape (badly) wording can make a big difference. 

[mybabyaidan]

It starts at about 20:10 in on this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giXxwnTv0z8

[bluebonnet]

Ok, yeah. I see what y'all mean. That question was posed in the most insensitive, disgusting way, as though Jamie and Randall are in any way comparable to Jamie and Claire.  I'm surprised the tweeted question even made it through review in order to be asked.  

[WatchrTina]

Right before the 3rd episode I said on these boards that I really really hoped that they would include the scene with Claire teasing Jamie about his swollen lips and "dangerous fillies", including the foot stomping.  And they did!  Yay!

 

So, just in case I have some kind of magical power, I hereby state that I really really want to see the scene where Claire has a nightmare on her wedding night and cries out in her sleep, causing Jamie to leap from the bed, dirk in his hand, buck naked.

 

You're welcome.

Edited September 13, 2014 by WatchrTina

[Pogojoco]

I never had that much issue with Jamie's attitude towards flogging Claire, mostly because I consider his own stated history. He talks extensively about how often he had gotten whupped, and the only ones he is raw about are the Black Jack administered ones. He sees the rest as "Yup, I was dumb and yeah, I learned my lesson." He loves his father, but also talks about his dad punishing him. It's a justice thing. Also, he was a soldier- flogging was a common punishment for insubordination. They've all seen it a tonne. They live in a place where fathers can bring their perceived slutty daughters for public corporal punishment.

 

I think Jamie's amusement is partly because Claire is making a fuss about something that is so common to him (and the rest of that world), it's mundane and partly because, like all thing involving Claire, it turns him on. And he also said fighting turns him on earlier. 

 

Now, if it were a 20th or 21st century man doing this, I would probably find it more problematic. Or if he did it repeatedly throughout the books. Or if he wasn't fictional. 

[CatMack]

I was rereading Claire and Jamie's homecoming at Lallybroch from the first book this morning, and to go back several pages to the speculation that Loaghaire will testify against Claire at her trial, because of the love potion, this passage sums up the misgivings I have about that potential change:

 

 

“The Sassenach wench Jamie’s married,” I finished for him. “My name is Claire. Did you know about it, then?” I asked, as he laughed. My mind was racing. Jenny’s husband?
“Oh, aye. We heard from Joe Orr, who’d got it from a tinker in Ardraigh. Ye canna keep anything secret long in the Highlands."

 

In the book only Claire and Loaghaire know what happened.  Claire chooses not to tell Jamie, and Loaghaire wouldn't for pretty obvious reasons.  But if a whole village sees Loaghaire testify against Claire?  And not once in 20 years does even a hint of a rumor get back to Jamie about it?  Even after they get married and that news probably spread all over the highlands?  Nobody would be like 'hey isn't that the chick who accused his first wife of witchcraft'?  I mean, I guess it's not impossible, and I do suspect they're going to make that change because the set up is too obvious.  It just seems a lot more improbable to me. 

[Petunia846]

Well the love potion (and it's failure) could still be something to prompt or motivate Loaghaire to send Claire off to Geilis that day. They may have felt they needed a more overt motivation for her to go against Claire like that (spelling things out for TV viewers). Loaghaire might not only be jealous of Claire, but also fear for Jamie's life/soul if she thinks he's married a witch and she might think, "Hey, this lady makes potions, and now Jamie's enchanted by her. It's not real love, it's just her witchcraft, I'd better help him." So she still might not testify against Claire, it just may be that the potion is part of her motivation for trying to get rid of Claire.

[bluebonnet]

I agree with Petunia846 that the love potion will be part of Laoghaire's motivation.  It also sort of defines Laoghaire as somewhat sympathetic.  If we hadn't seen this, all we'd know of her is that she likes kissing and got caught at least once by her father which provoked a public punishment.  It was only luck that she wasn't caught by anyone other than Claire for kissing Jamie.  But when Laoghaire goes to Claire for the potion, the audience can see that she truly feels for Jamie, or at least thinks she does.  There's already suspicions and whispers about Claire (she went against the local priest and she's friendly with the suspected local witch, plus she's an outlander and a sassenach to boot).  Laoghaire is a foolish, ignorant young woman who believes in things like witches and love potions but I think there's something inherently sympathetic about her character because she truly thought that Jamie needed someone to save him.  

