S02.E02: Not In Scotland Anymore

[Athena]

Life in Paris is not without trials as Jamie struggles to triumph over his traumas. A fortunate meeting with Prince Charles presents opportunities.

This is the No Book Talk episode thread. Book Talkers, your thread is here. For more information about posting in the Outlander forum, read our new FAQ.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I can't believe I'm the first....Thought someone else certainly would have watched and commented before me.  Oh well, here goes.  Just watched it, so initial thoughts on this one (may be out of order):

• The time jump from the first ep was a little abrupt for me.  I realize there is (apparently) a lot of ground to cover, but we last left our intrepid heroes on the docks, and now here they are ensconced in Parisian finery.  I needed a montage or something...
• I love Murtaugh!  I was not in the 'love Murtaugh' camp last season.  Yes, I liked him, but didn't just love the old codger.  Well, I love him now.  He said everything in this ep I wanted to say.  And why don't they listen to him?  "Cut off the head of the snake."  Yes!  Then later, "Not to late to slit his throat".  Thank You Uncle Murtaugh!  I truly believe that The World would be a better place if we all just listened to Murtaugh.
• Poor Claire.  Poor Jamie still with the PTSD.  I realize that the portrayal is probably pretty realistic, but then again, we are watching a show where a woman traveled through time, so.....can we just get with the sexy times already?  How long is this going to last?  I thought maybe by the end of this ep, but nope. 
• Was the whole leg waxing honeypot thing supposed to be funny?  Cause I didn't really think so.  I know it provided a good deal of needed exposition - I just think we could have gotten it in a way that included more Jamie.  
• Now about my Poor Claire - there she is with all those horny pregnancy hormones, went through all that pain getting a thorough wax job, and still can't get any.  Poor Claire.   
• The King was younger than I expected.
• The Bonnie Prince did not come off well at all.  Don't know if that's what he was like IRL, but here - well, let's just say again that the World would be a better place if we all just listened to Uncle Murtaugh.
• Claire, honey, carry a sharp dagger around in your garter from now on.  And at the next opportune moment, stick it in the Duke's side and give it a good twist.  Then just walk away.  There's no CSI back then.  In a crowd, they could never pin it on you.
• Loved, loved, LOVED Claire's outfits!
• Master Raymond's shop was straight out of Harry Potter.  I LIKED it.

[nara]

First of all, OMG Blackjack is alive and there's another Randall!  Why couldn't they have made sure he was dead when they rescued Jamie?  That's going to come back and bite them big time.  Alex Randall seems nice enough, but who knows?  Is it just me or does the actor resemble Tobias a little?  I'm surprised that they missed the opportunity to give Tobias a triple role, but that might be hard if both brothers have to be in the same scene eventually.

 

This episode provided some much needed levity to the show.
1) it was a minor line, but the idea of RENTING dildos made we gag!  TBH, I  didn't know they had them back then.
2) How much do I love Louise de Rohan?  I thought the waxing scene was hilarious, especially her lack of modesty and the way she kept hitting that man.  But why would a man be waxing her?
3) "Your honeypot is bare" made me laugh out loud.  I may have to start using that term on the rare occasion when I refer to my lady parts.
4) Jamie and Murtagh's reaction to Claire's dress was adorable.  I like the dress when she was walking down the stairs, but the front part needed to be stiffer, IMO.  It seemed to be gaping open too much--or maybe that was the point?  Or maybe it would have looked different on a curvier woman than Caitriona, who's very slender.  Either way, let the clothes porn begin!
5) I liked the appearance of Anneliese, Jamie's old girlfriend, but I hope they are not trying to set up a new triangle now that Frank and Loaghaire are out of the picture.  She certainly still seems interested in him.
6) Was watching the king go to the bathroom really a thing for courtiers?  Yuck!  I assume that parritch will cure the king's constipation and Jamie will be his new favorite.  They'd better tell Murtagh soon about why he's suffering in the French court.
7) The French minister with a shoe fetish!
8) what was up with the lady with her nipples hanging out?  Was that really the style?  it looked painful.
They have definitely set up Paris as the home of debauchery!

 

I thought Mary Hawkins looked a little like Fairuza Balk as Cecile in Valmont.  Similar situation too with being forced to marry a wealthy, older man. 

 

I'm glad that they made Murtagh more talkative this season.  "Lard bucket and Egg Head!"  (I guess last season they had to spread lines among Murtagh, Rupert, Angus, and Willie)  I hadn't thought of simply killing Charles Stuart.  But if Jamie didn't kill Blackjack when he rescued Claire, I cannot see him killing a man who's done him no wrong.

 

I liked that Jamie and Claire have not been able to have sex.  That is very realistic given the trauma he's faced and I'm glad they didn't gloss over it.  BTW, why didn't she give him the medicine she picked up from Maitre Raymond to help him sleep (after the honeypot discussion)?

I'm surprised that Compte ST. Germain was not at Versailles.  I expected him to end up being the king's or the minister's close confidant -- just to make it that much harder for Jamie and Claire.

 

BTW, how glad am I that Claire is able to make friends in addition to enemies?  Louise and Raymond seem like good friends to have.

 

On a side note, I had assumed that Charles Stuart would be younger, but perhaps I am mistaken.  Off to wikipedia!

