S01.E16: To Ransom a Man's Soul

[WatchrTina]

One thing I loved about the changes in the show vs the book is that since we are no longer locked into Claire's point of view we see scenes we never saw in the book -- specifically Murtagh's conversation (in Gaelic) with Jamie.  I just loved that for so many reasons, the first being that you just know he had to have talked to Jamie while Jamie was failing at the abbey in the book but we never saw it.  So I loved their close, almost father-son relationship being acknowledged in that way.  The other reason I loved it is that you didn't need the Gaelic interpreted. You could tell the tenor of the discussion from their performances alone.  And of course Duncan Lacroix -- he of the eloquent eyebrows -- can get his meaning across with just a look.

 

On the flip-side -- as much as I liked Willie having a moment alone with Jamie, I was startled by Jamie asking for a knife and coming right out and saying he planned to kill himself.  That seems out of character for a staunchly Catholic 18th century man.  Suicide was considered a terrible sin in that time and in that place. I can well imagine Jamie wanting to die and allowing himself to die by just giving up in the face of his terrible injuries (which is what I thought happened in the book) but I can't imagine him actually cutting his own throat or opening the veins in his wrists.  So that was a bit jarring.  But I get it -- his injuries were not actually life-threatening -- even the fever is minor -- so they had to make the risk to his life more immediate.  I also thought it was interesting that Willie, who learnt his catechism at the knee of Father Bain, twists the facts and tells Claire that Jamie had asked Willie to kill him.  Aww. Willie was still protecting Jamie.

[ulkis]

Claire may not have noticed the details of the BJR brand because when she first examines him, it's just a round red burn. He keeps his hand over it in every scene after that, and he will not let her touch him. When she finally does see it a couple days later, it has scabbed over into a distinct scar.

Also, why is everything Claire's fault? You're right, it's not, but from her POV, he may or may not have survived the episode 1 wounds (he survived others), but because of her, his Jamie McTavish cover was blown and rescuing her after she didn't stay in the wood put him back in BJR' s orbit. Or she could mean that her failed rescue and his subsequent trade for her life at Wentworth resulted in his night of torture, rather than going with his original plan, which was to keep attacking BJR until BJR just killed him. Any way you slice it, she felt guilty for setting the events in motion.

The NYT article misses an important point. Neither Jenny nor Claire was actually raped. And whether they were rescued (as at Fort William) or rescued themselves (with a knife or with laughter), they didn't have a part of themselves taken away. I'm not saying at all that their assaults were NBD, but I don't think they are a completely fair comparison with Jamie's.

 

Yeah, I agree. I was actually kinda surprised when Claire went into shock in 1.08 - so many times on shows being attacked is just completely brushed off.

 

Plus there is the fact that Claire was a combat nurse for 6 years or however long it was. Not that that means she is not allowed to be traumatized just because she is a combat nurse, but it just means I can see how she can push through it/deal with it better than others can.

 

And I think we saw a bit of her exhaustion come through in the last episode - she basically said "if you give up then all the shit I have been through has been for nothing."

Edited May 31, 2015 by ulkis

[ulkis]

On the flip-side -- as much as I liked Willie having a moment alone with Jamie, I was startled by Jamie asking for a knife and coming right out and saying he planned to kill himself.  That seems out of character for a staunchly Catholic 18th century man.  Suicide was considered a terrible sin in that time and in that place. I can well imagine Jamie wanting to die and allowing himself to die by just giving up in the face of his terrible injuries (which is what I thought happened in the book) but I can't imagine him actually cutting his own throat or opening the veins in his wrists.  So that was a bit jarring.  But I get it -- his injuries were not actually life-threatening -- even the fever is minor -- so they had to make the risk to his life more immediate.

 

Hmm, that's a good point. But since we didn't actually see Jamie trying to kill himself, I can see it. Asking is one thing, but what he would have done if he actually got his hands on the knife is another. I mean he might not have asked directly in the book (and in the book we do find out that he thought about killing himself, but he doesn't want Randall to possibly damn his soul as well, so I can fanwank it that if he actually got his hands on the knife, he would have been like, wait a minute, I can't do this) but he asks Claire to let him die, and letting himself give in would still be considered a sin/suicide. So I don't think it was particularly out-of-character.

[nodorothyparker]

It's hard not to comment, especially when a lot of the comments are along the lines of "people actually LIKE these books??"  "WTF is wrong with them??"    I don't appreciate the implication that we are gross perverts for loving the books, when YOU HAVEN'T READ THEM.

 

Maybe it's a conversation that should be had though.  I've been having it in my home since my nonbooker reader husband attempted to slog through this before finally walking away in disgust.  Like a lot of other nonbook readers, he's now gone for good too.  Because for them, it doesn't matter that there's still a lot of good story coming in the next seven books or that it's such an amazing love, blah blah blah.  All they know is what they've seen on screen and what they've seen on screen is a whole lot of sexual violence be treated pretty casually and only NOW after two full episodes of almost unrelenting horror is it supposed to matter.  Not everybody is won over by amazing camera angles or directing or incredible acting.  All of which these past two episodes have more than had in spades, but still ...

 

My husband was only along for the ride in the first place because he knew I liked the book series and, well, he's usually game for anything that involves time travel and history.  While he did like a lot of what he saw, he quickly went from being surprised that Claire didn't seem to suffer many consequences for running her mouth as much as she did to thinking the show was pretty fixated on rape.  The fact that the show spent its last two full episodes of its season on the rape and torture of the main character was the last straw, and now he's wanting to know what it is about all of this that I find so appealing.  Especially after asking if the rest of the books are like this too, and

I can't really lie and not tell him that the next book features the rape of at least two characters, one a child, or that pretty much every major character will be raped throughout the course of the series

. 

 

My answer in the past has generally been to brush past the things I don't like or put the book down and walk away when it becomes too much because it is such a great story over the long term.  Now I'm rethinking a lot about a lot of this though and I'm honestly not sure what the answer is.  I've always been able to acknowledge that the series has some real problems, but it's kind of bad when you see nonbook readers repeatedly referring to the series as Rapelander and you realize you don't fundamentally disagree with their argument.

