S01.E16: To Ransom A Man's Soul

[ganesh]

I didn't watch any previews because like I said I go into shows unspoiled. Basically in the first scene in Scotland past, Randall attempts to rape Clare iirc because she was dressed in a sheer night gown. That's quite laying out the cards on the table about how the show is going to be from my pov. They showed us Randall flogging Jamie early enough on for me to indicate that there would clearly be a show down. It's not what I expected and that's fine. I just don't think it's fair to call bait and switch on the show.

I liked Frank too. I'm disappointed that we haven't seen him again.

[RedheadZombie]

Frank's real personality really wasn't apparent to me in the first episodes. I didn't have enough to 'take a liking' to him as a kind and loving husband. I had neutral feelings about Frank. Because of the war, Frank and Claire had been separated for five years. The trip to Inverness was Frank's idea for a second honeymoon to get reacquainted and to investigate his family heritage, specifically Jonathan 'Black Jack' Randall.

The marriage was contracted with Dougal to protect her from Randall. The condition was of course that the marriage be consummated on the wedding night. This is why there were men lurking on the other side of their bedroom chamber listening to make certain it was. Keep in mind that Jamie is a virgin and a "Laird" of a large estate as the only male heir. The common sexual speak amongst the men wouldn't be something that Jamie would do.

As far as Black Jack 'loving' Jamie. I don't think he loves Jamie in a traditional sense. I think he's covetous of his strength and fortitude. He put Jamie to the test, trying to break him in order for Black Jack to know he's only human. But Jamie doesn't break and this pushes Black Jack even more forward in his obsession to dominate him. Jamie is what Black Jack struggles to be but knows he never will.

Jamie is a grown man who was living in the stable - he's heard it all. And I believe he would know and use coarser language. He's not a wig-wearing prissy British fop. Plus he hangs around the crudest guys on the show.

Regarding the wedding night: There's no way to prove a marriage was consummated without eyewitnesses when the bride is not a virgin. The men hung around to live vicariously through Jamie. They were cheering him on because it was his first time. I really don't believe that any of those Scots would sell Jamie out. How would they prove they didn't have sex?

[thefreeair]

 

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but I've seen IMO some very over the top, melodramatic reactions to these episodes.  You don't like it, that's fine.  Don't watch it.  There are certain shows that I find the content distasteful and I don't watch them, but I don't imply their watchers are into watching torture porn.  Nothing in this episode is any worse than anything that happens on any other cable show.  I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing what you did or did not like about how this particular story was told, but I think the level of vitriol needs to be dialed back.   

 

And actually I think that sexual violence being portrayed as more awful when it's directed at a male than if it directed at a woman is a interesting conversation to have, but this is hardly the first television show to portray it as worse.  Which I think probably has something to do with the fact that it subverts people expectations. Society doesn't generally see men as potential victims of sexual violence and therefore it's seen as more shocking when it's depicted.

 

Proclone, I agree that some of the reactions to this episode have been quite visceral to the point where folks who did not have the same response may feel like it's all a bit much. But, I don't know what you're getting at by pointing out that graphic violence/rape scenes also happen in other cable shows. You are correct, but is that somehow meant to imply that viewers of this show can't discuss the content presented without placing it within the context of every other show (which they may not even watch)? Or is it that you feel the criticisms found here don't come up with other shows?

 

If the latter, I would disagree as I think a lot of the outrage about this episode is actually a part of a larger conversation that has been going on for quite some time about how sexualized violence is handled in the media. I've read numerous analyses of it in reference to various shows including (actually, I would say especially) Game of Thrones. Just last week, Bryan Fuller made some very thoughtful statements about his decision not to include depictions of rape on Hannibal, and his remarks were very cognizant of the fact that this is a sensitive area, that other shows struggle with the subject matter, and he was even asked about the latest rape scene on GoT I think you mentioned upthread. (The article is a great read, by the way, if anyone is interested.) So, I wouldn't say that the reaction to this episode is disproportionate at all to the many, many criticisms and conversations about rape/violence in other shows. Not at all. 

 

On topic, I'm of two minds about this episode. I was very disturbed by how Jamie's rape was depicted and agree with those who found that it went on for far too long and included some choices that, to me, felt gratuitous and inappropriate. I was triggered by this episode, and came away feeling disgusted and even angry. On the other hand, I think I can understand why the showrunners may have felt it necessary to include the scenes because there was a certain narrative to how the rapes played out that informed how Jamie processed it and what it meant for him as a character. It could have been done a lot better, but I don't know if it was done wrongly, if that makes sense. It just crossed a pretty specific line for me, but then I'm one of the folks who was viewing these recent eps from the lens of giving everything a second chance (I left once after the spanking scene).

 

I had to exit GoT quite early on because I have an (apparently low) threshold for what I can tolerate in terms of violence/rape, and this episode definitely sealed it for me. I'm a little sad because I've really grown to love this show in spite of its issues, but I get the sense that this topic will continue to be revisited and I don't know if I can deal. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by thefreeair

[attica]

You don't like it, that's fine.  Don't watch it.

 

But I did watch it (which is how I know I didn't like it, weirdly enough), Criticisms of a program are exactly as valid as praise of it. And since this isn't a fan board, criticism is part of the deal here. Liking a program is not the price of admission for discussing it.