Edited April 17, 2016 by nara

[maraleia]

Alex- I can't believe you didn't say anything about the nipple dress in your recap. Also, the year is 1744 not 1745.

[ganesh]

Is it overly critical for me that this episode was high comedy? The French Minister of Finance had a massive foot fetish, and Jamie threw him in the lake, and then it was nbd. 

 

Did women wax back then? Those scenes were hilarious.

 

I really liked that they were like, "this is Charlie? oh ffs. Yeah, no this isn't going to work." What a jerk. 

 

Interesting that there was v/o from Claire re: broad strokes about the French Revolution. 

Edited April 17, 2016 by ganesh

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Oh, Claire. You know you have to tell Jamie the truth or he will just be angry when he finds out that you kept it from him!

 

I like Claire's new friend Master Raymond and I liked that he immediately took her in as a friend because they both dislike Saint Germaine. I actually thought that Jamie was going to ask Claire for a constipation cure and that would be how Jamie ingratiated himself to the king, so it was nice to see that he already had the answer.

[Daisy]

We seriously need a WWMD: What Would Murtagh Do. Honestly. And the beautiful thing is, you don't think about it at all (I mean I never certainly thought about it until Murtagh said it: Why don't we just kill the Pretender? - but I think Jamie's point was very fair - kill him, and James would be more gung-ho to sit on the throne of England).  

 

I like how both Murtagh & Claire are both helping Jamie heal. When they were swordfighting, and Murtagh's blade was ever so close to Jamie's heart and he was whispering, "fight it, fight it." I truly got the sense what he was actually telling Jamie to do, was to fight despair and his thoughts of suicide. (I really doubt that even with the baby on the way, Jamie's not thinking about wanting to die or that he at least wanted to die). Claire helping him to sleep, was very sweet as well. I am very curious if Claire knows the true nature of the nightmares - or just that Jamie is having them. (I have to say, the beginning of the episode was really ooh, then NOO! then ewww... not the best thing to see when having breakfast). but if he's still seeing Randal everytime he touches Claire.... I wonder (just a thought), if/when she finds out the true nature of the nightmares, if she'd... reverse the reverse psychology? Does that make sense?

 

I am liking the aspects of France a lot. the Duke made me so mad, and I am reallly curious of what he actually knows. his last poop-eating grin makes me wonder if he didn't run straight to BJR the minute the petition was finished.

 

And Claire - you better as all heck tell Jamie, BJR's alive.

 

(still on the baby Claire mentioned last episode is #2. Claire's totally showing a lot more than she did in modern day Scotland).  

[ganesh]

Forget it. I answered my own question.

Edited April 17, 2016 by ganesh

[Kate47]

This might be an unpopular opinion (and I considered putting it in that thread instead) but I kind of disliked Claire in this episode. She just moves through a different time period with all these high fashion dresses like she was born to do this, and all her outfits have a 1940's nod to them and nobody blinks twice. I like a lady with confidence, but something about her in these huge outfits just rubbed me the wrong way.

[iMonrey]

Is Mary Hawkins someone we're supposed to know? A quick Wikipedia search on her turned up nothing.

[nara]

This might be an unpopular opinion (and I considered putting it in that thread instead) but I kind of disliked Claire in this episode. She just moves through a different time period with all these high fashion dresses like she was born to do this, and all her outfits have a 1940's nod to them and nobody blinks twice. I like a lady with confidence, but something about her in these huge outfits just rubbed me the wrong way.

Can you please share more details about the 1940's nod? I didn't notice, so I am curious about what you saw.

[Kate47]

Sure! I am not a fashion expert, so I will not be getting super technical. The first outfit she's wearing, when she goes to Master Raymond's, the lines of that seemed like they were more from Coco Chanel's closet than Marie Antoinette's. It felt like she took a 1940's riding outfit and grafted it onto a 1740's dress. And then that red dress, whoo. It's crazy that she stood out so much in a court with pierced nipple dresses, but the neckline on that thing was nuts. I liked that she wasn't showing the obvious parts of her breasts but the dress still felt a bit risqué. She was obviously wearing no corset, and every other lady there was corseted within an inch of her life (minus nipple swan lady), so that was a sign of Claire's 1940's sensibilities as well. It's like she's saying "I have to be here but I don't have to look the same as everyone else" and it's Claire, so obviously she's gotta stand out, but for some reason I didn't like it. Your mileage may vary, though, and I can't quite put my finger on why it irritates me, so take my opinion with a large grain of salt.

[Andorra]

Kate47

Terry explained in the TCA panel why she took her inspiration for Claire's wardrobe from the 40s. It's her time and her fashion sense and it also highlights, that she is still a fish out of water. She si supposed to never look quite right. Not in a sense that would get her burned on the stakes like last season, but just enough to irritate people. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Oh, Claire. You know you have to tell Jamie the truth or he will just be angry when he finds out that you kept it from him!

No Kidding!  I couldn't believe she would even contemplate NOT telling him?  Cause...uh...when has lying to each other ever done them any good?  

 

I like Claire's new friend Master Raymond and I liked that he immediately took her in as a friend because they both dislike Saint Germaine. I actually thought that Jamie was going to ask Claire for a constipation cure and that would be how Jamie ingratiated himself to the king, so it was nice to see that he already had the answer.

I don't know...there was still something that seemed....not quite on the up and up with Master Raymond.  Maybe it was just me.

