S02.E05: Untimely Resurrection

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Possibly, but she indicated to Frank that she had promised Jamie she would forget all about him on move on with her life. That seems to demonstrate that she and Jamie made the deliberate decision that she should go back to her own time, for whatever reason.

Not necessarily. Next week, Jamie could conceivably say that. "If anything happens to me, move on with your life." The thing that struck me was that she was screaming in frustration when we see her, and then doesn't know who won the battle. This probably isn't a show where Time is going to be an active agent though. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

14 hours ago, taurusrose said:

True that and I agree with you to a point.  The argument would work for me if Outlander was about a 21st century woman, or even a woman born later in the 20th century, who went back in time.  Yes, actors have choices when signing onto projects, so if one doesn't want to work on a period piece for whatever reason, TPTB can certainly find someone who will to maintain integrity of the project.  I agree with you that there are instances of "artistic license" at work in Outlander, but again, you're talking about certain behaviors (in this case, drinking while pregnant) during a time period when nobody was concerned about it because they didn't have reason to be.  So...if I'm going to accept the premise of time travel, then I'm going to accept the norms of that time.  YMMV, of course.      

I think there may be some misunderstanding about my original comment: 

On 5/7/2016 at 1:54 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Can't believe they are actually showing Claire (obviously pregnant) drinking so much.

(And if I'm wrong, and there was no misunderstanding, then I apologize in advance).  It's not the fact that Claire, the character is drinking - for all the reasons that have already been outlined about knowledge of effects of alcohol and the time period, etc.  It's not even the actor's choice which surprised me.  (I wouldn't say I was *shocked* - just mildly surprised.)  It's the fact that it's being shown on a  tv show at all.  The best way I can explain this is to liken it to when smoking became really politically incorrect and it was taken off shows - even shows where, for the time period, it would have been the norm.  The most recent example which comes to mind to break that unwritten 'rule' (to not show smoking on air so as not to unduly influence impressionable young people, as I recall) is Mad Men.  But until then, I don't remember it being shown so blatantly in recent years.  I never really watched Mad Men myself, but I do remember it getting some flak in the press for all the smoking (and misogyny, but that's another matter.)  What with all the recent press about the dangers of drinking while pregnant - and the CDC and other health organizations in the US coming out and saying that No amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy - I was surprised that it was being shown so frequently on the show (which although filmed overseas, is a U.S. production.)  That's all.  

And once again, if this was all understood and I was just completely redundant, I apologize.  

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Outlander Lets Claire Embrace Her Inner Time Lord

Even separated by two centuries, Claire has trouble balancing the needs of her two husbands.

[toolazy]

On 5/9/2016 at 1:48 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

For me, it was the fact that the show was *showing* her drinking so much.  Not that people did back then.  Now we know it's not good.  And while, yes, people did, to show it on screen in the 21st century is a little surprising, imo.  And if it's just historical accuracy they are after, why aren't they showing people smoking as well?  Tobacco was pretty popular in the 18th century, was it not?

I have no idea, but it's irrelevant.  The fact is that Claire has always been portrayed as a lady who likes her whisky and, since she is unaware that she is endangering her baby by drinking during pregnancy, she continues to do it.   Why should they change this just to pander to our delicate modern sensibilities?  Back then pregnant women and babies faced far, far more dangers than alcohol. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by toolazy

[RulerofallIsurvey]

6 minutes ago, toolazy said:

I have no idea, but it's irrelevant.  The fact is that Claire has always been portrayed as a lady who likes her whisky and, since she is unaware that she is endangering her baby by drinking during pregnancy, that she continues to do it.   Why should they change this just to pander to our delicate modern sensibilities?  Back then pregnant women and babies faced far, far more dangers than alcohol. 

I fear you misunderstood.  Please read my last post dated 5/12 where I attempted to explain further.  Thank you.  

[Sakura12]

Why was Claire not giving Jamie the biggest reason not to kill Jack yet? If Frank is never born, she doesn't marry him and come to Scotland to go through the stones. Then they will never meet. Would he be willing to risk losing her to get his vengeance? That probably would've made him agree and not be pissed off. It's annoying when writers go for relationship drama instead of logic when neither character is stupid. 

[FoxyA]

The producers make a huge point of being as accurate to the time as possible. I know the costume designer does not use colors that they weren't able to dye themselves( in Scotland ) during that time from local plants. The everyday , lower class people of France are also in muted colors as only the upper classes can afford imported fabrics to wear. Terry Dresbach (costumes)insists that no zippers, velcro or anything else be used that wasn't available at the time ( even though, for the extras, it would save a lot of time).They even made their own buttons & shoes for the French costumes.

You also have to remember that water wasn't necessarily safe to drink at that time ( no separation of sewage, clothes washing). Even children were given a diluted wine almost as soon as they were weaned.

[Nire]

Mad Men also shows pregnant women drinking.  I understand that our social rules havr changed but I don't think like smoking there is the same fear of teens seeing a woman on tv drinking while pregnant and wanting to do that too.  Obviously there are some pregnant teens out there but it's not a huge population that would be influenced by the show negatively.  I also feel like not drinking while pregnant is a pretty well known fact and something that would be brought up at a doctor/midwife appointment.  On the other hand smoking could be viewed as influencing any teen viewers.  I haven't really paid attention to smoking on the show at all.  But I do agree if it's not being shown in the 1940s that's not very accurate.  I have no idea if smoking was common in the 1740s.  