 

In any case, I don't think it would be too problematic if she testifies against Claire.  In the books, they never really talk much about the trial anyway and in The Exile, iirc, Murtagh already knew that it was Laoghaire that sent Claire into the village knowing she might get wrapped up in Geillis' trial.  Murtagh never told Jamie, Claire never told Jamie.  By the time Jamie marries Laoghaire, it's so many years past and so many terrible things have already happened that the witch trial has probably moved past public memory.  

[thingamajig]

Fresh off the end of tonight's episode, I have to say, if Claire isn't completely plastered at the beginning of next week's episode I'm going to be really disappointed.

[WatchrTina]

I wanna give props to the writers for taking the flashback story away from Dougal and giving it to Black Jack.  In the book, at the time you hear that story, Claire is safely out of BJR's clutches.  Tonight, you had to listen to Jack positively gloat over the story, all the while wondering what was going to happen to Claire.  A great decision by the writers -- it really amped up the tension.

 

I was less of a fan of the addition of the Garrison Commander.  He seems a right prat.  I'm going to have to give some thought as to  why he (and all those other officers) were introduced.

 

I'm also not sure why we had to see an amputation taking place.  I get that they needed to get Claire out of the room for a bit so that she could return to a room containing only BJR.  (BTW, I loved the exchange between her and Dougal at the foot of the stairs -- each is so concerned for the other's well-being).  But couldn't she have just patched somebody up again?  Did we have to hear the sawing of the bone?  I suppose it was just to keep the tension amped up.  But, ew.

Edited September 14, 2014 by WatchrTina

[Bort]

Fresh off the end of tonight's episode, I have to say, if Claire isn't completely plastered at the beginning of next week's episode I'm going to be really disappointed.

I can't remember, is that what happened in the book, Claire got hammered first? Like a Vegas wedding!

[thingamajig]

I can't remember, is that what happened in the book, Claire got hammered first? Like a Vegas wedding!

From what I remember, she gets very very drunk the night before the wedding and is totally hungover while they're getting her dressed and ready.  I don't think she's actually trashed for the wedding itself, though.

[NoNeinNyet]

At first, I was a little put off by the scene with the general because it was just so different from the book but it really served to make Black Jack look that much more dangerous by comparison. Also, by endearing Claire to the MacKenzies during the previous episode, it took away a lot of the work needed for Dougal and Claire to discuss what happened to Jamie allowing them to hand that story over to Black Jack and just leave Dougal finally being convinced that Claire is not a spy just by drinking from the spring and saying as much without being burnt from the inside.

 

Looking forward to a rewatch now that I now how the episode goes. Also, I'm so glad that everybody knows that Jamie is a virgin now. Wedding, wedding, wedding!

[WatchrTina]

In the book, when Claire says "I'm a nurse" (in the cottage after she fixes Jamie's shoulder) everyone assumes that means "wet nurse" so that tells me that the term nurse was not used in conjunction with caring for the sick at that time.  Yet Black Jack mocks Claire by calling her "Nurse Beecham".  So now I'm wondering if the term "nurse" was used for healers in England but not in Scotland.  Or did Diana make a mistake in the book?  Or is that line of dialog in the episode a mistake?

[Petunia846]

There was an article posted in the spoiler thread where a critic was saying that we should watch the person behind Dougal during the flogging scene. I was watching, and all I noticed was a guy with brown hair. Is he supposed to be someone important? I was also looking around and trying to spot a guy with black hair, because wasn't Jamie's father supposed to have had his heart attack or stroke at the second flogging? I didn't spot him, and I hope that brown haired guy was not supposed to be him, because he looked too young and Brian's black hair is somewhat important. Does anyone remember, was it during the middle of the flogging that he had his heart attack or at the end? I just remember it was at some point when Jamie had passed out or gone still and it looked like he'd died. I'm a little confused about why they had the soldier faint when they could have used Brian falling to a similar effect, even without explaining who he was. I guess with the soldier you get the Scots laughing at him, where as if it was Brian there would have been more outrage and concern, and that wouldn't have enraged Black Jack as much as the laughter. Oh well. Just something to keep thinking about I guess. We'll find out soon enough.

 

ETA: Hmm, I should have checked twitter before posting. Someone asked Ron last night, "Will there be mention of Jamie's father at the flogging in another episode???" And he replied, "Yes, and you actually saw Brian in the crowd tonight." Hmm, hmm, hmm. When do I have time to rewatch today?