 

We seriously need a WWMD: What Would Murtagh Do. Honestly. And the beautiful thing is, you don't think about it at all (I mean I never certainly thought about it until Murtagh said it: Why don't we just kill the Pretender? - but I think Jamie's point was very fair - kill him, and James would be more gung-ho to sit on the throne of England).   

WWMD.  I love this.  :D.  Although actually, killing BPC was one of the first things I thought of after the first ep.  And how could they possibly know it would make James more gung ho to sit on the throne?  Isn't he still in Italy?  Who knows what he's thinking.  Maybe all that's just wishful thinking by some older clan leaders trying to relive the 'glory days'.

[ganesh]

I'm not really a fan of just going back in time to kill people because it probably will make more problems for you, but I'm at a loss at how BPC "leads" the Scots against the Brits. 

 

Honestly, Murtagh and Jamie are well respected enough that they could just go back and say, "this guy doesn't give two shits about you. he thinks god wants him to be king and doesn't know fuck all about the highlands or our way of life."

 

Jamie's plan seems to be delay, delay, delay, but that's only going to work for so long. 

[GrailKing]

Too bad they didn't have recording devices back then.

Going back to kill some one would open up a lot of holes ( worms), how would Jamie and Claire know they wouldn't just vaporise in front of each other?

But don't the Scots like the Brits believe their King speak as the voice of God for them?

I like Murtaguh's to BPC have you ever been to or talk to anyone in Scotland, why should they die for you.

[nara]

I'm not really a fan of just going back in time to kill people because it probably will make more problems for you, but I'm at a loss at how BPC "leads" the Scots against the Brits. 

 

Honestly, Murtagh and Jamie are well respected enough that they could just go back and say, "this guy doesn't give two shits about you. he thinks god wants him to be king and doesn't know fuck all about the highlands or our way of life."

 

Jamie's plan seems to be delay, delay, delay, but that's only going to work for so long.

My understanding is that he claims some kinship with the Scots due to the Stuart dynasty having been kings of Scotland for centuries. The rest is "the enemy of my enemy" at play, plus probably promising the Scots some improved status in Britain and some more autonomy for the clans.

[Daisy]

Too bad they didn't have recording devices back then.

Going back to kill some one would open up a lot of holes ( worms), how would Jamie and Claire know they wouldn't just vaporise in front of each other?

But don't the Scots like the Brits believe their King speak as the voice of God for them?

I like Murtaguh's to BPC have you ever been to or talk to anyone in Scotland, why should they die for you.

 

 

I felt that was very poignant. and maybe it's the english literature major in me - but i liked the word should - as in, they would if it was a cause they believed in. but they need to know why. but just don't go assumin' that they'll be all glad about it. 

 

someone mentioned it - BPC - not so...impressive. 

[Skyler Durden]

People give Game of Thrones a lot of shit for all the rape, but I think, rape-for-rape, this is the rapiest fucking show on TV. That finance guy was gross, and playing that scene for humor doesn't give it a pass. Actually, almost all of the humor rang really flat for me. The entire waxing scene especially made me roll my eyes and left me cold. I am guessing that Louise is a huge book favorite; something about the way she burst onto the scene screamed of fan service. 

 

Mostly, I just came to say that that boy playing Jack's brother looks just like him. Either that kid is actually related, or that was some of the best look-alike casting I have ever seen.

[greekmom]

First, I want the modern day version of Claire's dress!

Second, I agree with the poster above who said that Mary Hawkins looks like Fairuza Balk in Valmont.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I'm not really a fan of just going back in time to kill people because it probably will make more problems for you, but I'm at a loss at how BPC "leads" the Scots against the Brits. 

 

 

Going back to kill some one would open up a lot of holes ( worms), how would Jamie and Claire know they wouldn't just vaporise in front of each other?

 

If they managed to stop Culloden (which we know they don't, but whatever...) how would they know they wouldn't just vaporize right in front of each then?  They are still changing history.  Could it be any worse by knocking off BPC?  They don't know what holes (worms) they are opening up by even trying.  Might as well go big or go home.  But then, I don't think either of them is familiar with quantum physics and even Claire was well before Star Trek (was Buck Rogers also later than 1945?), so...

 

People give Game of Thrones a lot of shit for all the rape, but I think, rape-for-rape, this is the rapiest fucking show on TV. That finance guy was gross, and playing that scene for humor doesn't give it a pass. 

This is something I've been thinking a lot about recently, especially in light of how they are playing Jamie's PTSD, extended version.  What concerns me is that, knowing how rapey this show is, it's only a matter of time before Claire is seriously assaulted again, or perhaps another woman.  Then will their PTSD get the same consideration as Jamie's?  Or will it all be smoothed over and forgotten within an episode?  If that happens, I'll be very upset.  Because the basic message would be that Jamie's man pain is so much worse than any woman's rape experience.  But maybe (hopefully) I'm getting ahead of myself and this will not come to pass.  

[sacrebleu]

 

Is Mary Hawkins someone we're supposed to know?

IDK-- but I assumed that maybe she was mentioned in the pilot as an ancestor to Frank. (My memory is not that great) Is Frank a direct descendant of BJR- or is it possible that Mary and BJR's brother end up together and they are the great-great- etc of Frank?