[bettername2come]

My favorite thing about this episode was the king's obvious dislike of Jack. I have so much more respect for him now that we've seen him have some semblance of good character judgment. Or he just dislikes English soldiers. Either way, nicely done. 

My second favorite was the scene on the couch when Jamie gave Claire the spoons for the bairn that he had gotten from Jenny. It was a sweet little scene.

And then the ending. Gosh, that hurt. Poor Jamie. I feel for Claire too, I thought the actress nailed that scene and Claire's feelings, but she could have explained better. Like, when it comes to lifesaving, she and Jamie are pretty much even. Not exactly fair to use that to get him to listen.

[LilJen]

What I can't understand is, back in the episode when Claire told Jamie everything, she didn't include, "And the damndest thing is--you're not gonna believe this--BJR is the direct ancestor of Frank! I mean, how f'ed up is that?" (or if she didn't remember it in that moment, when she *did* remember it, pre-Wentworth, she should have told him). So that this info wouldn't "suddenly" come out and cause a rift. Sigh. Show, you're ticking me off. Claire, you're ticking me off.

Edited June 20, 2019 by LilJen

[Cdh20]

On 6/18/2019 at 6:10 PM, LilJen said:

What I can't understand is, back in the episode when Claire told Jamie everything, she didn't include, "And the damndest thing is--you're not gonna believe this--BJR is the direct ancestor of Frank! I mean, how f'ed up is that?" (or if she didn't remember it in that moment, when she *did* remember it, pre-Wentworth, she should have told him). So that this info wouldn't "suddenly" come out and cause a rift. Sigh. Show, you're ticking me off. Claire, you're ticking me off.

 (Poor Jamie!) I always assumed she told Jamie that in episode 1-11, when she told him she was from the future. And then when she thought Jack died when they rescued Jamie she thought she had changed the future by being there. It was when she met Mary Hawkins in Paris that she remembered her name as Jack's wife on Frank's lineage line, & trouble began.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Cdh20
another thought

[foxfreakinmulder]

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 4:56 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Man, I am with both Claire and Jamie. I have such a visceral reaction every time I see Black Jack Randall on my screen. I'm not sure if that's due to Diana Gabaldon creating such a loathsome character or the acting of Tobias Menzies. Either way, I recoiled when I saw him this week. It's been such a relief not to have him torturing Jamie and Claire this season, but I guess that respite is over.

Poor Mary. The one good thing to come out of being raped was that it cleared the path for her to marry Alex since her old rich fiance couldn't besmirch his name and honor by marrying someone so tarnished and Claire took that away. It was terrible to watch Claire talk Alex out of marrying her, knowing that it would break both of their hearts. It's even worse when you consider that Mary was only attacked because she was with Claire. It did make me wonder how things played out originally in order for Mary to be engaged to the old rich guy and then end up married to Black Jack Randall.

I couldn't believe that Claire even considered burning Mary's letter and letting Alex rot in the Bastille for something he didn't do. Wasn't it just last week that Jamie said that they were doing bad things for good reasons and she questioned him, saying, "Isn't that what all bad people say?" Yet she was willing to consider the possibility of letting an innocent man be imprisoned for not only something he didn't do but to someone he loved.

St. Germain's sliminess made me feel like his wine scheme was intended to bilk Charles and then blame Jamie.

Last week I was willing to give Annalise the benefit of the doubt but after this episode, she needs to GTFO. How dare Claire turn Jamie from a boy into a man? I'd rather see a man act like a man than see someone with a Peter Pan complex.

So what excuse is Jamie going to give Randall for canceling the duel?

On a shallow note, I loved all the garden scenes. I am not even a garden kind of person (my mom is the one with the green thumb) but even I was oohing and aahing over the beautiful scenery.

I 100% agree with everything you said. I puked in my mouth a little when I saw Black Jack walking up and giggled like a little school girl when the King was humiliating him in front of Jamie and Claire. I almost got up out of my recliner to do a little jig lol.

Poor Mary and Alex that was sad.

I loved the garden scenes too. Like you I'm not a garden kind of person. I have a black thumb and killed every plant I've tried to grow and yes even a cactus, so I gave up.

I need to see Jamie end Black Jack so I hope that happens this season, and sooner than later!

[Miss chi chi]

I thought Sam Heughan was amazing in this episode. I love how Jamie went from having a huge weight lifted because he was going to kill BJR to just utter despair that CLAIRE was taking that away from him.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Miss chi chi

[Camera One]

The colours in the garden along with the women's dresses were beautiful.  

I don't know why Claire feels the need to meddle with time.  Jack Randall not dying was clearly a sign that the universe will work itself out and Frank's lineage won't be broken.  Mary had already been through so much, so she deserved a little bit of happiness with Alex.  Since Alex was so sick, it's not a stretch to think that this marriage could bring Mary to Scotland, and Alex would die early, and eventually Mary could marry Jack.  Though I'm surprised they haven't shown Claire's voiceover saying how disgusted she is that Mary would be at the mercy of a husband like Jack.

I'm not sure I like the sources of conflict this season.  It makes me dislike both Claire and Jaime.  I can't blame Claire for stopping the duel, considering Jaime could very well end up dead.  I can see why Jaime would want closure, but I can't sympathesize with him either.

I was glad we finally got to see Jaime at work.  They needed to show that earlier, to establish their new life.  