[WatchrTina]

nodorothyparker Your post makes me sad but I can't disagree with anything you said. I was glad to be able to tell someone just yesterday that Jamie never ever gets raped again (at least not in the next 7 books) but I didn't make any promises about anyone else because, of course, you can't. "Rapelander" huh? That really makes me sad. The perils that Jamie and Claire face are spread over a much longer time frame in the book and the book speaks to the days, weeks, months of contentment they shared during what is often a very happy life -- all of which is edited out for time in the show. I think that's why the reoccurrence of sexual assault in the book is easier to take than it is in the show. And of course in the book we know -- at least in the case of Claire -- what she feels after the two attempted rapes and how she deals with them. In the show you don't really have that luxury -- voiceovers can only do so much. So that adds to the feeling of callousness in the show.

I think it's clear we're going to lose a lot of viewers over this most recent turn of events. It's too bad because the next season is much more about history and political intrigue than anything else and the people who liked that part of the show will miss out on it. Maybe if the show wins some Emmys they'll give it a second chance.

Edited May 31, 2015 by WatchrTina

[ulkis]

edit

Edited June 2, 2015 by ulkis

[nodorothyparker]

But a lot of people don't care about Emmys or industry awards either, and considering how loathe the Emmys have been to even acknowledge anything with a fantasy or sci-fi element, I'm not holding my breath on any real recognition there.

 

I won't lie that I haven't particularly liked the past two episodes because a lot of it did feel like overkill to me.  For me, it never lost that element of look how brave and shocking we can be because we're on premium cable and we can.  And yes, I do think the pacing issues and time compression of plot points only exacerbated the problem by sometimes leaving us with multiple sexual assaults within single episodes, with Both Sides Now being the most egregious, and cutting a lot of the slower smaller things that make the books fun to read.  In the end though that's just my opinion, and I know that I'm going to be fine getting past it in the long run because I can put it in perspective of the larger picture of the overall story.  But I can also understand the people who can't because I'm living with one.  Talking about how well shot a scene was or how great the story is three books from now doesn't mean anything to him right now.  I'd like to think he'll eventually come back next season with all the political intrigue and the Rising, but I'm not hedging my bets on it.

 

As far as the books go, I'll probably just continue to only read the parts I like.  That's what I usually do with books I've already read.  It'll still be something I'm thinking about though.

[Dejana]

Remind not to go back into the no book talk thread.  It's hard not to comment, especially when a lot of the comments are along the lines of "people actually LIKE these books??"  "WTF is wrong with them??"    I don't appreciate the implication that we are gross perverts for loving the books, when YOU HAVEN'T READ THEM.   I love them, not because I enjoy reading about rape and violence, but because the love story between Jamie and Claire is absolutely astounding and lovely and their absolute devotion to each other is what keeps me stuck to the books. If their marriage was all unicorns and butterflies, there really wouldn't be a story to tell.  The fact that they stay so devoted to each other, through every horrible scenario possible is what makes them so utterly wonderful.  They fight like hell to stay together, and without the outside forces it would just be boring. Ok, rant over....just needed to get it off my chest.  Back on topic....

 

 

Oh, we're not just in it to ship Jamie/Black Jack and read slash fic about them? :) Though I did kind of think, "Welp..." when I saw someone defending the episode as not being torture porn, but said that showing sexual assault on a child would cross that line for her/him. So, I wonder how many non-book fans who haven't bailed now, will next season. I am (extremely) grateful the book wasn't made into a two-hour movie with Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler, but very few adaptations are perfect, and I think different pacing/writing choices might have prevented some of the extremely negative reactions happening now.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Dejana

[absnow54]

The perils that Jamie and Claire face are spread over a much longer time frame in the book and the book speaks to the days, weeks, months of contentment they shared during what is often a very happy life -- all of which is edited out for time in the show.

I don't know. The show had 16 hours to explore the first book and it chose to dedicate an hour to Jamie's flogging and two hours to his rape. There was time to explore the lighter side of things to balance out the darkness, but the show runners were obviously more interested in telling the story they did, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just going to isolate the general audience. Ron Moore promised he was making this show for the fans of the book, and looking at the contrast between the readers vs non-readers, that's exactly what he did. 

[ulkis]

I am (extremely) grateful the book made wasn't into a two-hour movie with Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler

 

Egads, was that actually a possibility being thrown around??

[TexasChic]

I edited it, sorry about that. I don't know about the rule re: what we can and cannot discuss, but I definitely feel like people have discussed things that have happened in the later books in the season 1 threads, so that's why I just put the written warning and I didn't spoiler tag it.

It looks like I was wrong according to the moderators, which means I won't be able to participate in either thread since I've just started reading the series and don't want to be spoiled for future books. That's too bad, I had some things I wanted to discuss. I do understand that a long series makes it difficult to keep track of what happens in each book (I have that problem with GOT), but it is unfortunate. Anyway, just wanted to correct my error before I duck out. :-)

[WatchrTina]

Head over to the Book Talk:  Outlander / Cross Stitch thread TexasChic.  That's a safe place to talk about anything from Book 1.  Anything from later books will be spoiler tagged.

[TexasChic]

Okay, will do! Thanks!

[Kcat1971]

 

 

QUOTE

It's hard not to comment, especially when a lot of the comments are along the lines of "people actually LIKE these books??"  "WTF is wrong with them??"    I don't appreciate the implication that we are gross perverts for loving the books, when YOU HAVEN'T READ THEM.

 

@nodorthyparker I agree that maybe its a discussion we should have.  It kind of irritates me that we can't have it.  I appreciate the fact that the mods are doing their best to make a place for both book readers & nonreaders, but I don't like that non-book readers can say thing like the quote above which is basically an attack on the character of book readers and we cannot even comment on that.  It's an 8 book series, just because I liked it as a whole doesn't mean I liked every part of it.