Edited April 18, 2016 by sacrebleu

[Daisy]

People give Game of Thrones a lot of shit for all the rape, but I think, rape-for-rape, this is the rapiest fucking show on TV. That finance guy was gross, and playing that scene for humor doesn't give it a pass. Actually, almost all of the humor rang really flat for me. The entire waxing scene especially made me roll my eyes and left me cold. I am guessing that Louise is a huge book favorite; something about the way she burst onto the scene screamed of fan service. 

 

Mostly, I just came to say that that boy playing Jack's brother looks just like him. Either that kid is actually related, or that was some of the best look-alike casting I have ever seen.

 

 

 

well, to be fair, I don't know if the Finance Minister's scene was supposed to be found funny. Claire looked flat out disgusted, and she was trying to push him off, but at the same time not offend him because of  the mission. but that's where millage varies I guess. 

[terrymct]

IDK-- but I assumed that maybe she was mentioned in the pilot as an ancestor to Frank. 

 

That's a pretty good guess.  She's definitely going to end up to one or the other of the Randall brothers.  I suspect that she'll be sweet on the nice brother and Black Jack will somehow end up with her.

[GrailKing]

Sure! I am not a fashion expert, so I will not be getting super technical. The first outfit she's wearing, when she goes to Master Raymond's, the lines of that seemed like they were more from Coco Chanel's closet than Marie Antoinette's. It felt like she took a 1940's riding outfit and grafted it onto a 1740's dress. And then that red dress, whoo. It's crazy that she stood out so much in a court with pierced nipple dresses, but the neckline on that thing was nuts. I liked that she wasn't showing the obvious parts of her breasts but the dress still felt a bit risqué. She was obviously wearing no corset, and every other lady there was corseted within an inch of her life (minus nipple swan lady), so that was a sign of Claire's 1940's sensibilities as well. It's like she's saying "I have to be here but I don't have to look the same as everyone else" and it's Claire, so obviously she's gotta stand out, but for some reason I didn't like it. Your mileage may vary, though, and I can't quite put my finger on why it irritates me, so take my opinion with a large grain of salt.

So she will influence future fashions most likely seeing she is out of time, and she will have painters adore her no doubt.

I just didn't like the bottom portion way too much, but maybe it's a status thing, wasn't big booties something admired by men back then.

Edited April 18, 2016 by GrailKing

[terrymct]

I'm still confused about the time frame.  They seem to be spending a fair amount of time in France, between getting set up in Jamie's cousin's house, to having an extensive wardrobe made, plus travel between locations, I don't see how Claire is going to make it back to the stones in order to be in the 1940's before her pregnancy is showing.  There have to be two pregnancies or she's gestating an elephant.   

 

I hope they get back to Scotland soon.  France seems to be primarily about dressing up and behaving in ways that would be scandalous back in Scotland (or the 1940's for that matter).  Point made, move this along.

[Miss Slay]

The french should protest.

[AuntieMame]

Kate47...I'm so glad I wasn't the only one that noticed this! In the apothecary scene, the shape of the hat and the shape of the jacket were completely New Look 1947/48 by way of the eighteenth century. The hat especially was veerrry late forties to early fifties and was entirely too simple for the time period portrayed and the social class Claire is supposed to be in. Though that is confounding as well because I don't think a mere wine merchant would be allowed anywhere near the Court of Versailles, one of the most mannered subcultures ever. Remember that this was a place where aristocrats competed to hand the king his hanky while the king was dressing and no changes to the strict ritual were allowed. I however thought the nod to the forties was brilliant and clever.

I loved the eye embroidered on the apothecary's vest. I embroider and the design and work on that vest was stunning, if a bit modern for the period. Does anyone know who is doing the embroidery for this?

As for honeypots and the forests in which they dwell, I believe the only cultures that removed hair like this earlier than now were middle eastern or eastern. Baths were a rarity at the court portrayed and sanitary measures in the palace of Versailles were abominable according to my reading......overflowing chamber pots in tiny closets usually miles of corridors from the main action of the court. And you had to have permission to leave the King's presence and sometimes permission from courtiers of a higher rank. Women suffered, men availed themselves of quiet outdoor spots whenever possible. The entire place stank to high heaven.

OK, I googled and answered my own question about the costuming. Interesting that the New Look of the post war forties was intended to be stripped down eighteenth century. I'm usually pretty good about echoes across time when it comes to fashion, but I missed this one.

France is fun in the show though.

Oh, and finally, the exiled Stuarts are known to history as kind of nasty, ineffectual men and kings....all of the entitlement of a king and none of the duty....and I say this as a person with Stuart ancestry - not the royal part. The portrayal of Bonnie Prince Charlie was pretty accurate in tone if not in absolute particulars.

Edited April 19, 2016 by AuntieMame

[GrailKing]

When I googled the history of hair removal< the European countries are recent converts namely less then 400 years per a number of sites; as for Rome,Greece,Egypt and middle Eastern countries well before the age of common era.

More for safety and  status.

[terrymct]

When I googled the history of hair removal< the European countries are recent converts namely less then 400 years per a number of sites; as for Rome,Greece,Egypt and middle Eastern countries well before the age of common era.

More for safety and  status.

