S03.E02: Surrender

[nodorothyparker]

1 hour ago, Grashka said:

Quote

 

So we are all adults here, right?  Why do we have to "forgive" Jamie & Mary for having sex? They, too, are adults and neither one has had a regular spouse/partner for YEARS! Are we really so ridiculous that we think Jamie did something wrong to take comfort in Mary's arms or that Mary was wrong to offer it? It's not like he and Claire were on a break.  He never expected to see her again and as it is, it will be 14 years before he does see her again.  

The same goes for Frank and Claire.  

Jesus, we're supposed to be fond of these characters - why would we want them to be that lonely and unhappy for twenty freaking years?

 

You would be surprised how many issues part of the fandom takes with "those scenes" between Claire/Jamie and other characters, and how much planning to avoid episodes with Mary and Geneva sex or Frank sex I've seen. For some fans every time Claire or Jamie lies with someone else during 20 years of their separation, feels like a huge betrayal. Altough Jamie seems to get more flack (because Claire was married and thus forced to suffer fulfilling her marital duties with Frank). I've seen some panicking regarding a new scene in  opening credits, the one with a man unlacing woman's corset (presumably Jamie&Geneva) because it's a sacrilege to the wedding scene between Jamie and Claire.

The thing that's hardest for me to wrap my head around, is the issue some have with William. Not because they don't like him (we all like or dislike different characters for various reasons) but because for some his existence taints or even ruins the marriage between Jamie&Claire - because Claire wasn't the one who give him the son, other woman did. Personally I thought the times which valued the woman/marriage by it/her producing a son for the husband are gone, but apparently....no.

The lack of son from Claire changes NOTHING for Jamie regarding his love and respect for her. He would have felt the same about her had she not given him any child.

I've seen this too and I admit I don't get it either.  I mean, different strokes and all that.  People are certainly allowed to feel how they want to feel about something.  But it always flummoxes me a little.  The entire premise of this series begins with kind of, sort of, okay maybe not really, wellllll ... technical adultery because two husbands in two different time periods.  And that's before you get to a 20-year separation in book 3 of what is so far an 8-book series in which neither party ever expected to see the other ever again.  So for all practical purposes, they were widowed with presumably still many years to live.  What were they supposed to do?  Yes, I know.  Pine eternally.  I sometimes think the disconnect on this is why we get convoluted scenes with weird consent issues like Jamie and Geneva or scenes of a grown man being hectored into it by his also grown sister.  And yeah, the William resentment is equally weird for bringing sexism into a situation that is pretty progressively free of it for the time period of our story.  Jamie loved Claire for Claire.  He wanted his children because they were his children without much regard for whether they were a son or daughter.

It's funny because I was actually pretty satisfied with how the sex with other partners was handled in this episode.  There was nothing particularly sexy or titillating about it.  It was remarkably grown up in showing the different needs it can fill, whether it be comfort or the need for human contact or simply getting your rocks off, and the effect of that on the people involved.  That doesn't have to negate even the greatest true love ever.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I wilna lie--I fast forwarded both the sex scenes with Claire and Frank.

I didn't FF thru them, but my issue with those scenes is that I can't look at Frank without seeing Black Jack Randall, and I don't understand how Claire can either. I have a such a negative visceral reaction to Tobias Menzies now. 

Scruffy Jamie really worked for me and I was kind of disappointed when he was all cleaned up.

I thought it was awfully naive and risky for Jenny and Ian to "pretend" to turn Jamie into the Redcoats on the promise of exoneration and reward. The Redcoats haven't proven to be exactly upstanding; there was every chance they would go back on their promise and arrest the whole damn lot of them anyway.

Is that the same actor playing Ian? I did not recognize him and thought maybe someone else played him back in Season 1.

Quote

Fergus's maiming feels a little more out of left field here too when you remove the whole part of the leap of the cask story and ends up looking just like another bastard redcoat being a bastard.

How did Fergus lose his hand in the book? Man, that scene was brutal. I admit to yelling out loud at the TV.

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Is that the same actor playing Ian? I did not recognize him and thought maybe someone else played him back in Season 1.

Yes, that's the same actor-Stephen Cree. It's just that his wig this season is blonde. Last season it was a dark brown.

5 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

How did Fergus lose his hand in the book?