[gingerella]

On 3/4/2021 at 10:27 PM, Camera One said:

I don't know why Claire feels the need to meddle with time.  Jack Randall not dying was clearly a sign that the universe will work itself out and Frank's lineage won't be broken.  Mary had already been through so much, so she deserved a little bit of happiness with Alex.  Since Alex was so sick, it's not a stretch to think that this marriage could bring Mary to Scotland, and Alex would die early, and eventually Mary could marry Jack.  Though I'm surprised they haven't shown Claire's voiceover saying how disgusted she is that Mary would be at the mercy of a husband like Jack.

I was glad we finally got to see Jaime at work.  They needed to show that earlier, to establish their new life.  

Yes to the above! There are several things that just don't add up here with Claire's obsession in ensuring BJR and Mary have a child to ensure Frank's future existence:

1. Did we ever actually hear or know that Claire has told Jamie that Frank is a descendant of BJR? I cannot remember hearing such a thing. To me, that is a HUGE omission and one that Jamie would likely react strongly to under the circumstances.

2. WHY is Claire trying to change the history regarding Alex and Mary? I said last episode I think, that I could see scenarios where Mary & Alex marry, and Alex dies because they've shown us twice now that apparently he is unwell and perhaps has TB. So it would be perfectly plausible that they marry and Alex dies, and his dying wish is for his brother to marry his widow to make her legitimate and give her a life she deserves (little does he know what a sick psycho his bro is, but I have a suspicion BJR would not abuse his brother's wife because he does seem to care about his brother deeply, go figure). Furthermore, it IS possible that Alex & Mary have a child - or even this rape child - and THAT is the person who's lineage Frank is actually from. None of this negates Frank being born because if Claire does no meddling isn't she allowing history to unfold as it did according to when she was in the 1940's?!? So her meddling makes zero sense and I am disappointed in the writing around this issue because it's a big one if we're to buy into time travel and such.

Also, and not for nothing, Claire's meddling and telling Alex to walk away from Mary and release her so she can have the life she deserves is ridiculous beyond words! She is a rape victim and my money is on her being with child as a result, no matter what Claire says. Clearly Claire was absent the day they covered premature ejaculation in her nursing classes...*insert huge eye roll here* I hope that Alex and Mary marry anyway, because I think that is what should happen if history is to stay its original course.

3. Why have we never seen Jamie working cousin Jared's wine business until 4 episodes in? This makes no sense and should have been shown at least in E03, rather than all the gobbly gook we've endured thus far with Louise and idiotic BPC.

Okay, now that that is off my chest, let me get down to some other issues I have with this episode...

I wondered how on earth Jenny was able to safely send such apparently precious cargo to France, and why on earth would Jamie have valuable family heirlooms shipped there, and risk their loss to theft, when he knows he is going to be going back to Scotland? Put this in the 'makes zero sense' column.

The entire BPC forces Jamie and the Comte into an unsavory business situation just feels silly. Maybe everything surrounding BPC is supposed to feel silly and vapid because BPC IS silly and vapid, but it's working my last nerve right now! I'm quite certain the Comte is going to try to screw over Jamie so why put us all through this tedious nonsense? That said, I'd very much like to have seen more of Cousin Jared's wine business, that was more interesting than this tripe we're being served.

Analiese is the new french Leery, and I don't like her one bit. Why are these two women who pine for Jamie, not able to see that he is a man now, a husband and soon to be a father. He is no longer a reckless boy (well, maybe still reckless at times) and yet these two 'girls' only want to see the 'boy' they once knew. Talk about stunted adolescents. Be off with you Analiese, you french skankette!

The return of BJR literally stunned me. I felt sick seeing his face again and I loathe this character beyond words, as I'm sure most viewers do. I literally had a negative visceral reaction to see his sneery face again and I thought Claire should have simply walked away, and yet, what's that old adage about keeping friend close and your enemies closer? I suppose kudos are in order to Claire for keeping her shit somewhat together, and the entire groveling for the King was a small nugget of goodness after having to see this scumbag again, especially groveling in front of Jamie, that had to hurt. But the entire duel nonsense, I mean come on! Does Jamie not think he could be the one killed, leaving Claire in a time that is not her own, alone with with his child?! I'm sure Murtagh would help her but still, it's reckless yet I give him a pass for also keeping his shit together in public after what this monster has done to him. I also noted with sickness that BJR reached out and touched Jamie's chest, is that that not where he thinks his 'brand' still is? I hope Jamie does get to watch this scum bucket die soon, and when he does I also hope he shows BJR in his dying moments that his brand was removed and is no more. Let that be the last thing this monster sees.

Now on to the gut wrenching scene with Claire begging Jaime to not kill BJR for at least one year so that he and Mary can have the child that will ensure Frank's birth. First, Claire's entire justification is utter hog bollocks! Instead of whinging on about how she has to ensure Frank's birth 'because he has done nothing wrong in all of this', why the fuck doesn't she state the obvious, which is, "Frank has to be born so that we can be married, go on honeymoon to Inverness, and enable me to be at the Stones to come to you, without him none of US happens!" duh. Duh. DUH. D.U.H. It's so obvious and it is a justification that Jamie would likely have been able to get his head around because he loves Claire so much that the thought of them never happening would surely make him see he just has to wait a wee bit before offing Randall. I see it. I'm sure other viewers see it. So why didn't the show writers see this?!?

As for Jamie's reaction, I could feel his anguish, he deserves to see the blood drain from this monster as he dies in what is hopefully painful death. I totally get it, and he has a right to be disgusted by what appears to be his beloved wife choosing his monster over her husband...so much for that lean-to with a roof she built him last episode, it's like she destroyed that in no time flat. Anyway, that scene was difficult to watch because of all the pain he's gone through, and the progress he has recently made in getting back his personal honor. Clearly Claire has never listened to the Hidden Brain podcast on Honor Culture!