 

I have a vague recollection that in some parts of the world, hair removal was only done by prostitutes to show that lice and so forth have nowhere to hide and thus it's safer to be with that woman.  Women who weren't prostitutes didn't remove their hair because they didn't have to do so and to be bare would imply that you were a hooker.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

As for honeypots and the forests in which they dwell, I believe the only cultures that removed hair like this earlier than now were middle eastern or eastern. Baths were a rarity at the court portrayed and sanitary measures in the palace of Versailles were abominable according to my reading......overflowing chamber pots in tiny closets usually miles of corridors from the main action of the court. And you had to have permission to leave the King's presence and sometimes permission from courtiers of a higher rank. Women suffered, men availed themselves of quiet outdoor spots whenever possible. The entire place stank to high heaven.

 

When I googled the history of hair removal< the European countries are recent converts namely less then 400 years per a number of sites; as for Rome,Greece,Egypt and middle Eastern countries well before the age of common era.

More for safety and  status.

 

Thank you AuntieMame and GrailKing for the research on this.  This scene really kind of bugged me.  Not that Claire would wax her legs, but the other, more intimate spot really seemed out of character for a British woman (even a progressive British woman) from the 40's.  Heck, even shaving underarms wasn't common across the board in Europe as recently as the 80's.  (Check out some female German singers back in the day.)  

 

I have a vague recollection that in some parts of the world, hair removal was only done by prostitutes to show that lice and so forth have nowhere to hide and thus it's safer to be with that woman.  Women who weren't prostitutes didn't remove their hair because they didn't have to do so and to be bare would imply that you were a hooker.

And...ew....

 

Then again, maybe Louise needed to remove her honeypot hair for that very same reason?  Especially given what would have been the real sanitary conditions AuntieMame outlined.   And if that's true, Jamie actually should have been outraged, not strangely turned on, that Claire waxed there - since he spent time in France/Europe when he was younger and would know about that convention. (I mean, as a man of the 18th century whose 'duty' it was to discipline his wife last Season, I can't reconcile that his wife removing her intimate hair like a common whore would be something he'd just be okay with.)  

[Kate47]

Well, to be fair, Jamie "had to" discipline Claire because of the negative effect her actions had on the rest of the traveling party. Her apology seemed to be enough for him, but Dougal et al needed to know that she had been punished for her transgressions (whether I agree or not is neither here nor there). This honeypot thing is between the two of them and no one else need know about it, so he's probably free to go with his natural inclination on this one.

[nara]

I wonder if we will see a outtake reel with Sam Heughan doing dozens of takes of the honeypot forest lines and not being able to stop laughing.

[terrymct]

Well, to be fair, Jamie "had to" discipline Claire because of the negative effect her actions had on the rest of the traveling party. Her apology seemed to be enough for him, but Dougal et al needed to know that she had been punished for her transgressions (whether I agree or not is neither here nor there). 

 

 

Frankly, Claire needed to be brought back in line because her behaviors time and time again were putting the people around her at risk.  The issue, of course, was in the form that discipline took.

[taanja]

Personally I liked all the French court stuff. Smooth honey pot and all that.

I don't know who that little girl (Mary Hawkins?) was supposed to be but I figure we will find out as the episodes progress.

Loved that red dress Claire was wearing! and those ear rings! Cool!

Unpopular opinion -- I just can't seem to warm up to Jamie. He is so...ineffectual? Wimpy? Little boyish? Claire needs a real man

(Like Dugal) or even Frank. Or...someone. Jamie (and the actor playing him) leaves me cold. I just don't buy the great love story that crosses time and distance spiel they are trying to sell me.

but other than that I am excited to see what happens and how this all plays out.

[AuntieMame]

Nancy Mitford wrote a book about Madame de Pompadour, titled eponymously that gave me some detail (Claire and Jaime are in the court of Louis XV, so I wonder if we're going to see the Pompadour) and I can't remember where I read some of the more lurid details of Versailles and sanitation, but they were hair raising. The waxing seemed anachronistic and prurient to me, even if hair removal was known. This might be why Louise referred to the guy doing the honors as a Turk.

I did think they captured the grand spectacle of Versailles. I could love good political intrigue while trying to change history and I love the treacherous Duke. I just hope they give a little nod to how constricted court society was and how lives and fortunes literally turned on the most seemingly petty things. As a time traveller, it would be very easy to get yourself in trouble due to hubris. Watching some of that happen could be very interesting.

If there are other readers, Tim Powers wrote a different take on time travel, wherein the hapless traveller didn't fall into a niche in society but was broke, homeless and completely lost in the foreign country of the past called The Anubis Gate. I love time travel, which is part of why I'm watching this. I realize that Outlander is about the romance, but imagine if Claire had wandered on the moors for days before anyone found her. I do love the depiction of the 18th century and wish we were getting a little more of the ideas that were fomenting in this time that drive these revolutions they're trying to stop.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Well, to be fair, Jamie "had to" discipline Claire because of the negative effect her actions had on the rest of the traveling party. Her apology seemed to be enough for him, but Dougal et al needed to know that she had been punished for her transgressions (whether I agree or not is neither here nor there). This honeypot thing is between the two of them and no one else need know about it, so he's probably free to go with his natural inclination on this one.

 

 

Frankly, Claire needed to be brought back in line because her behaviors time and time again were putting the people around her at risk.  The issue, of course, was in the form that discipline took.