I believe it was fighting with the soldiers, but like someone posted upthread, in the buik, the soldiers were horrified over what happened, and they were the ones who carried Fergus home to be treated. Someone else whose read it more recently or a number of times may be better able to clarify.

Edited September 18, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[lianau]

5 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Oh, I have a fair amount of sympathy for Frank too for all the same reasons.  I've just noticed among husbands who are either watching or tolerating the show with their wives, they all seem to be very pro Frank with at least a bit of side eye for Claire.

Frank certainly got the short end of the stick . His wife goes missing (and he would have been a viable suspect ), comes back , admits to cheating on him and being pregnant with another man's baby . 

 

3 hours ago, Eureka said:

He's 15 in real life so that's not too far off from 16-17. But it varies from kid to kid. MY DS14's voice has changed and he just grew taller than me this year but no facial hair yet. My DS16 on the other hand, has a full (red!) beard and has been shaving since he was 13. People are always surprised that he's as young as he is.

Fergus in the book was a tiny 10 year old , show Fergus was always taller and looked older and  now he doesn't look old enough to show the passing of time between 10 and 16.

[toolazy]

I have to say that I am not tormented by the resemblance between Black Jack Randall and Frank Randall and all credit goes to Tobias Menzies.  Mannerisms, facial expressions, the way they carry themselves - everything is so different that I've had no trouble seeing Frank as Frank.  

 

Edit: I just noticed that I called Tobias Menzies "they" up there.  So yeah, definitely two different folks. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by toolazy

[Empressv]

Am I the only viewer who thought, "No way is any man ever going to pick a fight at that moment! Maybe before, probably after - but not during."

it knocked all the willing suspension of disbelief right out of me. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 hours ago, Empressv said:

Am I the only viewer who thought, "No way is any man ever going to pick a fight at that moment! Maybe before, probably after - but not during."

it knocked all the willing suspension of disbelief right out of me. 

Which scene or man are you talking about? 

[WatchrTina]

So I woke up thinking about Outlander, as you do, and I have a theory and the complaint about the Dunbonnet.  In the book, Jamie wears a dunbonnet (a dun-colored cap) to hide his distinctive red hair.  In the show, he grows it out long and anyone can see it.  Furthermore, he's become so notorious that the redcoats have a wanted poster out for him.  These two divergences from the book make NO sense.

I get why they had Show!Jamie grow out his hair and beard.  It's a clear, visual cue about the passage of time (rather like Claire's amazing wardrobe in season one which was used to signal each new day via a new outfit.) It's also a visual clue to his inner despair and un-Jamie-ness. That makes the scene where Mary cuts it all off that much more effective -- we see our old Jamie coming back into himself. I love that.  But if Jamie is trying to hide his identity, running around with long red hair in plain view is ludicrous.  

Even more ludicrous are the wanted posters. What, exactly, is "The Dunbonnet" wanted FOR?  He hunts with a bow-and-arrow (not illegal) and he avoids contact with people (not illegal).  I presume the wanted poster will come into play when Roger is trying to track down Jamie's whereabout through time -- a plot necessity created by their decision to cut the "Leap 'O the Cask" story becoming a local legend.  Fine.  I'll hand-wave it away.  But that wanted poster makes no sense.

Still loved the episode.  Still hate the one-dimensional Scottish Redcoat villain and the Redcoats leaving Fergus to bleed out and die in the woods.

On 9/19/2017 at 8:04 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Which scene or man are you talking about? 

I'm pretty sure she's talking about the coitus interruptus in front of the fireplace when Frank complains about Claire not looking at him.  And to be honest I've had a fight break out during sex though I'm sure my ex would not admit to have "picked" the fight.  (It was, however, all his fault.)

Edited September 23, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

What, exactly, is "The Dunbonnet" wanted FOR?

According to the British, he's wanted for treason; being part of the Jacobite rebellion. And dammit, they will hunt down every.single.Highlander until they are all decimated. And apparently, Jamie is the one who led this rebellion.????

Just like those that don't mind the show deviating from the buiks, these small changes don't bother me. Because while a reader can "see" how Jamie spent those seven years in a cave, while coming out to help Jenny and Ian when he could, on television, that makes for boring viewing. The show needs to have Jamie doing things, while still showing how broken he is. And if Moore and whoever can stick to the stoopid line of showing that final fight with Jamie and Black Jack under a golden sunlight because the sunlight was so beautiful, they just had to film it, when by all counts, it was dark, dreary, rainy during the actual battle (the boggy and wet ground a factor), then I don't mind seeing Jamie hunting when it's light and not huddled in cave.