Edited September 14, 2014 by Petunia846

[Nidratime]

ETA: Hmm, I should have checked twitter before posting. Someone asked Ron last night, "Will there be mention of Jamie's father at the flogging in another episode???" And he replied, "Yes, and you actually saw Brian in the crowd tonight." Hmm, hmm, hmm. When do I have time to rewatch today?

 

 

I'm the one who posted that spoiler. I was disappointed in the way it worked out because, really, Brian was barely there at all. Honestly, it certainly wasn't much of a spoiler and I began to wonder, last night, if the spoiler was from another episode.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Nidratime

[glitterpants]

I was less of a fan of the addition of the Garrison Commander.  He seems a right prat.

Yeah, he's a douche, but I thought Lord Thomas and his claret were a delight! As NoNeinNyet said, he was a great contrast to Jack Randall's infinitely darker character. (And the scene where BJR barges in, Lord Thomas protectively puts a hand over his glass, tries to shame Randall for his dirtiness, and how BJR complies by making a show of dusting himself off in the THE. MOST.OBNOXIOUS. WAY = PRICELESS)  I like how Lord Thomas thought he was making fun of the Highlanders but the joke was always on him.

Edited September 14, 2014 by glitterpants

[absnow54]

The most disturbing part of the flogging scene was they way BJR was almost describing it like a love scene. Knowing what's to come, they really lay the groundwork for Jamie's final capture. And it's going to be rough to watch.

[nodorothyparker]

I wanna give props to the writers for taking the flashback story away from Dougal and giving it to Black Jack.  In the book, at the time you hear that story, Claire is safely out of BJR's clutches.  Tonight, you had to listen to Jack positively gloat over the story, all the while wondering what was going to happen to Claire.  A great decision by the writers -- it really amped up the tension.

 

Very much so.  I'll be honest that I had some doubts heading into this one from the previews with all the nonbook stuff with the newly invented Lord Thomas and other English officers.  I still think some of that maybe dragged on a bit longer than it really needed to to get the point across about the English occupiers.

 

But taking the scourging flashback story from Dougal where there was no immediate danger and it was just "hey, here's some more background" about something we already know and giving it to Black Jack was as breathtaking as it was brilliant.  He was positively yet quietly gleeful telling that story and harkened back to Jamie's original telling of it about "no joy in flogging a dead man" and Black Jack being "very pleased with himself."  My sense of that in the books never got much beyond the characters saying it was so.  Here we actually saw it.  The man was damn near orgasmic about it, which really sets the table for what we know is still to come.

 

The final scene with Jamie and Claire was so quiet after everything we'd seen leading up to it and was just perfect.  Jamie's mix of shyness and total matter of factness makes it work for Claire's completely resigned WTF just happened here and grabbing the bottle at the end.

Edited September 14, 2014 by nodorothyparker

[peacefrog]

The only part I missed about not having Dougal tell Jamie's story is when he reveals how much he respects him and how brave he thinks Jamie is. I would say the show is not really mentioning the actual bond between Jamie and Dougal as much as I thought. Other than their exchange in the shinty game have they mentioned how much Jamie was taught by Dougal?

[bluebonnet]

I really like the addition of the Garrison Commander.  I didn't think I would, but I think these changes in the adaptation strengthen the story and make it more plausible.  It always felt really implausible that Dougal would just drop Claire off to speak privately with BJR after she had seen all that stuff on the road.  Like, he didn't even know whether or not she'd spill his secrets.  But here, there was a legitimate reason Claire was brought to speak to the garrison and to BJR and Dougal not preparing Claire for the meeting worked since he didn't have the opportunity.  He stuck around long enough to know whether or not he needed to take steps to protect himself and his people depending upon what Claire said about what they had been doing.  

 

There was an article posted in the spoiler thread where a critic was saying that we should watch the person behind Dougal during the flogging scene. I was watching, and all I noticed was a guy with brown hair. Is he supposed to be someone important? I was also looking around and trying to spot a guy with black hair, because wasn't Jamie's father supposed to have had his heart attack or stroke at the second flogging? I didn't spot him, and I hope that brown haired guy was not supposed to be him, because he looked too young and Brian's black hair is somewhat important. Does anyone remember, was it during the middle of the flogging that he had his heart attack or at the end? I just remember it was at some point when Jamie had passed out or gone still and it looked like he'd died. I'm a little confused about why they had the soldier faint when they could have used Brian falling to a similar effect, even without explaining who he was. I guess with the soldier you get the Scots laughing at him, where as if it was Brian there would have been more outrage and concern, and that wouldn't have enraged Black Jack as much as the laughter. Oh well. Just something to keep thinking about I guess. We'll find out soon enough.