I didn't mention that event to stir anything up - and trust me I don't want to get started on that crap here.  (Just stop with the "Had to" and "needed to be brought back in line" arguments.)

 

::Deep Breath::

 

I mentioned it because it was clearly used (and defended in the press) as something Jamie would totally do and not see anything wrong with as being a 'man of his time' - ie 18th century Scotland so it was included and justified on the show, by even Jamie himself.  Well, okay.  If that pitiful excuse is supposed to work for that, then as a Man of His Time from 18th century Scotland, (not a Frenchman who may or may not have been more accepting) he should have been rightfully horrified and outraged at Claire waxing off her honeypot.  But he curiously wasn't.  Huh.  Even though it was only "between the two of them and no one else need to know" his "natural inclination" is a very traditional 18th century Highland male.  Who, if the above information is correct, should have thought that only whores removed their pubic hair.  Funny how all that "man of his time" characterization flies out the window when it doesn't serve the current story line.  Pfft.  

[kylies-lips]

Thanks to those that pointed out Claire's fashion sense would be pulling from what she was used in the 1940's. When I saw the scene of her heading out to the apothecary in that hat I was thinking it was out of place. And if you watch the scene people around her are doing little double takes as she walks by. The red dress seemed a bit over the top to me, mainly because of her lack of corset, I was expecting to see some sidebar with the gossiping ladies talking smack about her dress. 

 

But then nipple dress lady showed up, so I guess outfits like that were normal?

 

In the first episode Claire mentioned she had been gone for 2 years, she's experiencing an early pregnancy in this episode and showing a bit. She wasn't showing at all in the first episode. Unless there is some wonky Outlander timing going on here....is the pregnancy Claire has in the first episode a second child? 

 

The dressing of the king was hilarious and gross and from what I've read of the time period totally accurate. Royals had a whole gaggle of folks standing around watching them do everything! 

[Daisy]

 

In the first episode Claire mentioned she had been gone for 2 years, she's experiencing an early pregnancy in this episode and showing a bit. She wasn't showing at all in the first episode. Unless there is some wonky Outlander timing going on here....is the pregnancy Claire has in the first episode a second child? 

 

that's what we're all trying to figure out. 

I'm  thinking it's baby #2. 

or Little Miss Claire was lying, so she wouldn't have to be with Frank. 

[TaurusRose]

...we last left our intrepid heroes on the docks, and now here they are ensconced in Parisian finery. I needed a montage or something...

When J&C met J's cousin (forgot his name) he offered Jamie a percentage of the profits and the use of his home as recompense for watching over his wine business while he was traveling. So, that explains the new digs and meeting a few influential people. The appearance of such a huge wardrobe strains credibility though, since (I'm guessing) it would take a few weeks for Claire to amass so many changes of clothes, but this is entertainment not real life, so I choose to ignore it.

 

Poor Jamie still with the PTSD. I realize that the portrayal is probably pretty realistic, but then again, we are watching a show where a woman traveled through time, so.....can we just get with the sexy times already?

I'm glad they are not rushing Jamie's recovery. He is being portrayed as someone who is gradually recovering physically, but the emotional trauma is going to take more time. Jamie will get there and I'm sure it will be AWESOME when he does.

 

Loved, loved, LOVED Claire's outfits!

I did not. Especially that red dress. The color was beautiful, but it was the singular most unattractive rag Claire has worn.

 

...it was a minor line, but the idea of RENTING dildos made we gag!

The decadence of the French. LOL

 

the Duke made me so mad, and I am reallly curious of what he actually knows. his last poop-eating grin makes me wonder if he didn't run straight to BJR the minute the petition was finished.

I did not like the Duke at all and I agree with you. I hope he's dealt with.

 

What concerns me is that, knowing how rapey this show is, it's only a matter of time before Claire is seriously assaulted again, or perhaps another woman. Then will their PTSD get the same consideration as Jamie's? Or will it all be smoothed over and forgotten within an episode? If that happens, I'll be very upset. Because the basic message would be that Jamie's man pain is so much worse than any woman's rape experience. But maybe (hopefully) I'm getting ahead of myself and this will not come to pass.

Hmmm. I take issue with all of this, so I hope my comments won't come across as snarky. First, I don't recall seeing any ACTUAL rapes except Jamie's. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) There is a lot of violence going on in Outlander; rape/near rape is one example of the violence and not as frequent as the hacking of limbs, stabbings, throat slitting, etc. Second, I abhor "man pain." Pain is pain and doesn't require a gender qualifier. Third, since the rape did not happen to Claire, nor is she likely to subjected to that particular brand of violence, than we have to deal with the aftermath of the physical violation of the MAIN character it did happen to. It would be dishonest of Outlander not to consider how the torture, rape and total capitulation of a man like Jamie will inform his self-esteem, dignity and confidence going forward. It's important to see how his trauma and guilt not only affects him, but also how it impacts his relationship with Claire. What I hope to see is that they regain their intimacy and passion and be the stronger for all that has happened. Anyway, if I were going to be offended by the above comment, it would be because it seems to be playing gender wars with an act of violence, and I don't like that. And finally, I think you are getting ahead of yourself, it would be OTT to have the same couple be victims of sexual assault.

 

Unpopular opinion -- I just can't seem to warm up to Jamie. He is so...ineffectual? Wimpy? Little boyish? Claire needs a real man

Yeah, that's one unpopular opinion. LOL But to each his own.