Oh, lastly, the Duke's comments about what a dolt BPC is, and how is it that Jamie, who can pick out the best horses, cannot choose better quality people with whom he keeps company was a harbinger of things to come, methinks. The Duke is shady as hell and will turn on anyone at any time, so I'm already sensing he will fuck up Jamie's plans in some profound way with the knowledge that he believes Jamie doesn't really support BPC at all.

 

[Beeyago]

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

“Frank has to be born so that we can be married, go on honeymoon to Inverness, and enable me to be at the Stones to come to you, without him none of US happens!"

Yes!! I agree with everything you said, especially this part!!!  

[Anothermi]

On 3/4/2021 at 10:27 PM, Camera One said:

I don't know why Claire feels the need to meddle with time.  Jack Randall not dying was clearly a sign that the universe will work itself out and Frank's lineage won't be broken. 

I'm glad to know this was obvious.  It doesn't do Claire any favours to see she is a woman with her own mind and then have her blunder around messing up so many things and causing pain and danger to those around her. It is reminiscent of the plucky-damsel-who-always-trips-and-falls-when-being-chased-by-bad-guys trope. 

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

She is a rape victim and my money is on her being with child as a result, no matter what Claire says.

Claire now has history of firmly telling someone something she believes to be true—and being wrong.

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

Analiese is the new french Leery, and I don't like her one bit. Why are these two women who pine for Jamie, not able to see that he is a man now, a husband and soon to be a father. He is no longer a reckless boy (well, maybe still reckless at times) and yet these two 'girls' only want to see the 'boy' they once knew. Talk about stunted adolescents. Be off with you Analiese, you french skankette!

I can't seem to keep these French coquettes separate in my mind. For a while I thought Annalise was the woman who came to the dinner party with Comte St. Germain! Then I finally remembered that other friend of Louise. All I got from the scene with Annalise is that it doesn't take much to make Claire jealous of Jamie and she doesn't think straight when she is. She should just blame all her upsetting demands on baby hormones. That would shut them up. 

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

the entire groveling for the King was a small nugget of goodness after having to see this scumbag again, especially groveling in front of Jamie, that had to hurt

That whole garden scene. Twice! Not once but TWICE! Claire was caught by someone indicating there was someone behind her and when she first turns it's BJR and the next time it's the KING who she just uttered a profane phrase about.  But I agree that I felt some gratification seeing BJR unable to be his arrogant self and get belittled by the foppish French court. 

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

Instead of whinging on about how she has to ensure Frank's birth 'because he has done nothing wrong in all of this', why the fuck doesn't she state the obvious, which is, "Frank has to be born so that we can be married, go on honeymoon to Inverness, and enable me to be at the Stones to come to you, without him none of US happens!" duh. Duh. DUH. D.U.H.

Ex.Act.ly!  Clearly those baby hormones are doing a job on Claire's ability to think. That whole scene made me want to walk away. Jamie seems to be able to explain himself clearly, but Claire is having serious problems doing the same. AND she leans into the honour argument by pointing out she has saved him and he now owes her. And further he is to pay this debt to save that OTHER man in Claire's life. 

The other thing that comes clear to me in that exchange is the Claire has too much that she keep hidden from Jamie. She keeps secret things he should know and shares things he can't do anything about.  SHE makes decisions about what he can handle—much like Frank's treatment of HER when we first met them.

Jamie, on the other hand, seems to be straight with her. Factually and emotionally.

 

7 hours ago, gingerella said:

The Duke is shady as hell and will turn on anyone at any time, so I'm already sensing he will fuck up Jamie's plans in some profound way

Well, we can probably look forward to the Duke having a decisive hand in the failure of the Rebellion! And messing with Jamie's mind in the process. 

[gingerella]

54 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

can't seem to keep these French coquettes separate in my mind. For a while I thought Annalise was the woman who came to the dinner party with Comte St. Germain! Then I finally remembered that other friend of Louise. All I got from the scene with Annalise is that it doesn't take much to make Claire jealous of Jamie and she doesn't think straight when she is. She should just blame all her upsetting demands on baby hormones. That would shut them up. 

So Analiese is the young woman who comes very enthusiastically up to Jaime the first time they are at Versailles and she clearly acts very familiar with him, acting like they were once intimate, or as intimate as one can be considering Jaime thought sex was done the back way, like horses... She says in that first meeting to Claire, “did he win you with jewels” or something vapid like that, and then this time she keeps harping on how reckless and carefree Jaime used to be, and how he was a boy and now Claire has made him into a boring man, you know, with responsibilities and a job and such like (I like when Jaime says that, hehe!). She’s goading Claire and I think it’s to try to make Claire ask her what her relationship with Jaime was about, but Claire’s not falling not her trap so she keeps hammering on, annoying Claire. I loathe her as much as I loath Leery.

54 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

Jamie seems to be able to explain himself clearly, but Claire is having serious problems doing the same. AND she leans into the honour argument by pointing out she has saved him and he now owes her. And further he is to pay this debt to save that OTHER man in Claire's life. 

The other thing that comes clear to me in that exchange is the Claire has too much that she keep hidden from Jamie. She keeps secret things he should know and shares things he can't do anything about.  SHE makes decisions about what he can handle—much like Frank's treatment of HER when we first met them.

Jamie, on the other hand, seems to be straight with her. Factually and emotionally.