[BigBlueMastiff]

 

But this here was the most concentrated torture and rape of a main character I have ever seen in fiction. The piling on just got to me. You would think that after being brutally whipped until his back was flayed that would be enough bad stuff happening to one character.  But no, they had to take this vivacious and sweet-natured young man and turn him into this thing, this object that the villain could torture some more in new ways and rape multiple times, and take all dignity and grace from this character. And then give us a cheap five minute coda with some superficial healing and a cheesy pregnancy  to cap it all off.

 

I feel dirty and insulted all at the same time. So obviously this show is not for me.  I liked this show up to and including the wedding episode but the appeal has died for me a brutal death in these last two episodes.

This ep was almost unwatchable for me. Every time I heard Jack's voice I wanted to throw up. I couldn't watch let alone hear any of the rape scenes, way too graphic, and unnecessary, like torture porn. Agree with those who mentioned that while brutal rapes happened in Oz, it was a show about men in prison, so I expected rape to be a big part of the show (one reason I had to stop watching), but this just made me feel as dirty, and ashamed, and hopeless as Jamie, the revulsion would not go away. I haven't read the books, but when I do will definitely skip this section. And I don't find it pearl clutching to admit that these scenes were too much for some of us. I watch a lot of violent shows and movies, many have already been mentioned here, but this was on a level that I found unnecessarily graphic.

 

The only good thing that can come of this is that Jack died. which makes me wonder if Claire may have unwittingly provoked this monstrosity by telling Jack the date of his death.

 

 

Jack isn't dead though. I am sure he'll return. That's one of the reasons why I have decided to not watch further. I don't think I can stand the sight of Tobias Menzies face for a good long time.

Wishful thinking, I know. Will have to read the books or wait to see what happens...

Edited June 1, 2015 by BigBlueMastiff

[magdalene]

Jack isn't dead though. I am sure he'll return. That's one of the reasons why I have decided to not watch further. I don't think I can stand the sight of Tobias Menzies face for a good long time. 

[psychoticstate]

This episode was disturbing on many levels and I had a hard time watching it.  But watch it, I did.

 

I think it's polarized so many people because, as a society, we have sadly become somewhat numb to violence in general and sexual violence against women.  When you hear "rape" most people likely think of an act committed against a woman by a man.  Seeing such an act committed against a man by a man is shocking.  As it should be.  As all rape should be.

 

While it was graphic and did seem to stretch on, I will only call the scenes gratuitous if season two has Jamie without any ill effects or repercussions of his assault.  I don't care how much Claire loves him and how awesome her healing powers are, he was physically, mentally and emotionally tortured and that's not going to go away quickly or easily.

 

I haven't read the books (yet) so I am completely unspoiled by what's going to happen but I am still disappointed that Claire does not mention Frank at all.  (Except, I guess, for the fact that he couldn't get her pregnant.)  It would make sense for me to have her think that she couldn't stand the thought of seeing him any longer due to the resemblance he has to Black Jack.  Anything.  Wouldn't it even cross her mind to get the hell out of Dodge and take Jamie with her? 

 

I am looking forward to next season and what they will do with France although I hope we will see the Highlanders again.  And I hope the show tones down a bit on the amazingness of Claire, who can do damn near anything. 

[iMonrey]

I also don't see how the show did a bait and switch in terms of it's content.

 

Allow me to clarify. The title of this story is "Outlander," which refers specifically to Claire, and who is the narrator. The first eight episodes (which I assume comprise the first half of the story, book-wise) are about her. Her story of traveling back in time 200 years, and trying to get back to the stones so she can get back to her own time. Along the way she falls in love with Jamie and is then torn between staying with him and going back home. 

 

Once Jamie allows Claire to choose between going back home or staying with him, the story changed. It was no longer about a woman who traveled back in time. It was about a Scotsman who is the victim of a man who has a violent sexual obsession with him. What's that got to do with the Outlander, other than the fact that he's married to her?

 

It's kind of like one person started writing the story, and then half way through someone else took over writing it and turned it into some weird, dark slash fiction about two of the supporting characters.

 

At the very least, I feel the story of Outlander should have ended once Claire made the choice to stay with Jamie. Everything from that point forward is a different story. It's about Jamie and Jack Randall. That should be another story, another book, another season, etc. If they want to tell that story, fine. There may well be an audience for it. But if you want to do a story about a Scotsman who being pursued and repeatedly tortured by some sadist, maybe you leave out the time traveling woman and just tell that story. You don't sell the story with one premise and then half-way through switch to another premise. And that's exactly what Outlander did.

 

Still, I think I might have been up for a second season if they had killed off Black Jack Randall. But there's no way in hell I'm going to get caught up in another season of this if there's a chance Randall is just going to capture Jamie again and rape/torture/repeat. I've had enough.

[monakane]

 

On topic, I'm of two minds about this episode. I was very disturbed by how Jamie's rape was depicted and agree with those who found that it went on for far too long and included some choices that, to me, felt gratuitous and inappropriate. I was triggered by this episode, and came away feeling disgusted and even angry. On the other hand, I think I can understand why the showrunners may have felt it necessary to include the scenes because there was a certain narrative to how the rapes played out that informed how Jamie processed it and what it meant for him as a character. It could have been done a lot better, but I don't know if it was done wrongly, if that makes sense. It just crossed a pretty specific line for me, but then I'm one of the folks who was viewing these recent eps from the lens of giving everything a second chance (I left once after the spanking scene).