 

And with this post I've officially banished myself to the book readers posts forever.  (I haven't posted on either thread since the Plessy v. Ferguson (the separate but equal) decision came down.)  But that's o.k. I like the dark side.  We have cookies. And spoilers.

[RealityCreator]

Granted it's a different show and different level of violence, but on Game of Thrones a teenage girl was raped by a psychopath a couple of weeks ago and granted you didn't see it (you damned well heard it though), I don't see the level of anger at that act that Jamie's rape seems to incite.  As I said I don't think that the fact Jamie's male is the only reason that people dislike these past few episodes, but the level of dislike does make me wonder and I thought I would just put it out there.

 

 

There has been far more anger about the scene you referenced in that other show than support in the media and on message boards.  GRRM even had to come out with a statement both supporting the showrunners *and* disavowing his part in that particular plot line saying the show is the show and the books are the books, and asking fans to take their complaints to the show and not to him!  (The book series did not depict that particular much abused character raped by a psychopath - at least it hasn't yet). 

 

I watched the first 8 episodes of Outlander, liked it and then bought and read the book because I didn't want to wait a whole 10 months to find out what happened.  After finding out "what happened..."  I'm not interested in watching the show or reading further books, which is unfortunate because I thought the time travel, fish out of water elements were fascinating.

Edited May 31, 2015 by RealityCreator

[annlaw78]

If their marriage was all unicorns and butterflies, there really wouldn't be a story to tell

I think you can tell a story with a couple/love/relationship facing adversities, without the adversities being so rape-centric. Being from different times, cultures, places, the looming Culloden struggle, and the as-yet-unexplained time-traveling (and potentially mucking with the space-time continuum) etc. provides a lot of fodder for adversity, without throwing in a very over-the-top Villainy McVillain to stalk and rape one or both of the central couple. I think those unfamiliar with the books had expected that type of adversity and plotting, and not for the final two eps to have such a focus on sexual assault.

[Dejana]

Egads, was that actually a possibility being thrown around??

 

In 2010, Katherine Heigl dropped a hint during an NY Times interview about starring in a movie version in 2012 (not sure if that was the filming or release date). Gerard Butler was just my own personal disaster casting, but I could totally see Hollywood trying something like that.

[ulkis]

I don't have a lot of moments that they left out that I miss too badly, but I do wish the scene of Claire shooting the soldier had been left in. I think they tried to give it a shout-out in 1.14 with the soldier Jenny and Claire catch, but it's not quite the same.

[ScotchnSoda]

ULKIS SAID: "I mean, to be honest, a lot of this stuff doesn't bother me because it's fiction. That's pretty much it. I know that leads into a larger what is okay and what is not to show and what has consequences, etc etc, but just for me, personally that is the answer for why doesn't a lot of the stuff in the book/show bother me. . . . People have different standards for fiction."

______________________________ end of quote.

Well said, ULKIS. Thank you. And may I add, fiction has intrinsic value.

Libraries, museums and film archives are full of art that depicts horrible events. Should we question the motives, self-restraint or political correctness of those who create the art or those who appreciate it? I, for one, am grateful that art allows me to vicariously experience the the entire spectrum - good and bad - of the human condition. We rarely question art being too sunny. Oh, maybe we call it light-weight or Pollyanna-ish. But we don't wonder how anyone can actually "enjoy" it. IMHO, brutal depiction of what humans do to one another helps build empathy and outrage. And these emotions, more than any others, stimulate us to take a stand . . . maybe even try to address the actions versus wanting to view such realities in soft focus. As importantly, the realistic depiction of assault and aftermath honors both the survivors and those who did not survive.

[bluebonnet]

Finally got to watch the finale.  First, I actually forgot about it.  For some reason I had it in my head that I already saw the finale.  Then it showed up on my dvr but there were kids in the house and I just couldn't get to it until now.  

 

All I can say is wow.  It was different than I thought it would be.  I think all the headlines about it made me think it would be so much worse, which isn't to say that it wasn't awful.  I guess I was just expecting that it would include something even more than what was in the book.  I'm so completely moved by how this story explores the aftermath of violent events, whether it's the rape of a single man or the destruction of a culture.  The parts I found unbearable to watch was seeing Jamie dealing with some serious PTSD and being left with his face indicating that this will continue for a long long time, no matter if he is happy that Claire is pregnant.  

 

I'm surprised that I actually missed the book version of Claire's 'curing' Jamie.  I'm not sure if I would have missed it if Murtagh hadn't had the 'go into the darkness' line.  When reading the books, I found Claire's treatment plan to be disturbing.  She drugs a delirious, ill rape survivor and pretends to be the rapist.  It's horrible, then more horrible watching Jamie react to that with such violence because we're seeing this violence played out on Claire.  But it was dark.  What happened on the show was super toned down.  I don't know, it feels weird say I wish for more darkness.  I suppose the stakes just didn't feel as high.

 

I may be mistaken, but I don't think BJR in the book told Jamie that Claire continued to be in danger if he didn't submit.  In the book it seemed like Jamie submitted simply because he was keeping his word, rather than for a continued fear for Claire's safety.  I think that single line of dialogue was a good addition.  

 

I need to keep processing this episode.  

[sara217]

I don't have a lot of moments that they left out that I miss too badly, but I do wish the scene of Claire shooting the soldier had been left in. I think they tried to give it a shout-out in 1.14 with the soldier Jenny and Claire catch, but it's not quite the same.

I wonder if that scene of Claire killing the soldier was originally in the plan, but then cut. They did show Jenny giving her the knife. (She stabbed the soldier in the book, because the gunshot would have attracted attention.) But a confrontation scene during the escape would have required a fair chunk of time.

[annlaw78]

Well said, ULKIS. Thank you. And may I add, fiction has intrinsic value.

Libraries, museums and film archives are full of art that depicts horrible events. Should we question the motives, self-restraint or political correctness of those who create the art or those who appreciate it?

Yes, we should. It's called art criticism. An artist makes choices; the audience is free (indeed, encouraged and expected) to have a response.