This is such a great point! For a man in that time period, Jaime really does express his emotions to Claire in a very clear manner, even when his emotions are nearly unfathomable to describe, like when he tells her what it’s been like since they freed him from Wentworth, he manages to paint a picture that she can access. Yet Claire seems always more selfish in that regard, just throwing something AT Jaime and expecting him to both get it at once AND yield to her wishes. Also, I think Jaime has saved her more than she has him to be honest, and his troubles since he met her have almost all been due to saving her from the messes she’s gotten herself into, unless I’m forgetting something. Granted she helps save his life at Wentworth, but BJR would probably have killed her eventually if he hadn’t saved her so I think they’re even. The fact that she threw that at him was really harsh and seemed out of character for her. Im also still surprised that she’d care that much about Frank being born. If she wanted to stay with Jaime and never go back to Frank, it seems like she’d die naturally in the 1700s, before any issue of Frank being born happened. Then again, I’m not a time traveler aficionado.

Edited April 5, 2021 by gingerella

[SassAndSnacks]

Obviously, I love this story and I adore this show, so not only am I clearly willing to suspend reality and hand-wave A LOT of details in the plot, but I'm also quite good at it to have kept up with 8+ books and 5+ seasons...

But, this story, this episode, and this Claire was tough even for me to take.  

The way she treats Mary and Alex, no.

The way she treats Murtaugh, nope.

The way she treats Frank's future, get out.

The way she treats Jamie, how f-ing dare you, Claire?!

Claire isn't stupid, nor is she unfeeling, nor is she vicious.  So, for me, her time in Paris is kind of a crazy departure from who we've established her to be.  And this where some of the poorest writing comes in, both in the show and the source material. None of this makes any sense.  I know this is no book talk and such, but in several important instances, the show writing improves upon a storyline in the book.  This isn't one of them.  

I'd like to think that this Claire is done intentionally to show how out of her element she is, but I that isn't clear to me from the what I've seen.  

8 hours ago, Anothermi said:

It doesn't do Claire any favours to see she is a woman with her own mind and then have her blunder around messing up so many things and causing pain and danger to those around her. It is reminiscent of the plucky-damsel-who-always-trips-and-falls-when-being-chased-by-bad-guys trope. 

Precisely this.  You said it better!

16 hours ago, gingerella said:

First, Claire's entire justification is utter hog bollocks! Instead of whinging on about how she has to ensure Frank's birth 'because he has done nothing wrong in all of this', why the fuck doesn't she state the obvious, which is, "Frank has to be born so that we can be married, go on honeymoon to Inverness, and enable me to be at the Stones to come to you, without him none of US happens!" duh. Duh. DUH. D.U.H. It's so obvious and it is a justification that Jamie would likely have been able to get his head around because he loves Claire so much that the thought of them never happening would surely make him see he just has to wait a wee bit before offing Randall. I see it. I'm sure other viewers see it. So why didn't the show writers see this?!?

Yes, stupid writing.  It makes no sense and is completely counter to what we know about Jamie, and Claire, for that matter.  Jamie is intelligent and reasonable.  He would absolutely understand this argument.  

16 hours ago, gingerella said:

I wondered how on earth Jenny was able to safely send such apparently precious cargo to France, and why on earth would Jamie have valuable family heirlooms shipped there, and risk their loss to theft, when he knows he is going to be going back to Scotland? Put this in the 'makes zero sense' column.

Yes, this made me roll my eyes.  It felt like a contrivance to give Jamie and Claire a moment to talk about the baby.  They could have just sat and talked about the baby.  Or Jamie could have bought the spoons in Paris.  Or, if the family heirloom component was so important, they could have had Jared leave the spoons for them.  

8 hours ago, gingerella said:

So Analiese is the young woman who comes very enthusiastically up to Jaime the first time they are at Versailles and she clearly acts very familiar with him, acting like they were once intimate, or as intimate as one can be considering Jaime thought sex was done the back way, like horses... She says in that first meeting to Claire, “did he win you with jewels” or something vapid like that, and then this time she keeps harping on how reckless and carefree Jaime used to be, and how he was a boy and now Claire has made him into a boring man, you know, with responsibilities and a job and such like (I like when Jaime says that, hehe!). She’s goading Claire and I think it’s to try to make Claire ask her what her relationship with Jaime was about, but Claire’s not falling not her trap so she keeps hammering on, annoying Claire. I loathe her as much as I loath Leery.

What's the point of Analiese in the grand scheme of things?  Is she intended to widen the wedge between Jamie and Claire, further complicate their already strained relationship?  Is she just some pretty petty foil?  Is she supposed to be merely an insipid French courtier?  Right now, she's annoying.  

8 hours ago, gingerella said:

The fact that she threw that at him was really harsh and seemed out of character for her. Im also still surprised that she’d care that much about Frank being born. If she wanted to stay with Jaime and never go back to Frank, it seems like she’d die naturally in the 1700s, before any issue of Frank being born happened. Then again, I’m not a time traveler aficionado.

This is an interesting point.  To me, the "future" (Claire's past) would almost seen like it isn't a possibility, it isn't a reality.  She plans on staying, so why does Frank being born have any bearing on her new future?  (But then I have to remind myself that she apparently loved him (blech) and so I guess she would want him to have a chance to be alive.)

Finally, Jamie's final words..."Don't touch me, Claire."  Yeah, they really speak to the whole episode.  

[gingerella]

5 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I'd like to think that this Claire is done intentionally to show how out of her element she is, but I that isn't clear to me from the what I've seen.  