 

ETA: Hmm, I should have checked twitter before posting. Someone asked Ron last night, "Will there be mention of Jamie's father at the flogging in another episode???" And he replied, "Yes, and you actually saw Brian in the crowd tonight." Hmm, hmm, hmm. When do I have time to rewatch today?

I kept wondering if that was supposed to be Brian Fraser.  In the credits, a Brian Fraser was listed so I think it was.  I'm guessing that next episode when Claire asks Jamie about his family, the image of that man will be more relevant since there was no reason BJR would have to tell about Jamie's father.  

 

Also, did anyone notice that the soldier who fainted had the worst spray tan?  That image stayed with me and I went back to watch right when he fainted just to see if maybe his face was red or something.  No, serious spray tan.  So weird.

[mybabyaidan]

I am kind of bummed they left out the "choice" Claire had.  If I remember correctly, she could marry Rupert or Jamie.   I would have loved to see Rupert's reaction to that.   What would St Paul say about that??  Or his left and right hands??  

 

I haven't been able to watch the entire episode yet, so I will of course be back to obsess about it.

[Petunia846]

This review of 106 has a screen shot of the character and even the actor's info: http://www.threeifbyspace.net/2014/09/outlander-the-garrison-commander-episode-106-review/

 

But is it just me, or doesn't that guy have brown hair? I mean, I guess it's a fairly dark brown, but still... How is Jamie going to be called McDubh later if his father has brown hair? And what about Brian being called a silkie and all the stuff about how Ellen ran off with a silkie. They couldn't just color his hair like they did Sam's? Meh. I just don't see it. I guess he kind of looks like Sam could be his son in some of his imdb photos, but not in that screen shot. Oh well. I'm sure I'll either get over it or they'll do something brilliant to win me over. Patience, patience...is it Saturday again yet?

[WatchrTina]

One line from the book that I do miss in the show comes after the sucker punch to Claire's gut.  In the book Black Jack says something to the effect of "if you were pregnant before, you aren't now."  That line was just chilling.  But I guess it wasn't necessary since we'd just sat through Jack's sadistic recounting of one of his favorite exploits and he follows the punch by forcing the young redcoat to kick Claire (also not in the book.)  But that line stood out in the book.

 

Here's something else that might be interesting to see in the next episode.  If we see Claire naked she should have a bruise on her abdomen.  Jamie seeing that and reacting could make for a nice moment.  It's not in the book but it could be in the show.

[mybabyaidan]

Someone gif'ed the crap out of that promo already, and holy shit.   http://outlander-starz.tumblr.com/

 

Is it Saturday yet?

[Pestilentia]

Someone gif'ed the crap out of that promo already, and holy shit.   http://outlander-starz.tumblr.com/

 

 

Did they ever!

That super slo-mo is hilarious, mostly because Claire's boobs are already looking a bit like she tucked them in while drunk.

[nodorothyparker]

My hunch is that we're going to get pieces of the scourging scene again when Jamie finally tells Claire how his father died, only this time with zoom in on Brian Fraser who was a blink and you'll miss it random guy in the crowd in this telling.  I'm chalking it up to Black Jack either not knowing who he was or not recognizing the significance of his presence there because he was so far gone in his orgasmic frenzy by the time Jamie was out cold.  I don't think Brian and Black Jack ever meet in this book.  Dougal tells us he was there because he had unsuccessfully tried to bribe Jamie's way out of it.

[Thalia]

I've never wanted to discuss someone's virginity as much as I do over in the episode thread.  ;-)  But I can't w/o talking about Brian Fraser.  The non-book readers are divided between those who think, in modern terms, that he's crazy, and those who correctly surmise that Our Jamie is an Honorable Man.   Oh well, it will all be revealed next week. 

 

Someone in episode thread also mentioned that he or she would like to hear the other Highlanders explain sex to him, but correctly surmise that this will happen off camera, unless Jamie relates some of it to Claire.   I love the scene in the book when Jamie goes out to get more food/win, and the men all hoot at him.  