Edited September 19, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

Weel, actually Jamie is wanted for treason.  No one (at least not the Redcoats) actually knows who the Dunbonnet IS.  But I guess I can fan-wank that their suspicion that the Dunbonnet and "Red Jamie" are one and the same could be reason enough for them to put up a wanted poster.  They certainly have no problem arresting Ian for absolutely nothing.

Side note -- it is really annoying how auto-correct keeps changing "Dunbonnet" to Sunbonnet.  I think I fixed them all.

[Summer]

I'm pretty sure when the Redcoats were at Lallybroch trying to coerce Ian into telling them where Jamie was, one of them said he believed Dunbonnet and Red Jamie were one in the same.

Does anyone know if Baby Ian was Laura Donnelly's real life baby?  I saw something on Twitter that indicated that....

[AheadofStraight]

I think I saw that it was her baby she nursed after the redcoats left and Jamie brought the baby back to her. 

[nodorothyparker]

Yeah, the whole Dunbonnet thing as presented on the show doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  And I thought too when I realized how truncated they made Fergus's maiming by yet another evil redcoat bastard being a redcoat bastard that they probably need those wanted posters for historical artifacts for Roger and Bree to find later since we no longer have the legend of the leap of cask.  It's like they had Sam the actor and an image of how they thought they wanted him to look and didn't think any further than that about the whole point of the Dunbonnet story.

I'll give the British captain the benefit of the doubt here that it probably wasn't a completely far-fetched idea that Red Jamie and this guy they suspected might be a Jacobite on the lam skulking about the countryside were more likely than not the same person.  Red Jamie's body was never officially found and we know why he doesn't appear on any lists of killed or imprisoned.  It would almost certainly have been common knowledge that he previously owned Lollybroch and that his family still lived there in a position to maybe be aiding him.  It's the presentation that's the problem, like this is a new idea to this particular captain or that there would be any particular reason to be looking for some guy who's done nothing but skulk about the woods and maybe poach a few deer that the estate is obviously not making a fuss about without making that connection.

[Biggie B]

Am I the only one who kept thinking of Dubonnet the aperitif every time one of the Redcoats said "Dun Bonnet"? 

[mrsjoe]

On 9/17/2017 at 9:17 PM, dbell1 said:

Glad we got Joe this early and not when Claire's a doctor. 

The only thing that disappoints me about this is the likelihood we will never see the hilarious meet cute book scene where Claire stumbles across the "scandalous" book and Joe practically has it memorized!

 

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

According to the British, he's wanted for treason; being part of the Jacobite rebellion. And dammit, they will hunt down every.single.Highlander until they are all decimated. And apparently, Jamie is the one who led this rebellion.????

I think something the show didn't show as well was that Jamie sort of became a symbol of the rebellion with his courage and the loyalty he instilled with his men. Even still, it just doesn't seem like six years later he would be such a priority. A good arrest for sure, but worth the effort of constantly searching? I'm also not sure about the change to Ian being arrested to try to get him to turn Jamie in versus constantly having to go back to court to prove Lallybroch didn't belong to a traitor. At least I don't remember Ian ever being arrested. I'm wondering if they are actually setting up these new antagonist soldiers to replace the soldiers who harass him in Drums of Autumn, so we've seen the backstory? Either that or it was just their shorthand way of showing how bad the British treated the Scottish during that time.

[DittyDotDot]

12 minutes ago, mrsjoe said:

I'm also not sure about the change to Ian being arrested to try to get him to turn Jamie in versus constantly having to go back to court to prove Lallybroch didn't belong to a traitor. At least I don't remember Ian ever being arrested.

Wasn't Ian arrested not long before wee Ian's birth and that's why he was absent that day? I seem to recall him being arrested and Ned was trying to get him released. Also, I vaguely remember that's how Ian contracted...was it consumption? But, I might be mixing up some details here.

Edited September 19, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[mrsjoe]

19 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Wasn't Ian arrested not long before wee Ian's birth and that's why he was absent that day? I seem to recall him being arrested and Ned was trying to get him released. Also, I vaguely remember that's how Ian contracted...was it consumption? But, I might be mixing up some details here.