Interesting point that this is being done intentionally to show how out of her element Claire is in France. And yet, as @Anothermi pointed out above, she blunders nearly everything she does, doesn't she? She did get Jaime freed from Wentworth but that is more on Murtagh than her IMO. She is usually causing the chaos with her headstrong "I am always right and nobody can tell me what to do" attitude. So is she really all that different in France, or just more so? She is starting to act like the sassy, snotty lady of the manor in France and I feel like she needs to be knocked down a peg or two...or three.

5 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

 

21 hours ago, gingerella said:

First, Claire's entire justification is utter hog bollocks! Instead of whinging on about how she has to ensure Frank's birth 'because he has done nothing wrong in all of this', why the fuck doesn't she state the obvious, which is, "Frank has to be born so that we can be married, go on honeymoon to Inverness, and enable me to be at the Stones to come to you, without him none of US happens!" duh. Duh. DUH. D.U.H. It's so obvious and it is a justification that Jamie would likely have been able to get his head around because he loves Claire so much that the thought of them never happening would surely make him see he just has to wait a wee bit before offing Randall. I see it. I'm sure other viewers see it. So why didn't the show writers see this?!?

Yes, stupid writing.  It makes no sense and is completely counter to what we know about Jamie, and Claire, for that matter.  Jamie is intelligent and reasonable.  He would absolutely understand this argument.  

The thing that resonated with me about your comment @SassAndSnacks, is that in this story, Jamie reacts more like the traditional woman's role, and Claire acts more like the traditional man's role with regards to how they express their affection and emotion towards one another. Jaime has been, from the wedding night onward, much more open, direct, and romantic with how he expresses himself to Claire. Claire, on the other hand, has always reacted to his declarations, his words of affection, and how he expresses his most difficult emotional turmoil. These conversations are my favorite exchanges in this story thus far, and they are what is so captivating about this story, this couple. And yet after reading your above comment I realized that it is Jaime that nearly, if not always initiates these exchanges, not Claire. Claire is nearly, if not always the recipient of these exchanges and she reacts to them, but does not seem to initiate them. I'm thinking of Jaime's "Mo neigheon donn", his "When you kissed me like that", his "like hiding naked behind a blade of grass", and so on. When Claire initiates an exchange it's usually more like a bull in a china shop, and that is the traditional role usually reserved for the man in conversations between couples in stories, is it not? So it's interesting that our male protagonist is the more emotionally intelligent partner, and our female protagonist is the more gut reactive partner in this story...

Quote

5 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Finally, Jamie's final words..."Don't touch me, Claire."  Yeah, they really speak to the whole episode. 

Yeah, this entire exchange was so difficult to watch, wasn't it? The disappointment, the disillusionment, the disgust, that his own wife would ask this of him when she knows what it did/and continues to do to him as a man, as a husband, as a human being, that was gutting to watch.

Edited April 5, 2021 by gingerella

[Cdh20]

22 minutes ago, gingerella said:

 

The thing that resonated with me about your comment @SassAndSnacks, is that in this story, Jamie reacts more like the traditional woman's role, and Claire acts more like the traditional man's role with regards to how they express their affection and emotion towards one another. Jaime has been, from the wedding night onward, much more open, direct, and romantic with how he expresses himself to Claire. Claire, on the other hand, has always reacted to his declarations, his words of affection, and how he expresses his most difficult emotional turmoil. These conversations are my favorite exchanges in this story thus far, and they are what is so captivating about this story, this couple. And yet after reading your above comment I realized that it is Jaime that nearly, if not always initiates these exchanges, not Claire. Claire is nearly, if not always the recipient of these exchanges and she reacts to them, but does not seem to initiate them. I'm thinking of Jaime's "Mo neigheon donn", his "When you kissed me like that", his "like hiding naked behind a blade of grass", and so on. When Claire initiates an exchange it's usually more like a bull in a china shop, and that is the traditional role usually reserved for the man in conversations between couples in stories, is it not? So it's interesting that our male protagonist is the more emotionally intelligent partner, and our female protagonist is the more gut reactive partner in this story...

I see Jamie as the more emotionally vulnerable partner, & this episode had everyone questioning how much she loves Jamie, I mean how could she ask that of him? 
 

My husband always reminds me that Jamie was created by  a woman! 

[SassAndSnacks]

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

The thing that resonated with me about your comment @SassAndSnacks, is that in this story, Jamie reacts more like the traditional woman's role, and Claire acts more like the traditional man's role with regards to how they express their affection and emotion towards one another. Jaime has been, from the wedding night onward, much more open, direct, and romantic with how he expresses himself to Claire. Claire, on the other hand, has always reacted to his declarations, his words of affection, and how he expresses his most difficult emotional turmoil. These conversations are my favorite exchanges in this story thus far, and they are what is so captivating about this story, this couple. And yet after reading your above comment I realized that it is Jaime that nearly, if not always initiates these exchanges, not Claire. Claire is nearly, if not always the recipient of these exchanges and she reacts to them, but does not seem to initiate them. I'm thinking of Jaime's "Mo neigheon donn", his "When you kissed me like that", his "like hiding naked behind a blade of grass", and so on. When Claire initiates an exchange it's usually more like a bull in a china shop, and that is the traditional role usually reserved for the man in conversations between couples in stories, is it not? So it's interesting that our male protagonist is the more emotionally intelligent partner, and our female protagonist is the more gut reactive partner in this story...