 

I agree with you.  It went on too long.  It felt gratuitous.  They could have made their point in a shorter time and a less graphic manner.  

 

On GoT a beloved character was raped.  They did not show the actual rape but the face of another character who was forced to watch and you heard the character's screams.  That scene was very disturbing and unsettling.  A lot of people I know swore to stop watching the show.  GoT is not known for its restraint, so it's interesting that a less graphic scene had such emotional punch.  I think Outlander was trying to create that emotional wallop but failed.  Jamie is a beloved character and the audience could have connected with his suffering without all the torture porn.

[Proclone]

Proclone, I agree that some of the reactions to this episode have been quite visceral to the point where folks who did not have the same response may feel like it's all a bit much. But, I don't know what you're getting at by pointing out that graphic violence/rape scenes also happen in other cable shows. You are correct, but is that somehow meant to imply that viewers of this show can't discuss the content presented without placing it within the context of every other show (which they may not even watch)? Or is it that you feel the criticisms found here don't come up with other shows?

 

If the latter, I would disagree as I think a lot of the outrage about this episode is actually a part of a larger conversation that has been going on for quite some time about how sexualized violence is handled in the media. I've read numerous analyses of it in reference to various shows including (actually, I would say especially) Game of Thrones. Just last week, Bryan Fuller made some very thoughtful statements about his decision not to include depictions of rape on Hannibal, and his remarks were very cognizant of the fact that this is a sensitive area, that other shows struggle with the subject matter, and he was even asked about the latest rape scene on GoT I think you mentioned upthread. (The article is a great read, by the way, if anyone is interested.) So, I wouldn't say that the reaction to this episode is disproportionate at all to the many, many criticisms and conversations about rape/violence in other shows. Not at all. 

 

Just in my experience, it's the latter.  I've seen fans dislike and disapprove of other scenes in other other shows, but I don't think I've witnessed this level of anger over an episode.   But that's just my experience and my interpretation. I could be wrong.  I am just utterly baffled why this episode of this show is a bridge too far for some viewers. 

 

I also only mean to point out with my comments that it's a bit unfair to the show to act like this is the most violent thing on the air when it's not IMO.  I think all the premium cable shows seem to compete to see who can be more "edgy." And that usually takes the form of seeing who can be the most violent and shocking.  Whether that's a bad thing, is an interesting discussion to have (albeit probably not in this thread), but I do think that you need to be aware of it when tuning in.

 

But I did watch it (which is how I know I didn't like it, weirdly enough), Criticisms of a program are exactly as valid as praise of it. And since this isn't a fan board, criticism is part of the deal here. Liking a program is not the price of admission for discussing it.

 

I am all up for discussing the episode, criticisms are fine.  What I object to (and this is not directed at any comment in particular) is the underlying implication in some of the comments that those who did like the episode and the series as a whole are weirdos who are into torture porn.  That's what happens when you use loaded words like that.  Nor in my opinion does it really lend to actual discussion about the show.  Are we really talking about the show in this thread or are we talking about our reactions to the show?  And I think real valid criticisms to the show are getting lost in the "Oh my God, how dare they show this on TV," reactions.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Proclone

[magdalene]

Actually, the author of the books herself, Miss Cabaldon, seems to be into these violent depictions of sexuality. I have a friend who goes to Paley Fest every year and she went to a panel for Outlander in 2014 (it was before the show started airing) and Miss Cabaldon said in front of a live audience there "that she was looking forward to Jack raping Sam" (Sam being the first name of the actor playing Jamie). Now she could have been joking, I wasn't there and tone is everything with some statements. But still, all things considered I find saying something like that in public kind of  odd. I personally look forward to things like a nice glass of wine or a piece of chocolate.  But maybe my tastes are not varied enough.

[Proclone]

Actually, the author of the books herself, Miss Cabaldon, seems to be into these violent depictions of sexuality. I have a friend who goes to Paley Fest every year and she went to a panel for Outlander in 2014 (it was before the show started airing) and Miss Cabaldon said in front of a live audience there "that she was looking forward to Jack raping Sam" (Sam being the first name of the actor playing Jamie). Now she could have been joking, I wasn't there and tone is everything with some statements. But still, all things considered I find saying something like that in public kind of  odd. I personally look forward to things like a nice glass of wine or a piece of chocolate.  But maybe my tastes are not varied enough.

 

I actually saw that panel at Paley Fest.  Yes, Diane Gabaldon is kind of strange and I'm not sure if she was trying to be funny, was just looking forward to an important scene being depicted or really does have a thing for violent depictions of sexuality.  Even if she does get off on that sort of thing, doesn't really matter to me.  I didn't enjoy the episode...and enjoy is really the wrong word, I found it compelling, because I enjoy watching people getting tortured.  I thought it was compelling because of depictions of the aftermath of a rape and I think Black Jack is horrible, sick, twisted, individual, but he's a compelling one to watch.  I'm curious about him and what makes him such a monster and why he wasn't just satisfied with breaking Jamie (he got him to scream early on, which was his goal during the flogging), but rather went on to completely destroy Jamie psychologically and taint Jamie's relationship with Claire (especially since as far as Black Jack was concerned Jamie was going to die when they were done and never see Claire again).  I think he's an interesting character and maybe I am a weirdo, but I'm rather interested to see watch makes him tick. 