[WatchrTina]

 

I've never wanted to discuss someone's virginity as much as I do over in the episode thread.  ;-)

Amen Thalia!  But I chalk Jamie's virginity up to lack of opportunity and a sense both personal hygiene and self-preservation as well as honor.  As the Laird's son (Laird of Broch Tuarach) he was taught to be honorable in his dealings with the women nearby.  But he also has a chip on his shoulder about his father being a bastard (so he dosna want to make any) nor does he want to let down his father and be forced into an unsuitable marriage because he got a local girl knocked up.  Once he goes off to France to fight in the war he says the camp followers are all gross and later he's running around in the woods with naught but other outlaw lads for company for a good long while  and then he's lying semi-senseless in a monastery for months.  Really, the guy can't really catch a break.  In The Exile (the graphic novel covering the first 1/3rd of book 1) there is a story about a girl who might have been willing to be his first but . . . she dies.  Like I said, he cannot catch a break.  Until now.

Edited September 14, 2014 by WatchrTina

[Bort]

I love the scene in the book when Jamie goes out to get more food/win, and the men all hoot at him.

I like when an unsuspecting Claire opens the door first and gets an earful, I hope we see that scene.

[bluebonnet]

I was looking over the photos for next weeks episode and I think they might go off Claire's POV for a bit.  There are some with the men in the stable talking which may be the scene where Jamie is listing his requests/requirements for the wedding.  Claire could be eavesdropping on this which would keep it with her POV if they want to stay that way.  But there's another one with Dougal sitting at a table and looking up with a smirk, sort of the same smirk the lady at the bed and breakfast had when overhearing Frank and Claire.  Though, now that I think about it, it could also be the men hooting when Jamie or Claire come out of the room for food.

 

I'm so curious and eager for the mini season next year.  I really want to know whether or not they will recall this conversation with Claire and BJR, and also the possible encounter they have when she gets captured again.  I really like the books, but the first book left a lot to be desired, especially regarding Claire's choice back at the stones.  I never felt like her choice to stay with Jamie was believable at that time.  It seemed like there were entire chapters that got cut during editing and it was honestly the thing that made me want to put down the book altogether.  I think where the show can strengthen that aspect of the story is for Claire to recall these encounters with BJR.  They are undoubtedly traumatic, more so because he looks like Frank and also because Frank exhibited such excitement while learning about his ancestor.  

 

If they adapt straight from the book, it could really damage the story they've already told of Frank and Claire.  I think the story would be made all the better if Claire's choice stems from the fact that her previous 'home', the one that involved Frank, is irreparably damaged because how can she look at him the same way now?  This episode with Claire and BJR seemed like a real turning point wrt Claire staying or going and I don't want the show to forget about it.  

[Shorty186]

Hmm, I noticed the absence of Ellen MacKenzie's pearls. I hope Jamie still gives them to Claire before the wedding, complete with Dougal's mini-outrage.

[annlaw78]

 

Yeah, he's a douche, but I thought Lord Thomas and his claret were a delight!

So did I!  I like that he and Lt. Foster (and the others) are around to counteract some of the "Redcoats = Nazis" thing that gets applied pretty liberally in most movies told from a non-English perspective.  I get that there undoubtedly were bad actors, and atrocities committed by the British Army (and, probably, any army ever assembled in the history of mankind).  But not every officer is going to delight in raping and torturing and other sadistic acts.  Most officers (at that time) are just younger sons of privilege who don't have any other option to them (other than the clergy) to support themselves.  

[Thalia]

The lack of the pearls bothered me too.  I can only hope that he'll give them to her some other time.  I love that scene.  "Those were your mother's pearls!"  "Aye," said Jamie calmly, "and now they're my wife's." 

 

ETA to add direct quote. 

Edited September 14, 2014 by Thalia

[bluebonnet]

Damn, I didn't even notice the lack of pearls.  That's really going to bother me.  My fingers are crossed that they just showed clips when Claire happened to note be wearing them.  

[absnow54]

I also noticed that Claire isn't wearing Frank's wedding ring during the love scene montage, while we see her wearing both rings in some BTS footage, so I'm wondering how that will play out.

[Bort]

I also noticed that Claire isn't wearing Frank's wedding ring during the love scene montage, while we see her wearing both rings in some BTS footage, so I'm wondering how that will play out.