I, for one, am grateful that art allows me to vicariously experience the the entire spectrum - good and bad - of the human condition. We rarely question art being too sunny. Oh, maybe we call it light-weight or Pollyanna-ish. But we don't wonder how anyone can actually "enjoy" it. IMHO, brutal depiction of what humans do to one another helps build empathy and outrage. And these emotions, more than any others, stimulate us to take a stand . . .

I don't think many in the viewing audience needed the multiple scenes of rape to understand rape is wrong, and men should not force themselves on other men or women. I knew at the end of the last ep that Jamie would go through a terrible ordeal, without their needing to show anything more.

I'm not trying to convince anyone who likes the books or this ep to change his or her mind, or impugning his or her taste or character. I'm simply saying that just because this is the story that the book/show has decided to tell does not make it beyond examination or criticism.

Edited May 31, 2015 by annlaw78

[ulkis]

Scotchnsoda, if you want to make quote someone, you write this at the beginning and end of the quote

 

[ quote] paragraph here [ / quote ] 

 

just take out the spaces in-between the brackets and the word "quote"

[Nidratime]

Since this is the most active thread at the moment, I'll post this here. Just saw it on twitter.

 

Ronald D. Moore ‏@RonDMoore 24s25 seconds ago

I'm going to do a live Outlander Q&A at the top of the hour - 3pm West Coast time today.

 

[chocolatetruffle]

Yes, we should. It's called art criticism. An artist makes choices; the audience is free (indeed, encouraged and expected) to have a response.

 

No, we should not.  Criticize the work, but not the person.  Once a piece of art, be it sculpture, fiction or film, leaves the artist's hands it no longer belongs to him/her.  It belongs to us now to make of it what we will.  We can examine whether or not it has value: does it illuminate the human condition; does it have emotional resonance; does it illicit empathy for our fellow man; does it make me a better/smarter/more tolerant person for having experienced it?  These are all questions that great art engenders.  

 

But there is no circumstance that I can think of wherein the evaluation of an artistic work should include the why's that prompted the artist to create it.  The work stands apart from the artist's intention.  

[ScotchnSoda]

Thank you, CHOCOLATETRUFFLE . You said perfectly what I meant.

[CatMack]

No, we should not.  Criticize the work, but not the person.  Once a piece of art, be it sculpture, fiction or film, leaves the artist's hands it no longer belongs to him/her.  It belongs to us now to make of it what we will.  We can examine whether or not it has value: does it illuminate the human condition; does it have emotional resonance; does it illicit empathy for our fellow man; does it make me a better/smarter/more tolerant person for having experienced it?  These are all questions that great art engenders.  

 

But there is no circumstance that I can think of wherein the evaluation of an artistic work should include the why's that prompted the artist to create it.  The work stands apart from the artist's intention.  

 

Not to get too off topic, but as someone who holds a degree in art, critiquing the artists intent is absolutely a thing that happens.  Like, all the time.  It's not rare.  Yes, art stands on its own too and no one is required to base their interpretation on an artists' intent, but that's usually true mostly for the 'general public'.  In the academic and professional art worlds, artistic intent and an artists ability to talk about their work is absolutely fair game for criticism all the time.  

 

Ron Moore talked a lot about how hard they worked to be respectful and only show what was necessary and then spent a total 17 minutes, almost a third of the episode, devoted to extremely graphic torture and rape.  He was very open about his intent, and he failed miserably at it.  And by focusing so much on the lingering torture porn, we were shortchanged on more nuance to Jamie's recovery, leaving all his progress for one lackluster confrontation instead of a series of smaller moments that actually felt emotionally honest, like the books.  I hate Gabaldon's use of rape overall but she actually put the work into Jamie's recovery.  The show went for cheap shock value at the expense of nuanced storytelling.  They used a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel and now they're getting praised for their surgical techniques.  

[nodorothyparker]

I think that line between artist and their work at the very least blurs when they put themself out there on convention panels or as an online presence to tell you at length about their work and What It All Means and why particular things are the way they are.  I'm not going to pretend that it didn't somewhat color my already shaky perceptions of Diana Gabaldon and everything that led up to these last two episodes when she seemed positively gleeful at Paleyfest about how much she was looking forward to Black Jack raping Sam -- not Jamie, Sam the actor.  It also wasn't the first time she's expressed this.

 

Now to be fair, I think it's entirely possible it was simply a poor choice of words.  But that's rather weak coming from someone who uses words for a living and did very little to reassure me as both a reader and a viewer that they were going to do their best to be respectful and not go all out for torture porn just because they could.  In hindsight, that concern feels pretty valid.

Edited June 1, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[annlaw78]

No, we should not. Criticize the work, but not the person. Once a piece of art, be it sculpture, fiction or film, leaves the artist's hands it no longer belongs to him/her. It belongs to us now to make of it what we will. We can examine whether or not it has value: does it illuminate the human condition; does it have emotional resonance; does it illicit empathy for our fellow man; does it make me a better/smarter/more tolerant person for having experienced it? These are all questions that great art engenders.

But there is no circumstance that I can think of wherein the evaluation of an artistic work should include the why's that prompted the artist to create it. The work stands apart from the artist's intention.

I can think of many circumstances -- namely, all -- in which the artist's intentions, motivations, and context are relevant in art criticism, especially lit crit. Anne Frank's diary is not notable sheerly because if its prose, but because of who she was, what she was going through, its context, etc. Holbein's famous painting of Anne of Cleve's had a context which arguably influenced how he portrayed her. Louisa May Alcott's experience with Utopianism informs much of her writings, as does Hemingway's wartime experiences his.

Querying the artistic choices of the creators and the intentions in the show's languorous depiction of a horrific violation is to be expected and welcomed.

Edited May 31, 2015 by annlaw78

[chocolatetruffle]

Agreed, but just because RDM or DG talk about their intent doesn't mean that I have to give it any more weight than JQ Public's perception of their intent.  There are legions of artists who say little or nothing about their intent.  Can we not enjoy a work of art w/o knowing what the artist's intent was in the making of it?  I didn't say criticism doesn't include analyzing intent, I said it shouldn't.  But YMMV.