I'll have to go back and check. I could very well be mixing my Ian gone stories!

[morgan]

Yes Ian was arrested prior to his son Ian's birth.  He had been arrested several times.

[FnkyChkn34]

I recall that it was always very vague as to why Ian was arrested multiple times, and I think DG meant to do that on purpose.  He was arrested just because the redcoats felt like it, but also because I think they always thought he'd have info on Jamie's whereabouts. 

[Atlanta]

1 hour ago, mrsjoe said:

The only thing that disappoints me about this is the likelihood we will never see the hilarious meet cute book scene where Claire stumbles across the "scandalous" book and Joe practically has it memorized!

 

I think something the show didn't show as well was that Jamie sort of became a symbol of the rebellion with his courage and the loyalty he instilled with his men. Even still, it just doesn't seem like six years later he would be such a priority. A good arrest for sure, but worth the effort of constantly searching? I'm also not sure about the change to Ian being arrested to try to get him to turn Jamie in versus constantly having to go back to court to prove Lallybroch didn't belong to a traitor. At least I don't remember Ian ever being arrested. I'm wondering if they are actually setting up these new antagonist soldiers to replace the soldiers who harass him in Drums of Autumn, so we've seen the backstory? Either that or it was just their shorthand way of showing how bad the British treated the Scottish during that time.

Please, for the love of Gabaldon, let this be included!!!! Also, the 'call me Ishmael' line. They have such fun banter in the book.

[iMonrey]

I have another question for you nice book readers:

In the book(s), does Frank actually believe that Claire traveled back through time? Or does he think she either a.) made up the story or b.) believes it but is crazy? I remember last season when she showed up wearing 18th century garb, some sort of "expert" told Frank the stuff looked legit and that's about all I remember about whether or not he believed her story.

[toolazy]

10 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I have another question for you nice book readers:

In the book(s), does Frank actually believe that Claire traveled back through time? Or does he think she either a.) made up the story or b.) believes it but is crazy? I remember last season when she showed up wearing 18th century garb, some sort of "expert" told Frank the stuff looked legit and that's about all I remember about whether or not he believed her story.

He doesn't at first but it eventually becomes clear that he does believe - or at least enough to write Brianna letters about it and to make sure that she can shoot and ride a horse.  

[DittyDotDot]

51 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I have another question for you nice book readers:

In the book(s), does Frank actually believe that Claire traveled back through time? Or does he think she either a.) made up the story or b.) believes it but is crazy? I remember last season when she showed up wearing 18th century garb, some sort of "expert" told Frank the stuff looked legit and that's about all I remember about whether or not he believed her story.

Frank thinks Claire has experienced some sort of trauma and her mind has made this grand story up to deal with the trauma at first. He does do some research and learns that Jamie existed and there is a point where he learns a lot more--exactly what he knew is still unknown--but I don't think he was ever truly sure what happened to Claire. I always got the sense he finally decided not to rule it out entirely, but still thought there was probably a more rational explanation.

[dbell1]

So, after watching the first 2 episodes, I pulled out Voyager and started rereading it. Frank cheated all through Claire's high risk pregnancy. And he hated her going to medical school. I wish we could have seen that Frank instead of the showrunners Frank. 

And Jamie in the cave, cut off for months at a time should have been shown. Don't care how difficult night shooting is. Even a line dropped about him not being there for a few months would have worked. 

[toolazy]

55 minutes ago, dbell1 said:

So, after watching the first 2 episodes, I pulled out Voyager and started rereading it. Frank cheated all through Claire's high risk pregnancy. And he hated her going to medical school. I wish we could have seen that Frank instead of the showrunners Frank. [/quote]

She wasn't putting out nor was she interested in putting out.  Also, she'd been gone for THREE FREAKING YEARS and came back pregnant by another man.  I'm going to give Frank a break here.  Frank did an amazing thing by taking her back and agreeing to raise a child that isn't his - should he be punished for seeking comfort elsewhere while his wife was visibly mourning the loss of another man?  

 

 

55 minutes ago, dbell1 said:

And Jamie in the cave, cut off for months at a time should have been shown. Don't care how difficult night shooting is. Even a line dropped about him not being there for a few months would have worked. 