[bearcatfan]

The author has stated that she said that because (I'm paraphrasing here) that it was the scenes would be the most intense and demanding scenes for an actor to do as well as being the incident that changes Jamie for the rest of the series and she wanted to see how he would perform, knowing that he could do it. It should also be pointed out that Sam responded by saying that he looked forward to it himself. Obviously he didn't want to be actually tortured and raped but looked forward to the challenge those scenes would present.

[RedheadZombie]

I think the failure to show Frank in such a long time, was a poor decision.  TB has become so ingrained as a sadistic monster, that it will be harder to view Frank outside of that dynamic.

 

I am all up for discussing the episode, criticisms are fine.  What I object to (and this is not directed at any comment in particular) is the underlying implication in some of the comments that those who did like the episode and the series as a whole are weirdos who are into torture porn.  That's what happens when you use loaded words like that.  Nor in my opinion does it really lend to actual discussion about the show.  Are we really talking about the show in this thread or are we talking about our reactions to the show?  And I think real valid criticisms to the show are getting lost in the "Oh my God, how dare they show this on TV," reactions.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Athena
Edited to remove a quote

[ennui]

The only good thing that can come of this is that Jack died. which makes me wonder if Claire may have unwittingly provoked this monstrosity by telling Jack the date of his death.

 

I'm not sure if Jack died, I mean, I guess he does eventually. However, I'll propose that telling someone the date and means of their death is a gift. Think, if you know you'll die in 2017 of a car accident, you can enjoy your next two years ... maybe take up bungie jumping and skydiving and cliff diving and unprotected sex. Also, if you know you'll die in 2017 of a car accident, you can take that year and move to Dubrovnik, where they don't have cars.

 

Really, knowing how you'll die isn't a curse.

[magdalene]

 

The only good thing that can come of this is that Jack died. which makes me wonder if Claire may have unwittingly provoked this monstrosity by telling Jack the date of his death.

I don't think you can actually provoke men like Jack to be worse. Some people are just monsters who torture animals or rape children, or serial kill.  

 

I had this little fantasy about a Game of Thrones/Outlander crossover where Black Jack is put into the tender clutches of Ramsay Bolton. Unfortunately, I don't have the imagination to really play this out in my head.

[Athena]

Hey guys. Please remember to use the Report button or PM me when you see a questionable post. Name calling or negative statements about posters will not be tolerated and the mods will deal with them. Please do not engage with these posts or posters. Thank you.

[nara]

Episode:
I thought this was a very good episode, though I can understand the strongly negative reactions some people had to it. 

 

I liked the way this episode’s structure paralleled “The Wedding” with multiple flashbacks. Whereas the Wedding portrayed increasing love and passion, this episode portrayed the destruction of Jamie’s spirit.  This episode structure did cause there to be more rape scenes than there might have been if the flow had been purely chronological.  I doubt they would have shown a 20 min straight BJR/Jamie scene! The structure and the multiple BJR/Jamie scenes allowed us to see the evolution of Jamie’s struggle—though I would have preferred those scenes to be shorter and less graphic.  I would also have liked them to show more of the rescue and recovery.  I don’t think this show has earned a reputation of showing nudity for its own sake (a la Game of Thrones sexposition), so I was better able to tolerate the graphic nature of these scenes.  I did not feel like anything portrayed in this episode was meant to be sexually arousing or done for its own sake, so I disagree with the “porn” comments.

 

I do think they did an excellent job of showing why Jamie is so devastated and ready to end his own life—something very different for this strong, resilient man.  Jenny and Claire have both had near-rape situations (yes, I know it’s not the same as actual rape) and recovered rather quickly.  Also, Jamie has risked his life for Jenny and Claire before—so he is willing to sacrifice his life for love.  So why then was he so shattered?  1) He was raped not once, but repeatedly.  2) He experienced “pleasure” in the process and that would have come as quite a shock to him.  Naturally, Jamie would not be very knowledgeable about the body’s automatic reactions that have nothing to do with one’s will, emotions, or intellect.   3) He stopped fighting.  He expected to die fighting and he ultimately gave up in order to stop the pain.  For a soldier, that would be particularly disheartening, because he would have felt like a coward.   4) BJR was able to control him.  First, forcing him to scream, forcing his arousal, and finally forcing him to “enjoy it”. 

 

I’m not sure that they could have shown all this without the multiple scenes of the attack, though perhaps they could have focused more on their expressions than their bodies.    I think the transition from despair to cracking jokes on the boat was a little too sudden.  Maybe some discussion about the passage of time (weeks, perhaps) would have helped.

 

I appreciated the moments of levity from the men, especially the au revoir scene.  Of course, Angus would be the one to try to kiss Claire!  Very well in keeping with him showing her what’s under his kilt (The Gathering), trying to see her naked (The Wedding), and his all around degenerate nature (Castle Leoch). 

 

ETA: I'm glad Willie remembered that Claire was supposed to have relatives in France.  I like it when loose ends are tied up!

 

I liked Claire’s confession, especially the part about her acknowledging the negative impact she’s had on the lives of her 2 husbands.  I don’t blame her for her choices, but they have inadvertently hurt 2 good men.  1) Abandoning Frank without any further communication due to her choice to stay with Jamie  and 2) disobeying Jamie and forcing him to risk himself to rescue her from BJR and later leave the safety of Leoch. Again, she did what she thought was right at each step, and made a lot of positive difference, but also caused some harm.  BTW, I don't think it's all that surprising that the monk was not shocked by her confession.  we know that everyone can tell if she's lying--and she plainly was not.  Also, even religious folks were more superstitious then (e.g., Father Bain) so he might well be willing to believe in time travel.