 

Now back to the episode:

So it’s taken me some time to come to terms with the season finale, which I’ve decided, as season finales go, this was a decent one.  It left me with a sense of resolution and pointed me in the direction of the story that will unfold next season.  We now know that Jamie and Claire are headed to Paris with a mission in mind (I loved Jamie’s line about “giving some thought” to the possibility of changing the future).  We now know that they are a couple who draw strength from each other and we now know that soon there will be a third member of the Fraser family.  The final shot of them holding tight to each other as they go forth to France was a great metaphor for the story to come.  (Did you notice that Jamie’s left hand was resting on Claire’s tummy and he looked down at it as the camera pulled away?)

 

Yes it was rough getting there.  The TSatS podcast makes an interesting argument that none of the Wentworth scenes were necessary in this episode because they did not advance the story.  Looking at each one individually, I think that’s fairly accurate – especially the second scene, which I think undercut the magnitude of the reveal to Claire of the branding, and for that reason alone I would have cut it.  However, the first rape scene (which could have been shortened) and the last do reveal a great deal about Jamie’s emotional state when he’s rescued from Wentworth.  I wouldn’t change anything about the final scene.  This is where BJR’s breaking of Jamie is fully accomplished.  Everything that came before was leading up to this: the tainting of Jamie’s relationship with Claire.  As difficult as it is to view, it’s necessary I think in order for us to understand Jamie’s need to die.  It gives weight to his “I cannot be your husband and I’ll not be anything less.” 

 

Unfortunately, for me the restoration scene did seem a little rushed.  I wanted to KNOW that Claire meant it when she said she would follow Jamie into death.  I think we needed the scene where Claire cold-bloodedly kills the young Redcoat soldier because he was an obstacle that impeded their escape.  After something like that, if she had for example offered Jamie the dagger and let him know that once he had used it on himself, she would then use it on herself THAT would have had a much stronger dramatic effect for him and us.  But, you can’t always get what you want, so I’ll take what they gave us and be grateful that the acting was brilliant.

[WatchrTina]

Well Ron Moore just did an hour-long twitter Q&A (with Terry weighing in as well).  It started out interesting -- not a lot of new info but a nice back-and-forth.  And then Ron said there would be more Frank in Season 2 than in book 2 (or words to that effect) and suddenly it all became about people objecting to that saying more Frank meant less Jamie & Claire.  It devolved rapidly after that.  Kinda spoiled the whole thing in my opinion.  I doubt we'll be having another Q&A with Ron anytime soon.

 

Damn.  Sometimes fans suck.

[GHScorpiosRule]

For me it comes down to this:

 

I watch a show for my own enjoyment, and I suppose it's a risk I take when I come to messageboards to talk about what I liked or didn't like. We, all of us, see things differently and have our own thoughts about not just this episode, but the show in general.

 

What is...upsetting and frustrating to me, is when I'm made to feel like some pervert with a rape fetish because I enjoyed the episode or that I'm not enough of a feminist because I didn't have problems that some other viewers do or did. Or that how I feel is wrong.  I've been very vocal about how I don't think Gabaldon is a good writer. Three books in, and I haven't changed my mind. BUT the story she has written is a good one, and one I, all these years later, want to see how their story enfolds.

 

I very much enjoyed this finale. Sure, I wish more of the rape scenes would have been cut out for more of the scenes where Claire saves Jamie. But I believe if the show had done that, the way Claire saved Jamie, and all that happened? Viewers who weren't happy with the actual finale would have more of an issue with those scenes had they been filmed. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't/no-win situation. So I really don't watch with the hope that those who haven't read the books will like it. I watch for me.

 

And now I'm stepping away, because the debate, for me, has become circular. There is no wrong or right answer here.

Edited May 31, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[CatMack]

And I don't like being made to feel like I'm an immature child who just doesn't get it because I don't like watching graphic depictions of rape and think a more nuanced, artistic depiction that presents the horror without showing every single second is often a better approach.  What it comes down to is that different people need different things from fiction.  I don't think anyone is a bad person for enjoying this episode, and I know some inflammatory statements were made in a thread where people couldn't respond to them.  The mods dealt with it and we need to move on.  Within this thread I think, for the most part, people have been respectful, if...enthusiastic.  This episode triggered me.  Many of the responses in this thread further triggered me.  I apologize if I came off as insulting anyone in particular at any point.  But this is something I feel very strongly about.  Rape survivors shouldn't have to relive their trauma and be triggered to watch a story that deals with rape.  Other shows and movies have done more with less.  

Edited May 31, 2015 by CatMack

[Nidratime]

On the other hand, it is giving him an idea of where the show isn't working for some people. To be frank -- LOL! -- I'm tired of reading posts from non-readers about why Claire would choose Jamie over Frank, who was so lovable and lived in that safe place called "The 1940's." It was insane to them which means the show might be having trouble communicating Jamie and Claire to non-readers.

[ElsieH]

Did anyone notice that Rupert makes fun of Angus for telling Claire to say Hi to the Bonnie prince if she sees him because he was in Italy not France? And then five minutes later, she tells Jamie that he is in France so they can change history. It's the little details that take me out of the story, which in this case was good because I have to be honest, it was hard to watch. But I am not going anywhere, except to re-read Dragonfly in Amber :)

[WatchrTina]

Rupert made a point of saying King James was in Italy (that's who Angus told Jamie to say hello to).  Claire said Bonnie Prince Charlie (the king's son and heir) is in France.  Both statements are historically correct.

Edited May 31, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Athena]

Over the years, I have watched numerous adaptations of books or comics. I have learned to see each piece as separate. In the best of worlds, the adapted work becomes a companion to the original. I have also never believed that a faithful adaptation needs to follow plots and characters to the exact original. I think adaptations can be good if they have the spirit or can be just entertaining but not faithful. I firmly see these entities as different and understand when others do not want to seek the original work for whatever reasons. I myself have seen movies and just had no desire to read the books afterwards or vice versa. There wouldn't be enough time in the day.