 

The issue, of course, was in the form that discipline took.

The issue for who? 18th century. That's how they rolled. Honestly, you would think that someone as smart as Claire would use a little tact and restraint so that she wasn't constantly putting those around her in danger.

 

I mentioned it because it was clearly used (and defended in the press) as something Jamie would totally do and not see anything wrong with as being a 'man of his time' - ie 18th century Scotland so it was included and justified on the show, by even Jamie himself. Well, okay. If that pitiful excuse is supposed to work for that, then as a Man of His Time from 18th century Scotland, (not a Frenchman who may or may not have been more accepting) he should have been rightfully horrified and outraged at Claire waxing off her honeypot. But he curiously wasn't. Huh. Even though it was only "between the two of them and no one else need to know" his "natural inclination" is a very traditional 18th century Highland male. Who, if the above information is correct, should have thought that only whores removed their pubic hair. Funny how all that "man of his time" characterization flies out the window when it doesn't serve the current story line. Pfft.

I understand your point and I thought the waxing business was out of touch for the period as well. I thought Jamie was surprised by Claire's hairless state, too, but I figured he dismissed making a big deal out of it because Claire is Claire. I guess you can take either position. At any rate, it's not worth me making a fuss over. I'd rather rag on Claire's wardrobe. Did. Not. Like. It.

Edited April 21, 2016 by taurusrose

[RulerofallIsurvey]

When J&C met J's cousin (forgot his name) he offered Jamie a percentage of the profits and the use of his home as recompense for watching over his wine business while he was traveling. So, that explains the new digs and meeting a few influential people. The appearance of such a huge wardrobe strains credibility though, since (I'm guessing) it would take a few weeks for Claire to amass so many changes of clothes, but this is entertainment not real life, so I choose to ignore it.

 

I understand how Jamie and Claire got to Paris - the bit with the cousin and stuff.  It just seemed to be a 'blink and you missed several months moment for me.  Like you mentioned, the clothes alone would have taken several weeks to complete - not just Claire's but Jamie also got a whole new wardrobe.  For ME and IMO only, it would have been nice to have a montage of scenes of both acclimating a little more.  

 

I'm glad they are not rushing Jamie's recovery. He is being portrayed as someone who is gradually recovering physically, but the emotional trauma is going to take more time. Jamie will get there and I'm sure it will be AWESOME when he does.

As already mentioned, the amassing of wardrobes for both Jamie and Claire would have taken some time especially back in those days, and that's all glanced over in a blink, imo.  Maybe the showrunners didn't think it was interesting enough?  Personally, I would have liked to see both Claire and Jamie at the dressmaker/tailors getting fitted for their new duds.  Since that particular detail didn't exactly follow 'real life' in the show, I don't see why Jamie's recovery from PTSD must.  Except for the drama, of course.  

 

Hmmm. I take issue with all of this, so I hope my comments won't come across as snarky. First, I don't recall seeing any ACTUAL rapes except Jamie's. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) There is a lot of violence going on in Outlander; rape/near rape is one example of the violence and not as frequent as the hacking of limbs, stabbings, throat slitting, etc. Second, I abhor "man pain." Pain is pain and doesn't require a gender qualifier. Third, since the rape did not happen to Claire, nor is she likely to subjected to that particular brand of violence, than we have to deal with the aftermath of the physical violation of the MAIN character it did happen to. It would be dishonest of Outlander not to consider how the torture, rape and total capitulation of a man like Jamie will inform his self-esteem, dignity and confidence going forward. It's important to see how his trauma and guilt not only affects him, but also how it impacts his relationship with Claire. What I hope to see is that they regain their intimacy and passion and be the stronger for all that has happened. Anyway, if I were going to be offended by the above comment, it would be because it seems to be playing gender wars with an act of violence, and I don't like that. And finally, I think you are getting ahead of yourself, it would be OTT to have the same couple be victims of sexual assault.

 

First, I think the near rapes/rapes were much more frequent than the hacking of limbs, etc, but YMMV.

 

Second, I did say, "But maybe (hopefully) I'm getting ahead of myself and this will not come to pass."  And Hopefully, I AM getting ahead of myself.  And none of that will come to pass.  But if it does - and granted, this may or may not be a big IF, but IF it does, then, *I* will not the one playing gender wars with an act of violence.  In fact, that is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of happening on the show.  We shall see....

 

The issue for who? 18th century. That's how they rolled.

No, it's actually not according to several Scottish scholars from the University of Edinburgh on their own 18th century history (and women's rights) that I've read.  But I realize that few people on Outlander forums agree on this.  

 

I understand your point and I thought the waxing business was out of touch for the period as well. I thought Jamie was surprised by Claire's hairless state, too, but I figured he dismissed making a big deal out of it because Claire is Claire. I guess you can take either position. At any rate, it's not worth me making a fuss over. I'd rather rag on Claire's wardrobe. Did. Not. Like. It.

 

I rewatched this episode right before I watched ep 3. And one other thing I thought of - Claire never mentions it on screen, and Jamie doesn't explicitly ask in that scene, but I think Jamie would have a big issue with a strange man seeing Claire's naked genitals.  That is never addressed on the show.  But if this were real life, I fail to see how that would not come up.