 

The pregnancy is a little cliché, but I like it anyway!!!

 

Season:

Now that the 2nd half of the season is over, I have a few thoughts about it. 

• I think that the 2nd half of the season required one more episode. The pace of this half was VERY fast, which is not unexpected and probably necessary.  However, one more episode would have allowed more detail around married life at Leoch (and possibly Lallybroch), which would have 1) shown Laoghaire the true nature of their relationship and allowed her resentment to build and 2) balanced out the violence of the later episodes and 3) been fun to watch and 4) given us more time with the side characters I had come to love: Mrs. Fitz, Hamish, Rupert, Angus, Willie, etc.
•  
• More discussion of why she decided to stay in the 18th century was needed throughout the season.  Frank pretty much vanished and that was a miss. Even some discussion of the differences between BJR and Frank would have been good.

Edited June 3, 2015 by nara

[terrymct]

I liked Claire’s confession, especially the part about her acknowledging the negative impact she’s had on the lives of her 2 husbands.  I don’t blame her for her choices, but they have inadvertently hurt 2 good men.  1) Abandoning Frank without any further communication due to her choice to stay with Jamie  and 2) disobeying Jamie and forcing him to risk himself to rescue her from BJR and later leave the safety of Leoch. Again, she did what she thought was right at each step, and made a lot of positive difference, but also caused some harm.  BTW, I don't think it's all that surprising that the monk was not shocked by her confession.  we know that everyone can tell if she's lying--and she plainly was not.  Also, even religious folks were more superstitious then (e.g., Father Bain) so he might well be willing to believe in time travel.

 

I agree.  Her confession was the best part of the episode, really, although the Father could have been a bit more shocked and acted like he wrestled more with the idea of what to say to her.   It felt to me like this confession was the writers way of acknowledging to viewers what several of us have been saying across the episodes.   It would have been nice if when they were going to the boat or on the boat, if she'd have given Frank a thought.  Maybe acknowledge that this was truly her full commitment to Jamie and abandonment of her marriage to Frank.  Yes, she appears to have decided at the stones, but as long as she was in the general area, she could have made a run to them and gone back to the 40's.  Sailing to France means she loses her ability to easily or somewhat easily change her mind and escape.   Jamie is gorgeous, but damn does that man and his time come with some major baggage.

[Daisy]

Okie dokes. 

I have to say that was really, really difficult to watch. And I kind of have a cast-iron stomach for these sort of things, and I had to watch it with my hands over my eyes, but peeking kinda the last two episodes. I am glad that I discovered the show, (and now I have 8 books to start to tackle), and I am intrigued to see where season two will take us. 

 

Reading a lot of the comments, I have to think  - I'm not sure if BJR loves Jamie. I don't think so, I never got that impression. I think he wants to win, break, conquer, but I don't think there's any kind of closeted 'love' there. I found it intriguing (i think someone said 'poisoned' and that totally works) how BJR  made himself basically look like Claire in one bits, even scrunching up his hair to be a bit curly at the bottom. Jamie said he was not going to react, and BJR was doing everything in his power to make him so. It's the the ultimate (sadistic) last word. 

 

So Claire is going to try to save the highlands. While pregnant. Yay. 

 

I always tend to say this to my best friend who teases me. I like me my bodice rippers. Especially historical. After 10 years of higher education, sometimes one doesn't want to read Shakespeare and Dickens and all of it, so I really like these kind of shows because it's like oo. okay. I can do without the squeamish, but I do applaud them for making me uncomfortable, because I feel that is an uncomfortable situation. With uncomfortable tactics.  I do hope there's a balance between story telling, romance, the violence/uprising/whatevering. etc. as well. For someone who came in late. I got sucked in basically by the time Claire touched the stones, and i'm entrenched enough to watch season two. 

 

I do hope that there'll be others to chat with when it comes on (since a lot of ya'll seem to be leavin')

[olivia1]

I also found it hard to watch, but after reading spoilers I was braced for it.  I'll be here for Season 2.

 

One of my favorite parts of this episode was when Clare reminded Jamie that he had promised to protect her with his body. That is what he did. He sacrificed himself to save her.  I thought that was a turning point in his recovery. 

[bearcatfan]

Since I have book 1 ready to go on vacation with me, I'll likely be in the book thread.

 

I also was spoiled, mainly from the promotion they did before the 2nd half of the season started. That's what got me to watch and I remember all of them saying that the end of the season was "dark." It wasn't until the Lollybroch episode when Jamie talked about BJR's proposition that I had an idea of what was going to happen. Then I saw all of the warnings in the media prior to the Wentworth episode so that confirmed it.

[VartanFan]

Yikes.  Finally watched it last night.  Also read one of the reviews linked above and folks in the comment section were absolutely brutal.  I mean...someone used c*nt to describe another poster because they didn't agree.  

 

So, I understand why we the viewers needed to know the extent of the rape but I contend that we didn't need to see everything we did.  I mean, after the spit on hand...I suspect seeing the table being violently jostled would get the point across.  As I've said before, the most powerful scene when Jamie was whipped to me was when they showed his boots slipping in the blood.  In the previous episode the licking of the back was terrifying to me.