I think the sight of Jamie made it pretty clear he didn't spend much time in the house.  While I wish they'd either dropped the dunbonnet bit or actually put his hair up inside of it (which apparently looked terrible and weird on Sam, so that's why they scrapped it), I think they did okay with the time they had at communicating Jamie's isolation and loneliness.

[Eureka]

25 minutes ago, toolazy said:

She wasn't putting out nor was she interested in putting out.  Also, she'd been gone for THREE FREAKING YEARS and came back pregnant by another man.  I'm going to give Frank a break here.  Frank did an amazing thing by taking her back and agreeing to raise a child that isn't his - should he be punished for seeking comfort elsewhere while his wife was visibly mourning the loss of another man? 

Frank stayed (when Claire said up front when she returned it was his choice to stay or leave her) and raised Bri because HE wanted a child. It wasn't a selfless act in my opinion. He knew she was his only shot for having offspring. I do not like how they've rewritten him as a sympathetic character on the show. He was a real arrogant cad in the book.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Eureka

[toolazy]

54 minutes ago, Eureka said:

Frank stayed (when Claire said up front when she returned it was his choice to stay or leave her) and raised Bri because HE wanted a child. It wasn't a selfless act in my opinion. He knew she was his only shot for having offspring. I do not like how they've rewritten him as a sympathetic character on the show. He was a real arrogant cad in the book.

I did not have that impression at all.  He is a flawed, but basically decent, man.  People are complicated - the Outlander series is brimming with complicated characters.  That's part of what makes it interesting.  

Also, Claire wasn't generally bitter about Frank.  She was angry and hurt about the affairs (but, in Frank's opinion, not angry or hurt enough) but she tells Brianna (in the tea shop in Inverness, I think) that even though they didn't love each other, they respected and liked each other.  If that's the case, then he probably wasn't especially evil.  

And really, Claire is kind of a pain in the ass herself, so she really needs to own a huge part of whatever marital problems they had.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, well, I've yet to see how flawed TV!Frank is, to be honest. He's been shown to be this bastion of perfectness, that waited for Claire to return, who is "putting up" with her grieving over the death (as Claire believes Jamie died at Culloden), doesn't show that during her pregnancy, which was also difficult, him cheating on Claire.

What little I saw of Frank in the buiks, I didn't care for. But Ron does love Tobias Menzies, so I'm blaming him for portraying Frank as this poor sod who is an "obstacle" between Claire and Jaime. He wasn't evil in the buiks, but he was racist, and that was the reason he wanted to take Bree away from Claire--either because he thought she was dating a black guy, or because he thought Claire was sleeping with Joe, and he didn't want that. And this was how I felt when I struggled to get through the series the first time, so it's not as if I had made up my mind that Frank was the interloper.

These are my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

[cardigirl]

I like the idea of expanding on Frank's role, mostly because it plays off of the love triangle that creates angst and tension. Something that maybe makes the tv show more complex and compellling, in my opinion.  And I do like Tobias Menzies, so don't mind seeing him on the screen more.

 Claire does drive me a little crazy because she is so insistent on thinking she always knows best. I got so mad at her for exposing herself and her unborn child, Faith, to the diseases she was trying to treat in France.  Her nursing knowledge should have led her to be more cautious, but she is so self-righteous she places herself and others in danger all the time.  Of course, those dangerous events keep the story moving. 

So Frank, as he has been shown in the tv show, is a more sympathetic character.  There is room for stronger feelings for his predicament, because, in my mind, it adds more drama to the show.  You can have empathy for his sorrow and tragedy as well as for Claire's and Jamie's. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, cardigirl said:

I like the idea of expanding on Frank's role, mostly because it plays off of the love triangle that creates angst and tension. Something that maybe makes the tv show more complex and compellling, in my opinion.

Taking response to Show Spoilers and Book Talk

[Eureka]

12 hours ago, toolazy said:

And really, Claire is kind of a pain in the ass herself, so she really needs to own a huge part of whatever marital problems they had.

I will give you that Claire is a PITA! LOL. She's definitely not blameless. I just don't like the changes they made in Frank.