Oh, this IS so interesting!  Though he is younger and more "inexperienced," I think he does know more and understand more about love.  He came from a loving family, he was close with his parents, especially his father, and Jenny.  The extended MacKenzies and Frasers may have some questionable internal dynamics, but his immediate family seems to have been very emotive and affectionate.  We don't really know that about Claire.  Was her Uncle affectionate with her?  Did he have a partner from which she could witness interactions?  Where and from whom did she learn about relationships?  We've already seen Frank and her struggle to communicate and emote to each other, falling back to sex as a means of communicating and feeling (not that you don't feel plenty when doing that but...) She is more sexually experienced than Jamie, but does she have more relationship experience?  And not just romantic relationships, but the most formative ones between family and friends?  From what we've seen, Jamie had the more stable, comfortable life surrounded by a loving family and friends growing up and pre-BJR than Claire did.  

And yes, I hang on every word of these conversations.  

6 hours ago, gingerella said:

The disappointment, the disillusionment, the disgust, that his own wife would ask this of him when she knows what it did/and continues to do to him as a man, as a husband, as a human being, that was gutting to watch.

 

6 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

this episode had everyone questioning how much she loves Jamie, I mean how could she ask that of him? 

It is absolutely shocking and horrific.  I'm not here for the time travel aspect, so I only have a slight care for the loop that if she isn't with Frank, she doesn't go to Inverness, doesn't go through the stones, and doesn't meet Jamie.  But why should that matter now?  By the time it happens, she'll be long gone.  She's with Jamie NOW.  It isn't as though she's going to go POOF in 9 months when Frank's ancestor isn't conceived.

Besides, who cares about Frank?!?!?! (Which I yelled at Claire at various points through this episode.)

[Cdh20]

46 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

Oh, this IS so interesting!  Though he is younger and more "inexperienced," I think he does know more and understand more about love.  He came from a loving family, he was close with his parents, especially his father, and Jenny.  The extended MacKenzies and Frasers may have some questionable internal dynamics, but his immediate family seems to have been very emotive and affectionate.  We don't really know that about Claire.  Was her Uncle affectionate with her?  Did he have a partner from which she could witness interactions?  Where and from whom did she learn about relationships?  We've already seen Frank and her struggle to communicate and emote to each other, falling back to sex as a means of communicating and feeling (not that you don't feel plenty when doing that but...) She is more sexually experienced than Jamie, but does she have more relationship experience?  And not just romantic relationships, but the most formative ones between family and friends?  From what we've seen, Jamie had the more stable, comfortable life surrounded by a loving family and friends growing up and pre-BJR than Claire did.  

And yes, I hang on every word of these conversations.  

 

It is absolutely shocking and horrific.  I'm not here for the time travel aspect, so I only have a slight care for the loop that if she isn't with Frank, she doesn't go to Inverness, doesn't go through the stones, and doesn't meet Jamie.  But why should that matter now?  By the time it happens, she'll be long gone.  She's with Jamie NOW.  It isn't as though she's going to go POOF in 9 months when Frank's ancestor isn't conceived.

Besides, who cares about Frank?!?!?! (Which I yelled at Claire at various points through this episode.)

I agree with SassAndSnacks, Jamie is teaching Claire what love & relationships really are. I mean I don't think she knew what a soul mate was until Jamie. Did she love Frank? Could she love him again? We are spoiled to the fact that Claire does indeed see Frank again, & once parted from Jamie she will maybe understand what was real love?

 

[Pallas]

Claire chose to abandon her husband for someone she loves more. She deserted him without explanation or divorce, not being willing to risk the possible outcomes of even a brief return. All understandable. The story even absolves Claire of having made matrimonial vows to Frank, by having their wedding be a civil registration rather than the religious ceremony that Jamie insisted upon. But to me, this doesn't absolve her of caring if her choice of a new life has the consequence of not only devastating Frank, but obliterating him. 

The story does Claire no favors in asking us to believe that she never bothered her pretty little head with this question, until it was needed to season the plot. And cause Jamie -- at risk now of becoming Poor Jamie! -- more anguish. But I don't agree that she should have appealed to Jamie's self-interest rather than his ethics and empathy. That's where Jamie lives. Jamie wouldn't know self-interest if lashed him on the back. Jamie is the man who, though wounded, took a beating for a girl whose name he couldn't spell, to spare her. Jamie is the man who wouldn't leave behind the man who blackmailed him into the raid that got him captured again. Jamie is the man who felt deeply shamed for punishing Claire only when, but the moment when, he understood that she'd been trying to return to her first husband. That man: that's who Claire chose. 

Maybe that Jamie died at Wentworth and maybe he didn't. Maybe we'd like to know. Maybe we'd like to see that as a focus of the season, or at least, this argument. But the show doesn't want us to bother our pretty little heads, either. So, rather than have the protagonists come to grips in any way with what they're doing, it has Claire make an argument that's crudely instrumental: you owe me, mister. The same argument that worked for Black Jack Randall.

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, Pallas said:

 

Jamie is the man who, though wounded, took a beating for a girl whose name he couldn't spell, to spare her. 

Spit out my coffee! 

[gingerella]

5 hours ago, Pallas said:

Claire chose to abandon her husband for someone she loves more. She deserted him without explanation or divorce, not being willing to risk the possible outcomes of even a brief return. All understandable. The story even absolves Claire of having made matrimonial vows to Frank, by having their wedding be a civil registration rather than the religious ceremony that Jamie insisted upon. But to me, this doesn't absolve her of caring if her choice of a new life has the consequence of not only devastating Frank, but obliterating him. 