 

I don't think this is spoiling anything to say that some of those reviewers did say that the time in the abbey was much much longer in the book and did go into the attempts at helping Jamie heal.  I think we should have spent more on that and less on the actual rape scenes.  

 

Some things left me scratching my head a bit - like BJR telling Jamie that Claire will never forgive him.  If he's supposed to die the next day, I don't understand that statement.  BJR carries around lavender oil just in case he gets to have a rapefest?  Seems like he'd pack lighter than that.  ALso, the choice of jaunty music to start and end the episode was just bizarre to me.  

 

I wish we'd get to see the 1900s again but sailing to Paris seems to  take that out of the equation a bit.  I think a great story would be how Claire feels about Frank given that he is BJR's doppelganger.  

 

It was definitely a tough episode to watch but I'll give it a few episodes into Season 2 to see if we can get away from this type of violence.  BUt I"m not looking forward to season 2 the way I was looking forward to the second have of 1. 

[tennisgurl]

Damn, shit got real on these boards. I get that this was a controversial episode, where emotions got heightened, and the things shown were very intense and possibly triggering to some people, but it seems like things got WAY too personal. Calling someone a c*** just because they disagree on a TV show does not seem like the general tone of this website. 

 

Honestly, I have not seen the episode, but I plan on watching it later today, finally. I cant imagine that I wont be back for season two, because I still love this story, the acting, and the direction and writing, even if I don't love every scene and plot point. I might actually read the books if I have time, so I can join the book watching boards. So many people here seem to be jumping ship, which is understandable, but sad.  

[VartanFan]

 

Damn, shit got real on these boards. I get that this was a controversial episode, where emotions got heightened, and the things shown were very intense and possibly triggering to some people, but it seems like things got WAY too personal. Calling someone a c*** just because they disagree on a TV show does not seem like the general tone of this website.

 

So I'm clear, that was from a different website's comment section.   It was NOT here.  Sorry if I was confusing.

[bearcatfan]

The mods did have to come into this thread though, although no one used that particular word. I'm not going to get into the details but it was a little brutal in here. 

 

Isn't there a thread in these forums where you can ask questions of the book readers? I would suggest that anyone who is on the fence about coming back for a second season because of a particular fear, ask a book reader. That way you can maybe have you concerns alleviated without being completely spoiled.

[sally-can-wait]

So I powered through the first season this past week and I have to say the last two episodes have left me uncertain if I will be back for Season 2. I’m trying to weigh out how much I liked the first half of the season versus my dislike for these episodes. As others have mentioned, the story really took a turn from Claire’s story of wanting to get back to the 1940’s/assimilate to a foreign time to the story of a man’s obsession and torture of another man. Not what I was expecting. I think one of my bigger problems (along with the graphic violence and rape) is I don’t understand this storyline in the greater context of Claire’s journey. I had actually recommended the show to my mom and her friends and after the last episode I immediately called her and told her to still watch the show but to not watch the final two episodes and I would just tell her what happens. After I told her she asked me “why/what was the point?” of the violence and rape and I had to tell her “that’s the thing. I don’t know.” Neither of us are prudes, I have recommend to her shows like Dexter, The Wire, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, etc. which deal with violence and I have even seen worse sexual assaults on screen (Mysterious Skin and Irréversible) but, to me, the sexual assaults in those films were the crux of the story and I understood the point of showing them as they were presented but as I was watching this I literally said out load “what the F*** am I watching?" It just made no sense to me in terms of the show and the only takeaways I had were rape is horrible (duh) and the strong undercurrent of homophobia where, once again, the sadistic character in a series has gay tendencies. Now I’m sure book readers can expand upon a key theme that I’m missing but from I saw on the show, it missed the mark.

Edited June 6, 2015 by double-elvis

[Athena]

Isn't there a thread in these forums where you can ask questions of the book readers? I would suggest that anyone who is on the fence about coming back for a second season because of a particular fear, ask a book reader. That way you can maybe have you concerns alleviated without being completely spoiled.

 

The thread is here and I have pinned it for the hiatus. In general, the book readers have been very good about only answering what is asked and I myself can answer some questions. This thread uses spoiler tags so you only will be spoiled on what you want to be.

[rhiamon]

Okie dokes. 

I have to say that was really, really difficult to watch. And I kind of have a cast-iron stomach for these sort of things, and I had to watch it with my hands over my eyes, but peeking kinda the last two episodes. I am glad that I discovered the show, (and now I have 8 books to start to tackle), and I am intrigued to see where season two will take us. 

 [...]

I do hope that there'll be others to chat with when it comes on (since a lot of ya'll seem to be leavin')

It was difficult to watch indeed, but agree - very glad I discovered the show (even if I was a late joiner) and I for one will be here for season 2. Although between the reactions to the latter part of this season and the fact that so many are taking on the books during hiatus it seems I might have to resign to a pretty lonely existence in the non-books threads...

[Daisy]

It was difficult to watch indeed, but agree - very glad I discovered the show (even if I was a late joiner) and I for one will be here for season 2. Although between the reactions to the latter part of this season and the fact that so many are taking on the books during hiatus it seems I might have to resign to a pretty lonely existence in the non-books threads...