 

I always knew things would become controversial, but when the show was announced, I never knew I would  moderate it one day. I do appreciate those that have reached out to me and reported posts. I do not want any group or person to feel maligned. I have done my best to address it in the other thread and in here. I will continue to do so as our forum will evolve and change over the time as well.

 

It's difficult because we aren't only dealing with a book series with decades of following and faithful fans, the subject matter is intense and triggering. Again, this is a Your Mileage May Vary situation. No one wins in a conversation about these kind of subjects. It is all deeply personal and people are very reactive to this kind of violence. With a new show, it will happen often. We must face the facts, this series has a lot of sexual assaults. I know some people who couldn't watch Game of Thrones because of the violence after awhile.

 

As a book reader, I've always had mixed views about Gabaldon's use of sexual violence and rape in the books. I believe it is excessive, and I was really turned off from the ending. In fact, I didn't read Book 2 for a couple years because I found the ending of Outlander exhausting and disturbing. I believe as other posters have noted that we should and can continue to have discussions about these subjects. I don't want any of us to beat a dead horse about it though. For the most part, the discussion has been very civil and I've been pleased. Thank you.

[Pestilentia]

 

This episode triggered me.  Many of the responses in this thread further triggered me.  I apologize if I came off as insulting anyone in particular at any point.  But this is something I feel very strongly about.  Rape survivors shouldn't have to relive their trauma and be triggered to watch a story that deals with rape.  Other shows and movies have done more with less.

But why would you voluntarily watch something that you knew well in advance would cause you these reactions?

It was no secret that it was going to be extremely graphic.

 

That's like going to a boxing match and being upset that there are men beating the crap out of one another.

[annlaw78]

But why would you voluntarily watch something that you knew well in advance would cause you these reactions?

It was no secret that it was going to be extremely graphic.

That's like going to a boxing match and being upset that there are men beating the crap out of one another.

I, for one, assumed we were moving on from the dungeon and onto the rescue and healing, given the paucity of time remaining in the season. I didn't think the show was crying out for a more detailed depiction of Jamie's being sexually assaulted. And, as others have mentioned, there's a way to handle this subject matter in a way that is not extremely graphic. Edited June 1, 2015 by annlaw78

[WatchrTina]

 

I, for one, assumed we were moving on from the dungeon and onto the rescue and healing

 

It's worth noting that there was a one-time-only extra-special warning at the beginning of the episode cautioning viewers that the finale dealt with graphic violence including depictions of rape.   The show went out of its way to let people know what they were getting into with this episode.  Heck the last scene in the dungeon in the previous episode ended with the words "Shall we begin?" and Jamie's face frozen in dread. I don't see how anyone could have thought the graphic stuff was done.

Edited June 1, 2015 by WatchrTina

[annlaw78]

There was a one-time-only extra-special warning at the beginning of the episode cautioning viewers that the finale dealt with graphic violence including depictions of rape. The show went out of it's way to let people know what they were getting into with this episode. Heck the last scene in the dungeon in the previous episode ended with the words "Shall we begin?" and Jamie's face frozen in dread. I don't see how anyone could have thought the graphic stuff was done.

Because Jamie's face being frozen in dread was quite sufficient to let the audience know what was going to happen, without actually showing. And not everyone watches the front matter (previouslies then credits) of the show.

Edited June 1, 2015 by annlaw78

[Cramps]

I'm still not sure how I feel about the choice to do the episode this way. But I was impressed by it.

I liked but didn't love the book, and I've felt the same way about the show. The scenery is stunning, I love the world that was created, some of the actors are excellent, but the show itself tends to be more bodice-rippery than my usual tastes.

All that said, what did impress me about the finale, was that for the first time I understood Black Jack Randall. He wasn't just a characature of a villain doing awful things, he was a fully drawn character--horrible, messed up, but I could understand his motivations. And as difficult as it was to watch, I thought it was brilliantly done--in both the writing and the acting.

As for awards-- aside from costumes and the other Creative categories, I wouldn't expect too many. Neither fantasies nor shows geared towards women do too well with Prime Time Emmy voters.

[Geillis]

On the other hand, it is giving him an idea of where the show isn't working for some people. To be frank -- LOL! -- I'm tired of reading posts from non-readers about why Claire would choose Jamie over Frank, who was so lovable and lived in that safe place called "The 1940's." It was insane to them which means the show might be having trouble communicating Jamie and Claire to non-readers.

Maybe it is because I have read the books and have listened to them in audio, but I clearly thought that the disconnect between Claire and Frank is evident in the show..  yes, she loves him and in the beginning she feels she needs to get back to him. However much Frank professes to love her and his anguish at her disappearance, it is evident that he will be able to move on.  He was unfaithful during the war, and he was unfaithful later. Their connection was mostly physical and the heightened emotions of the war that caused many into marrying sooner that they would have in peacetime, as evidenced by their impulsive wedding at the registrar's office. Some of that emotional disconnect was evident in the scene at the train station, where she declined his offer to get her stationed in London. Neither of them appeared heartbroken at the thought of separation.

[paramitch]

I thought this episode was absolutely superb, if very difficult to watch. And kudos to the actors and to the production team, because the performances were riveting across the boards for me.

 

I'm in a weird situation here, because as I've mentioned in previous episode threads, I've only read book 1, and I honestly didn't like it very much. But for me what the book and show did very well was to subvert expectations in both our heroes, in the villain, and in the final confrontation. Jamie -- the man -- is the maiden in the tower with the ruthless villain, and Claire is the hero who swashbuckles in to save him. I will always love that. And I found the scenes between Jamie and Jack to be both horrifying and riveting because we were seeing a sadistic, twisted man who was never more terrifying than -- to echo the terrific New York Times review -- when he was being legitimately tender:
 

The portrayal of Jamie’s repeated violation by Randall is uncompromising, pushing well past the audience’s point of comfort. It refuses to let imagination fill in the blanks and forces viewers to bear witness to the torture, both physical and psychological, that is taking place. The series views these acts as complex and horrifying, worthy of examination and discussion.