Edited April 25, 2016 by RulerofallIsurvey

[Tyro49]

Which # King Louis is this? They don't mention his number; I'm trying to place myself.

[morgan]

Louis 15

[piequinn35]

What was that the queen wearing or not wearing?  lol

Still on episode 2 here...

[Iju]

firstly i would love to note on how correctly the history is. i saw a documentary on versailles and it not only said a lot about the palace but the living state of that time. yes, pooping and peeing wasn't seen as it is now, and people could stand around and watch the king release himself. "toilets" were in the palace as well, but it was much more common for men and women to just choose a corner and let loose as well.

i also love how the show is hesitant using english or french completely, so they switch. i adore versailles (the show) but there has only been 2 french words i can recollect in it. so it was refreshing to see the people of versailles to speak natively.

this is a silly nitpick, but if i see any bathing later on this season, it will be incorrect. the french not only didn't bathe but were literally terrified of water. they only dry washed, patting theirselves with a cloth. thus they smelled as horrendous as the palace. they also lived and died by their wigs, which were never washed either (naturally) so they faced all kinds of infections and such. their breath was horrific as well, so naturally were their teeth. the one thing that they could have kept, though, that wouldn't be too hard is the makeup. it's terribly wrong. everyone has a natural look when everyone at the time had caked on white makeup with blaring red blush, men or women. come on even cartoons get this one right.

and i'm sorry but i almost laughed at claire's reaction on jack being alive. well not her especially but how the show tried to make it such a huge bomb. it was 100% obvious he was, he obviously just looked unconscious. the cows didn't even step on him, he only got thrown on the floor. 

On 07/06/2016 at 5:23 PM, piequinn35 said:

What was that the queen wearing or not wearing?  lol

Still on episode 2 here...

you said this directly on my birthday...lol

[LilJen]

It feels like this show has jumped the shark. They spent the first season in relatively humble clothing, camping a lot, in peril a lot, and ended at the almost-broke estate. . . and now they're wearing fancy silk clothing and hobnobbing with the Paris elite?

Plus Claire's waxing and waning pregnancy looks are taking me out of it completely. She'll look about 7-8 months along in her dressing gown and then loses about 4 months of baby when she's dressed to go out into town. Be consistent, costume people!

Oh, and the final thing: They're walking around their house talking openly about their faking-their-Jacobite-allegiance ploy. Servants all around to listen in and spread that info to anyone who will listen. Seems completely unrealistic and utterly stupid.

Edited June 16, 2019 by LilJen

[foxfreakinmulder]

Oh you naughty French with your rental dilldos and waxing lady bits lol. Noooooo the creature lives. Damn you cattle, you had one job to do and you failed. Damn you to hell! Claire you better tell Jamie sooner than later, he deserves to know. And please stop trying to seduce him, let him heal. The man was raped repeatedly all night long and a couple of weeks ago wanted to die because of his shame. Working as an army field nurse I would think she'd be familiar with men suffering from PTSD, maybe not knowing what it is but seeing the effects of it.

I know I'm in the minority here but I hated the red dress. Those hips were so big Claire had to turn sideways to walk through a doorway, and the neckline no, just no. Plus, it was too short.

I laughed out loud when Jamie shoved the little French man then splash, and next we see him drying his wig which now looked like a frizzy drowned cat bahahaha! 

I don't know why but I was having trouble with the dialogue, I felt like I was missing a lot of what was being said, I couldn't get my cc to turn on. When they were speaking French and the subtitles popped up they didn't stay up long enough for me to read the whole sentence. But I do agree with Murtagh cut the head of the snake off.

France has a lot of vibrant colors where Scotland has beautiful country but was mostly grey and rainy. Now that we know the creature is alive I want Jamie and Claire to stay in France.

I think the WTF nipple dress was only because the starz network demands nudity or sex in every episode. JMO.

[Cdh20]

On 6/16/2019 at 4:48 PM, LilJen said:

It feels like this show has jumped the shark. They spent the first season in relatively humble clothing, camping a lot, in peril a lot, and ended at the almost-broke estate. . . and now they're wearing fancy silk clothing and hobnobbing with the Paris elite?

Plus Claire's waxing and waning pregnancy looks are taking me out of it completely. She'll look about 7-8 months along in her dressing gown and then loses about 4 months of baby when she's dressed to go out into town. Be consistent, costume people!

Oh, and the final thing: They're walking around their house talking openly about their faking-their-Jacobite-allegiance ploy. Servants all around to listen in and spread that info to anyone who will listen. Seems completely unrealistic and utterly stupid.

I hope you didn’t stop watching- I will miss your haikus 😁

[LilJen]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 3:06 PM, Cdh20 said:

I hope you didn’t stop watching- I will miss your haikus 😁

Heh, naw. . . working on the books now and thinking about ponying up for a Starz subscription so I can watch (no cable, just saw season 1&2 on Netflix). I enjoy Scotland/Scots culture far too much to give it up (Clan Gunn!).

[Cdh20]

6 hours ago, LilJen said:

Heh, naw. . . working on the books now and thinking about ponying up for a Starz subscription so I can watch (no cable, just saw season 1&2 on Netflix). I enjoy Scotland/Scots culture far too much to give it up (Clan Gunn!).

We have a joke in Canada that all of us (many generation Canadians) has at least 1 Scottish grandparent! 

Did you end up enjoying the rest of season 2?