 

 

Dinna fasth yourself. I am only reading book 1 :)  We can sit together and be unspoiled for season two. 

we can be be lonely together. (that sounds wrong but ya ken me meaning, right? )

[bearcatfan]

I'm wondering if others try to stay away from any spoilers or do you read articles that lead up to the episodes that may give a glimpse of what will occur? I've read the current articles discussing season 2 and I've been careful not to say anything in here. That can be difficult at times.

[ganesh]

I'm completely unspoiled. I even before the show first aired. I think my viewing experience is really, really different as a result. 

[rhiamon]

I was completely unspoiled before first watch too, and actually only realised there was a book series when I came in here. Still unspoiled for S2 as well, though Google Now seems to be determined to trip me up!

[nara]

I was unspoiled for the first few episodes. Then I read something about the male lead being sexually assaulted, but I did not know if it happened prior to the start of the series timeline (for example, when Jamie was first flogged ) or would happen at some point in the 8 books. Obviously, I now know the answer to that question. I was also spoiled on a future event because I made the mistake of looking at the book spoilers thread. What I read annoyed me, so I really try to avoid spoilers now. That's difficult, because it means I cannot read many articles and have to try to skip comment sections. However, I learned from Game of Thrones that the show started pissing me off once I read the books and realized some of the idiotic changes that were being made for the show. I enjoy shows so much more when the unfold without any expectations on my part, so I'm trying to avoid any other spoilers.

[bearcatfan]

It sounds like most try to remain unspoiled. I was wondering because I see articles all the time. Being spoiled doesn't bother me anymore and doesn't detract from my enjoyment but I realize that this isn't true for everyone. I do admit that I'm very happy there was no widespread internet or social media back in 1980. The audible gasp when Darth Vader told Luke he was Luke's father was great. That could never happen now.

 

It's probably a good thing that I'll be moving to the book thread soon. I've caught myself in posts revealing things that I've read in articles, luckily before I hit "post reply."

[rhiamon]

Some shows I don't mind being spoiled on, but Outlander is definitely the type of show where I feel like knowing what's coming really takes away from my enjoyment of the story (even weekly previews).

I'm getting really paranoid of everything though! Especially since I just went to the Ask the Outlanders thread the other day thinking it was safe but still managed to see something I wish I hadn't which wasn't behind spoiler tags. I guess it's no book talk episode threads only from now on!

[Athena]

I'm getting really paranoid of everything though! Especially since I just went to the Ask the Outlanders thread the other day thinking it was safe but still managed to see something I wish I hadn't which wasn't behind spoiler tags. I guess it's no book talk episode threads only from now on!

 

Aww. I'm sorry that happened. I do read the thread, get reports, and go in there to tag when some of the posters forget to tag non-show information. However, I can't be on here every hour and I'm the only one who does the book tagging. I really hope it hasn't scared you off from that thread.

 

The book and spoiled posters do not mean to spoil. We find the plots from these books tend to bleed into one another more than Game of Thrones/Song of Fire & Ice for example.

 

If you have any questions about the books, please feel free to PM me and I'll help with making sure you're not too spoiled. Thank you.

[rhiamon]

Aww. I'm sorry that happened. I do read the thread, get reports, and go in there to tag when some of the posters forget to tag non-show information. However, I can't be on here every hour and I'm the only one who does the book tagging. I really hope it hasn't scared you off from that thread.

 

The book and spoiled posters do not mean to spoil. We find the plots from these books tend to bleed into one another more than Game of Thrones/Song of Fire & Ice for example.

 

If you have any questions about the books, please feel free to PM me and I'll help with making sure you're not too spoiled. Thank you.

Athena, I actually do think you're doing a fantastic job with protecting us from accidental spoiling! Thanks for all your efforts. I think I just checked the thread too soon after the most recent postings.

[Daisy]

just a question (I don't know where to post this) - 

Can there be a thread for Season 2 speculation for non book readers? I'd love to talk about what may happen... but i don't read books. 

(giggles) - these ones I should specify. 

[Athena]

just a question (I don't know where to post this) - 

Can there be a thread for Season 2 speculation for non book readers? I'd love to talk about what may happen... but i don't read books. 

(giggles) - these ones I should specify. 

 

These are the drones This is the thread for you: Speculation without Spoilers. It was pushed to the second page.

[Daisy]

 

These are the drones This is the thread for you: Speculation without Spoilers. It was pushed to the second page.

LOL thank you kindly, Athena :)

[magdalene]

One thing that bothered me too about the episode, in addition to all the rape and porn was Claire actually having the gall to forgive Jamie for being raped.   Because when you are raped you need be forgiven for it by an extra-special snow flake like Claire. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by magdalene

[nara]

One thing that bothered me too about the episode, in addition to all the rape and porn was Claire actually having the gall to forgive Jamie for being raped.   Because when you are raped you need be forgiven for it by an extra-special snow flake like Claire. 

Can you please clarify to which scene and or dialogue you are referring?  I don't remember this (and frankly, this is not an episode I want to re-watch looking for stuff!).  Thanks!

[Avaleigh]

Damn, I wish there was a catch all thread for all of season 1. I recently watched the entire season and enjoyed a lot of it. There was plenty to snark on but all in all it was entertaining and surprisingly engaging at times. 

 

This episode definitely shocked me. I'd heard that there was some sort of rape that was controversial and I was thinking that people were talking about the first scene where Jamie is brutally sodomized. I didn't realize that there was worse to come. It chilled and disturbed me to the bone with the dawning, horrible realization that this twisted demon of a man thinks he's being fucking romantic. The way he looks at his "masterpiece" and looks at Jack's mutilated back with fascination--that was some supremely evil shit. I haven't been so disturbed by a villain in a long time. 