 

For me this encapsulates what was worthy about the episode -- and of course, what makes it so divisive.

 

Remember in the first episode where Frank asks her if she had strayed during the war, and he tells her it would be understandable if she did. His manner implies that he has and thinks not much of it and is ok with it if she has.  He loves her, but he doesn't have that connective feeling that would prevent him from an inability to "share." He probably would have been very content to have the open marriage of the 60's and 70's where wife swapping was in fashion..

I viewed that scene entirely differently: it's not that Frank is casually "willing to share" Claire, it's that he loves her enough that nothing she could say or do could affect his love for her. Which is pretty much what he says verbatim. But then I like TV Frank, and loved his relationship with Claire, which I thought was portrayed affectingly as being quietly adoring and very strong. I like Jamie too, but we haven't seen him share much with Claire beyond tiny moments of happiness in between constant escapes and near-death experiences. 

 

Can you imagine the fallout if they played the rape/torture more true to the book and showed it all? Randall did a HELL of a lot more to Jamie in the book. A lot. *shudder* (or maybe it came out in later books, I don't remember)

I was relieved that the show actually cut quite a lot of what Jamie described out -- I always disliked the book's sudden out-of-the-blue implication that Randall was acting out on Jamie from incestuous urges toward his dead brother or something.

 

To me, it was torture porn. The blood on his thighs, the lingering shots, the way they filmed the last time Randall rapes him, as  if they were just  having sex... I  can't even imagine the outrage if Jamie had been a female character. I've seen lots of rapes on TV -man to man too- and this is the first time I've felt more disgusted at the writers/director than at the rapist.

I don't agree that this was "torture porn" simply because what it showed was dark, terrifying, and traumatizing. For those who are 'Game of Thrones' watchers, there was a subplot last season that seemed endless, in which one character was tortured by another. What made that 'torture porn,' to me, was that there was absolutely no depth to the villain at all. He was just a horrible person endlessly torturing his victim because he enjoyed it. It was violent and gruesome but worst of all, it was boring.

 

But with "Outlander," what BJR does is so much worse and more complex, because his own feelings are so twisted and corrupted that for him love and hate appear to be the same thing. I have never seen anything on television like what we saw here, because (a rarity), for me this episode put rape right out there as this ugly, violating, physical thing -- and then effectively showed how much worse the mental violation can be. All of the scenes in the dungeon felt like a nightmare and yet those little realistic aspects made it that much worse -- they made it real. This episode more than any I have ever seen, demonstrated the physical and emotional aftermath of rape in a very real, visceral way (and took care to show how much more upsetting and damaging it can be for survivors when the body responds in spite of itself).

 

While he did like a lot of what he saw, he quickly went from being surprised that Claire didn't seem to suffer many consequences for running her mouth as much as she did to thinking the show was pretty fixated on rape.  The fact that the show spent its last two full episodes of its season on the rape and torture of the main character was the last straw, and now he's wanting to know what it is about all of this that I find so appealing.  

Keeping in mind that I'm not a fan of the books, for me, the threat and fear of rape has been a deliberate subtext this season, and that subtext then culminated in the surprise that in the end it was Jamie, not Claire, who was raped -- subverting where non-book-readers may have expected the plot to go. I also think they've done a pretty good job of always showing rape as a terrible thing with lasting consequences, something "Game of Thrones" doesn't do nearly as well.

 

Libraries, museums and film archives are full of art that depicts horrible events. Should we question the motives, self-restraint or political correctness of those who create the art or those who appreciate it? I, for one, am grateful that art allows me to vicariously experience the the entire spectrum - good and bad - of the human condition. We rarely question art being too sunny. Oh, maybe we call it light-weight or Pollyanna-ish. But we don't wonder how anyone can actually "enjoy" it. IMHO, brutal depiction of what humans do to one another helps build empathy and outrage. And these emotions, more than any others, stimulate us to take a stand . . . maybe even try to address the actions versus wanting to view such realities in soft focus. As importantly, the realistic depiction of assault and aftermath honors both the survivors and those who did not survive.

I agree -- beautifully said. 

 

Ron Moore talked a lot about how hard they worked to be respectful and only show what was necessary and then spent a total 17 minutes, almost a third of the episode, devoted to extremely graphic torture and rape.  He was very open about his intent, and he failed miserably at it.  And by focusing so much on the lingering torture porn, we were shortchanged on more nuance to Jamie's recovery, leaving all his progress for one lackluster confrontation instead of a series of smaller moments that actually felt emotionally honest, like the books.  I hate Gabaldon's use of rape overall but she actually put the work into Jamie's recovery.  The show went for cheap shock value at the expense of nuanced storytelling.  They used a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel and now they're getting praised for their surgical techniques.  

I thought the show actually used a lot of restraint in what they did show of Jamie's experiences. From reading the book (and from the implications in the show), we know that what we see went on for hours. Yet most of the episode -- over two-thirds -- is spent on Jamie's recovery, and to me the show actually improved on the book there. I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I hated the whole freaking idea that Claire had to get a hallucinating Jamie to brutalize her in order for him to recover. I far prefer the beautiful scene we had here, where she simply incited Jamie to start talking, to tell her what happened (which was what he needed more than anything). I also thought Catriona was just wonderful in those scenes -- just the love, pain and sympathy on her face, as she listened.

 

The A.V. Club review of this episode (which I thought was extremely insightful) quoted Salon's Sonia Saraiya (from her piece after the recent Game of Thrones controversy):

“But rape isn’t mere violence; it’s not a punch to the head or a knife through the ribs. It’s an act that attempts to divorce a person’s soul from their body; to imitate the language of intimacy in what is purely cruelty. It is a kind of murder, except afterwards, the victim can still walk and talk and breathe.”

 

To me, that is exactly what this episode portrayed, to chilling effect.

 

Ultimately, I thought the producers were striving for something incredibly complex in this episode, and that they succeeded far past what I expected. I thought it was a strong end to a strong season, and while I dropped the books after 1, I'll keep watching the show. I want to know what happens, and the actors have all really made me care about (or loathe) these characters in bringing them to life. I'm intrigued by the intimations of what may be ahead, and loved that the show offered us a Jamie who is still visibly healing (not magically all better), and that final shot of the ship sailing off, with Jamie and Claire on deck together, was just stunning. 