The story does Claire no favors in asking us to believe that she never bothered her pretty little head with this question, until it was needed to season the plot. And cause Jamie -- at risk now of becoming Poor Jamie! -- more anguish. But I don't agree that she should have appealed to Jamie's self-interest rather than his ethics and empathy. That's where Jamie lives. Jamie wouldn't know self-interest if lashed him on the back. Jamie is the man who, though wounded, took a beating for a girl whose name he couldn't spell, to spare her. Jamie is the man who wouldn't leave behind the man who blackmailed him into the raid that got him captured again. Jamie is the man who felt deeply shamed for punishing Claire only when, but the moment when, he understood that she'd been trying to return to her first husband. That man: that's who Claire chose. 

Maybe that Jamie died at Wentworth and maybe he didn't. Maybe we'd like to know. Maybe we'd like to see that as a focus of the season, or at least, this argument. But the show doesn't want us to bother our pretty little heads, either. So, rather than have the protagonists come to grips in any way with what they're doing, it has Claire make an argument that's crudely instrumental: you owe me, mister. The same argument that worked for Black Jack Randall.

Okay @Pallas, thank you for posting this, it has given me a completely different perspective on this episode and this 'argument' of Claire's. I never looked at the simple fact that Claire and Frank only had a civil ceremony - which in the UK is the 'legal' union of two people, but most folks opt for a second religious ceremony to bond their union, but the signing of the registry comes first, that is a legal requirement to be married in the church. Jamie, OTOH, insisted on a church wedding because he was all in for the religious/spiritual union of himself and Claire as truly husband and wife in the ways that matter most, even today. And in addition to that,, he also has the 'Blood of my Blood' Scottish clans ceremony, which to me binds them on an even deeper level because that is such a primal forever-feeling ceremony.  I have friends in the UK who explained the registry signing to me and said they would never dream of not having the religious/spiritual wedding because for them that is the 'real wedding' despite it not being the 'legal' union. Thank you for highlighting this!

I was so vested in the notion that Claire used a completely idiotic rationale with wanting Jamie to wait one year before he kills BJR, instead of appealing to his heart and his love of her. Again, you are spot on, Jamie is, if nothing else, a man of honor, who was raised in a social construct that holds defending one's honor above all else. And really, Claire's rationale worked, to some extent, because the next scene we see, Jamie is rubbing her feet and being a loving husband, BUT, he takes Claire's rationale and uses it right back at her, saying he's pretty sure they're about even on saving each other's lives now (and I agree Jamie, you are even!), and that now he asks Claire to promise him that if ever he asks her to go back through the Stones, she must agree to obey him and do it. That? Is a man deeply in love, but one who will sacrifice his own daily happiness to save the life of the woman he loves more than his own life. That's heavy, but also very Jamie.

Lastly, yeah, same argument, you're right yet again. It worked when Jamie was trying to save Claire from BJR, and now it's working to save BJR (unbeknownst to him) from Jamie. I can appreciate these two scenes all the more now!

Edited April 11, 2021 by gingerella

[SassAndSnacks]

22 hours ago, Pallas said:

The story even absolves Claire of having made matrimonial vows to Frank, by having their wedding be a civil registration rather than the religious ceremony that Jamie insisted upon.

 

17 hours ago, gingerella said:

Jamie, OTOH, insisted on a church wedding because he was all in for the religious/spiritual union of himself and Claire as truly husband and wife in the ways that matter most, even today. And in addition to that,, he also has the 'Blood of my Blood' Scottish clans ceremony, which to me binds them on an even deeper level because that is such a primal forever-feeling ceremony.

This is really interesting.  I didn't know that.  My parents opted for a Courthouse wedding, and they've never seemed less married to me than other couples who had a religious service, but I love the points you both made.  J&C not only have a deeper relationship, but they've been bond deeper, as well.  

23 hours ago, Pallas said:

Jamie wouldn't know self-interest if lashed him on the back. Jamie is the man who, though wounded, took a beating for a girl whose name he couldn't spell, to spare her. Jamie is the man who wouldn't leave behind the man who blackmailed him into the raid that got him captured again. Jamie is the man who felt deeply shamed for punishing Claire only when, but the moment when, he understood that she'd been trying to return to her first husband. That man: that's who Claire chose.

I feel this is a fine time to further reiterate my strong belief that Jamie>Frank.  Thank you for this opportunity.

22 hours ago, Pallas said:

it has Claire make an argument that's crudely instrumental: you owe me, mister.

Which really circles back around to points that have been made over the last few episodes that the writing this season is a little flimsy in spots.  

 

[Pallas]

3 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

My parents opted for a Courthouse wedding, and they've never seemed less married to me than other couples who had a religious service, but I love the points you both made.

Thank you! It's not that I think that one kind of wedding leaves a couple more married than another. People continue to get married long after their wedding day. (Well, they do or they don't. That's the part that didn't happen between Claire and Frank.) I meant only that in her civil ceremony at a registry, Claire would not have made traditional wedding vows: "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." In deserting Frank, she did him wrong but broke no vow. My guess is that this narrative choice was no accident. 

[toolazy]

On 4/4/2021 at 10:09 PM, Anothermi said:

 

Claire now has history of firmly telling someone something she believes to be true—and being wrong.

 

Medical things? How often is she wrong about that? Also, my recollection is that she isn't absolute about it. She has doubts but she doesn't want Mary to have to worry about something that is highly unlikely. It's a kindness, not a lie.