They could have mirror-flipped the scene for the promo and that's really her right hand. Sometimes they do that so a person will be on the same side of the screen as a preceding shot.

[Shorty186]

I was just going to post what Kariyaki said. The part where Jamie says, "You have my name, my clan, my family ..." Sam's birthmark is on the wrong side of his face, so they flipped multiple scenes for the promo.

[annlaw78]

It seems from the promo the show may be going to go a different route with the wedding night scene from the book, in which (my interpretation) Claire seems to be more or less resigned to what they have to do and takes the lead in putting Jamie at ease, getting things going.  It looks like in the promos he's (unsurprisingly) eager, and she's stalling.  

[peacefrog]

I have some questions regarding the Duke and BJR. In the episode thread there is some question about how BJR can get away with his insolence. I thought that the Duke would help drop any charges that were brought against him, correct? Didn't Frank and the Rev assume he had some very powerful friends? So BJR's arrogance seems on point.

I also had another revelation with this episode that was probably obvious to everyone but me. Did Dougal know of the Duke and BJR connection? Is that why(in the book) he brought Claire to him? We're they in cahoots to see what she was? Is BJR really a Jacobite supporter or does he not really care so long as he gets to terrorize people? I'm remembering in DIA he exchanges info with Claire for medical help for Alex.

Edited September 14, 2014 by peacefrog

[bluebonnet]

As far as I recall, the only thing mentioned that might connect Dougal with the Duke are the coins and jewels that Geillis picked up on the silkie island.  Claire and Jamie had traced it back to the Duke and then saw the box in Geillis' possession which made that connection.  The relationship between Geillis and Dougal may imply a connection with Dougal and the Duke.  However, the only gold Dougal was connected with was Louis' gold which, i think, was also brought to the silkie island.  

 

To sum up, I really don't know as the books never made it clear.  I think BJR and Dougal knew of each other, but I never did get the impression they worked together with BJR as an agent for the Duke.  I felt this entire plot was rather poorly done in the books.  

[WatchrTina]

Someone just said something in the episode thread that got me thinking.  Dougal says to Claire (when she scoffs at his belief in the powers of the holy spring) "You're a healer.  You don't believe in magic?"  I wonder if that isn't a hint/foreshadowing of Dougal's relationship with Geillis.  If he's been secretly having an affair with her then it's entirely possible that she's shown him some of her "magic".  Because Geillis does believe in witchcraft and she uses her herbs in some genuinely spooky ways (I recall her using them to put Claire in a suggestible/hypnotic state and questioning her -- a sort of 18th-century witchy lie-detector test.)  Dougal, having seen some of Geillis' tricks, may assume all healers tap into "magic" from time to time.

[nodorothyparker]

The duke seemed to have his fingers in everybody's pies in the first two books.  It was all very confusing or at least written so.  He was definitely funneling money to the Jacobites for whatever reason.

 

In Dragonfly, the duke and Black Jack are close enough that Black Jack is skulking around his house in Paris.  And the duke later implies to Claire that they have some sort of personal punishment relationship, although that too is never really made clear.  If that's truly the case, though, he must be pretty actively suppressing any complaints or reports about what Black Jack is up to to keep him quiet.  He seems to know what Black Jack did to Jamie at Wentworth, for example. 

[bluebonnet]

Oh, I forgot about Paris.  I think Dougal was conveniently in Paris at he same time the Duke was.  They may have met, if not in person then through one of the Duke's agents.  

 

ETA: Er, also forgot the Duke visited castle Leoch.  It's seeming more likely that Dougal and Randall might have had an understanding.  

Edited September 14, 2014 by bluebonnet

[peacefrog]

The duke was a houseguest of the MacKenzies also, right? Isn't that who Jamie and Dougal was off hunting with when the witchcraft trial started? The duke was also interested in Jamie for personal pleasure. Or am I thinking of someone else?

I did forget about BJR in the duke's house! Was that the same time Dougal suddenly showed up at Jared's?

Edited to say bluebonnet and I seem to be posting at the same time! Lol.

Edited September 14, 2014 by peacefrog

[WatchrTina]

I always assumed the Duke was a Jacobite (through probably for self-serving reasons) but he had NO scruples about doing whatever it took to rally the Highlanders.  As such, he sent Black Jack among them with deliberate instructions to give in to his sadistic nature and be brutal to the Highlanders in a way that would provoke them to hate the English and support the Jacobite cause.