[SpiritSong]

I thought the show actually used a lot of restraint in what they did show of Jamie's experiences. From reading the book (and from the implications in the show), we know that what we see went on for hours. Yet most of the episode -- over two-thirds -- is spent on Jamie's recovery, and to me the show actually improved on the book there. I realize I'm in the minority on this, but I hated the whole freaking idea that Claire had to get a hallucinating Jamie to brutalize her in order for him to recover. I far prefer the beautiful scene we had here, where she simply incited Jamie to start talking, to tell her what happened (which was what he needed more than anything). I also thought Catriona was just wonderful in those scenes -- just the love, pain and sympathy on her face, as she listened.

I get what you're saying, and I thought your whole post was very thoughtful and well written. But if we're going to have a softer scene of Claire helping Jamie through his PTSD then they should have cut Murtagh's line about somebody needing to go into the darkness with him. What she did was what any loving wife would say to her despairing husband. How was that entering the darkness?

And really, Murtagh, you couldn't have taken 2 seconds out of the rescue to slit Randall's throat? That seemed unrealistic to me, especially after Jamie "honorably" let him live at Ft. William when rescuing Claire. Look how that backfired, and Murtagh is much more practical and ruthless than his godson.

Edited June 1, 2015 by SpiritSong

[Pestilentia]

paramitch- Oh, how I wish my 'like" button worked. Kudos to your entire post- you've explained my own position far better than I could.

[WatchrTina]

I find myself this morning thinking about Sam Heughan and what he's feeling right now.  Is he gratified by all the praise for the episode?  Is he dismayed by the backlash at how graphic it was?  When The Wedding episode came out it was while filming was on hiatus and he and Cait were available for interviews -- in fact they walked a bunch of red carpets together -- and so they had to deal with a lot of questions about their very intimate episode.  But that episode was joyful and almost universally praised.  This one was the exact opposite -- dark, troubling and creating a schism of opinions among viewers.  I find I'm really glad that Sam is hard at work, facing long days of taking this character forward following the ordeal in Wentworth, and is not available to reporters.  I would really like to know how he got through those scenes, what was the hardest, what would he do differently, how he feels about the final cut -- but I also don't want anyone to ask those questions because they feel (to me) really intrusive and too personal.  Some people have said that Outlander fans, especially women of a certain age (of which I am one) have a bad habit of wanting to "mother" Sam Heughan (that popped up over the whole do-we-objectify-him brew-ha-ha).  I'll admit to feeling a bit, uh, sisterly this morning as I genuinely wonder how he feels today after the airing of such a difficult performance.  I hope he's feeling really proud.  He should be.

[absnow54]

This one was the exact opposite -- dark, troubling and creating a schism of opinions among viewers.  I find I'm really glad that Sam is hard at work, facing long days of taking this character forward following the ordeal in Wentworth, and is not available to reporters.

I think he and Tobias both have a pretty easy attitude about it. Paleyfest was after they wrapped season 1 and they were all making a lot of jokes about those scenes. Sure, it's different now that it's aired, but the actors have been receiving nothing but praise from what I've seen.

[mybabyaidan]

Yeah, I agree. I was actually kinda surprised when Claire went into shock in 1.08 - so many times on shows being attacked is just completely brushed off.

Plus there is the fact that Claire was a combat nurse for 6 years or however long it was. Not that that means she is not allowed to be traumatized just because she is a combat nurse, but it just means I can see how she can push through it/deal with it better than others can.

And I think we saw a bit of her exhaustion come through in the last episode - she basically said "if you give up then all the shit I have been through has been for nothing."

I still think her shock was over taking a persons life, not the actual attack. Or at least the major reason for it. But that's just my feeling on the matter.

For me it comes down to this:

I watch a show for my own enjoyment, and I suppose it's a risk I take when I come to messageboards to talk about what I liked or didn't like. We, all of us, see things differently and have our own thoughts about not just this episode, but the show in general.

What is...upsetting and frustrating to me, is when I'm made to feel like some pervert with a rape fetish because I enjoyed the episode or that I'm not enough of a feminist because I didn't have problems that some other viewers do or did. Or that how I feel is wrong. I've been very vocal about how I don't think Gabaldon is a good writer. Three books in, and I haven't changed my mind. BUT the story she has written is a good one, and one I, all these years later, want to see how their story enfolds.

I very much enjoyed this finale. Sure, I wish more of the rape scenes would have been cut out for more of the scenes where Claire saves Jamie. But I believe if the show had done that, the way Claire saved Jamie, and all that happened? Viewers who weren't happy with the actual finale would have more of an issue with those scenes had they been filmed. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't/no-win situation. So I really don't watch with the hope that those who haven't read the books will like it. I watch for me.

And now I'm stepping away, because the debate, for me, has become circular. There is no wrong or right answer here.

You took the thoughts right out of my head.

I don't begrudge anyone that had issues with this episode, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's when I am basically called sick for liking the books that is my issue.

Eta: Also uncomfortable with the implication that liking this episode, or at least not hating it means I *enjoy* watching rape. Of course I don't enjoy watching it, its fucking rape for dogs sake. It's horrible and its brutal and it's disgusting. But it also is an extremely important event in Jamie's life and shapes who he becomes. The way it's handled after is one of the reasons I continued reading.

Edited June 1, 2015 by mybabyaidan

[basil]

Of course I don't enjoy watching it, its fucking rape for dogs sake. It's horrible and its brutal and it's disgusting.

 

 

It's all of those things and yet rape fantasies have been around since the dawn of time. Some viewers did, no doubt, enjoy watching/reading those scenes. There's very little doubt in my mind that rape fantasies are something that Gabaldon is fixated with. I literally laugh out loud whenever DG denies that her Outlander series can at least, in part, be defined as a bodice-ripper.

 

I don't object to it, but call it what it is.