 

Oh hell, and the way Jamie describes it as Jack "making love" to him because he doesn't know how else to phrase it and doesn't seem to understand that he was still being raped and violated even if he felt pleasure and had an orgasm. My heart broke for Jaime the way he seemed almost eager to return the kiss. All he was thinking was that it was better to kiss the guy and give in to him bodily rather than be physically tortured. Horrific. Like, I felt unclean after watching. 

 

Re: rape in general on this show prior to this episode--to me it was almost comical how many times Claire was nearly raped. And then even after having x amount of close calls with rape you have these people who just think nothing of having sex on the side of the road like there aren't English soldiers hanging around or something. Stuff like that I just did not understand.

 

The voiceover on this show is not my favorite. There were multiple times when it made me roll my eyes. Oh and I totally wanted this woman to get over herself when she said that the worst thing for Frank would be if she'd run away with another man as opposed to her being hurt, sick, or dead. She actually repeats this sentiment more than once, lol, I can't even. 

 

I'm in for the next season but it really is half comedy for me. I don't know how else to describe it.

 

I do know that I'm most interested in the story when Dougal is more of a focus. He was a character who turned out to be a surprise favorite for me. I thought I wouldn't like him after he attempted to assault Claire but I've kind of just had to hand wave it away the way that Claire seems to have. I didn't like how they left the whole thing with Geillis in the air. (Or maybe I missed something that gave us clarification on what happened there in the end.) 

[Athena]

Damn, I wish there was a catch all thread for all of season 1. I recently watched the entire season and enjoyed a lot of it. There was plenty to snark on but all in all it was entertaining and surprisingly engaging at times.

 

Hello! There are in fact two threads on S1, one for book readers and one for no book talk here. The latter was on page two of the main forum because it's been a couple months since the finale.

[Avaleigh]

Thank you, I don't know how I missed that!

[LadyArcadia]

Late to the party, but just binge-watched Season 1. 

 

One thing that struck me was in the beginning of the season, Jamie and Claire were discussing his scars and the horse (keeper?) knowing that he'd been flogged. For me, what he says there has significant meaning to this episode.

 

(paraphrasing).  "It's one thing to know it, but seeing it is something else."

[TaurusRose]

Jamie is a grown man who was living in the stable - he's heard it all. And I believe he would know and use coarser language. He's not a wig-wearing prissy British fop. Plus he hangs around the crudest guys on the show.

Regarding the wedding night: There's no way to prove a marriage was consummated without eyewitnesses when the bride is not a virgin. The men hung around to live vicariously through Jamie. They were cheering him on because it was his first time. I really don't believe that any of those Scots would sell Jamie out. How would they prove they didn't have sex?

Well, that's really not the point is it? Claire and Jamie were presented with a marriage contract. The terms for it to be legal, valid and binding was that it be consummated. Neither Claire or Jamie are going to lie about sealing the deal, nor should they have. Claire did have a choice. She chose doing whatever it took not to be in BJR's presence again. I certainly don't blame her.

 

...but this just made me feel as dirty, and ashamed, and hopeless as Jamie, the revulsion would not go away.

Which I believe was exactly the point. Something very bad happened to a wonderful, heroic young man and it's going to inform who he is, how he deals with things and interacts with people (especially those closest to him) for a very long time. This is going to test the mettle of Jamie and Claire's love and commitment. This is going to have consequences. This is going to have an impact on their intimacy, which has been a very important part of their relationship, and if I hadn't seen for myself exactly what happened to Jamie, I might not be able to totally understand why he's so messed up and how this is going to haunt him for months, maybe years, to come.

 

On GoT a beloved character was raped.

YMMV on this one. Sansa Stark has never been beloved by me. Actually, I've never cared for the character because she was silly, self-absorbed and a liar. I never understood where this sudden love for SS came from because IMO it didn't exist until she was raped by the mad man she was forced to marry.

 

I am all up for discussing the episode, criticisms are fine. What I object to (and this is not directed at any comment in particular) is the underlying implication in some of the comments that those who did like the episode and the series as a whole are weirdos who are into torture porn. That's what happens when you use loaded words like that. Nor in my opinion does it really lend to actual discussion about the show. Are we really talking about the show in this thread or are we talking about our reactions to the show? And I think real valid criticisms to the show are getting lost in the "Oh my God, how dare they show this on TV," reactions.

All of this.

 

One thing that bothered me too about the episode, in addition to all the rape and porn was Claire actually having the gall to forgive Jamie for being raped. Because when you are raped you need be forgiven for it by an extra-special snow flake like Claire.

I wish people would stop using the word "porn" to describe what happened here. It's not an accurate use of the word. I was neither sexually aroused nor titillated by what was happening to Jamie, and I certainly don't think that was the intent. I think it's a safe bet to say neither was anyone else here. This was horrific. This was pain and degradation. This was beyond sad. As for Claire forgiving Jamie, I think Claire would have said anything to reach Jamie at this point, to help him move past his guilt, humiliation and despair, even for a moment.

Edited April 18, 2016 by taurusrose

[piequinn35]

I just finished watching s1 yesterday and I was shocked, can't believe they did that :o

damn this show is amazing :)

[Marigny]

I feel like I need to go see a therapist after this episode.