[morgan]

I  still don't think they have changed Frank.  He is pretty much portrayed as I read him way back when.  And based on preview, I think they show the dark side that comes out.  Frank doesn't start out dark, he ends up that way as a result of Claire's distance.  I believe he honestly thought Claire would come back to him emotionally eventually and she just never did.  I think he thought much like them reconnecting after the horrors of WW2, he thought they could reconnect after what he saw as the horrors of her disappearance.  Because as much as she eventually found love and sexy times and a new life with Jamie, his life during those years were plagued with not knowing what happened to his wife, with suspicion that was cast on him.  Imagine your spouse just vanishing and the horror/fear you would live with every day!  You don't know if they are dead, or held against their will and mistreated/subject to all sorts of horrible things and you can't find them/get to them.  God what an awful almost decade Frank lived through between the war and his wife gone not long after.  And just when he thinks life will finally turn around it just gets worse and worse.  

[Dejana]

It isn't that Book Frank was the devil but the show incidentally I'm sure manages to omit his lesser moments from the page: like how Book Frank was anti-adoption initially when Claire broached the idea or that it was Book Frank's comments about his wife's appearance that were the cherry on top of the crap sundae of her very bad day with the broken furnace. Book Frank, to me, was presented as a man of his time in many ways, including with respect to how he expected/wanted his wife to behave. Claire's defiance of societal norms was something he merely tolerated out of love for her, not because he himself was also this enlightened, forward-thinking guy who wanted similar qualities in a partner.

I was never expecting a word-for-word adaptation but it's possible to condense/shift events while maintaining the spirit of a character, if that's what you want to do. But I feel TPTB know exactly what they are doing with Frank, and the show's treatment of the character dovetails nicely with the retcon Diana seems to be pulling with him in the books, besides. Three seasons in, I don't expect the modus operandi to change much.

 

TV Jamie's hair isn't bright or distinctive enough to have needed a dunbonnet, so I can't be too bothered about the show doing the storyline halfway.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Dejana

[Scarlett45]

@Dejana in the books when you say Frank was anti-adoption initially, was it that Claire wanted to adopt another child so that Briana would have a sibling and he was against THAT or that she didn't want to be a single parent (she assumed frank was leaving her) and she wanted to place Briana for adoption? I assume it's the former because I don't see Claire wanting to place her last living peace of Jaime. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

@Dejana in the books when you say Frank was anti-adoption initially, was it that Claire wanted to adopt another child so that Briana would have a sibling and he was against THAT or that she didn't want to be a single parent (she assumed frank was leaving her) and she wanted to place Briana for adoption? I assume it's the former because I don't see Claire wanting to place her last living peace of Jaime. 

No. The whole conversation was before Claire walked through the stones. Shortly after the war. When Frank and Claire were talking about having a family. Frank was against having any children that weren't biologically his.

[Scarlett45]

4 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No. The whole conversation was before Claire walked through the stones. Shortly after the war. When Frank and Claire were talking about having a family. Frank was against having any children that weren't biologically his.

Oh I see! Thank you for clearing that up. Duh. 

[lianau]

On 20.9.2017 at 5:30 AM, toolazy said:

Also, Claire wasn't generally bitter about Frank.  She was angry and hurt about the affairs (but, in Frank's opinion, not angry or hurt enough) but she tells Brianna (in the tea shop in Inverness, I think) that even though they didn't love each other, they respected and liked each other.  If that's the case, then he probably wasn't especially evil.  

 

I always found that interesting . Frank wanted a reaction from Claire , a sign that she cared,  but Claire felt that she had no right to be angry so she ended up swallowing all the anger and jealousy .

 

9 hours ago, morgan said:

I  still don't think they have changed Frank.  He is pretty much portrayed as I read him way back when.   

That's the way I see it too . But Frank isn't Jamie and therefore  has to be the devil . I know slightly exaggerated but the sentiment is true .

[mjforty]

I thought it was awfully naive and risky for Jenny and Ian to "pretend" to turn Jamie into the Redcoats on the promise of exoneration and reward. The Redcoats haven't proven to be exactly upstanding; there was every chance they would go back on their promise and arrest the whole damn lot of them anyway.

In the books, Jamie mentions that Claire told him that the British stopped executing "traitors" after a few years, instead sending them to prison.  This is one of the reasons Jamie decides to have someone turn him in for the reward money.  He's confident he won't be executed.

As for the wanted posters, am I wrong in remembering that Dun Bonnet was a bit of a vigilante?  Didn't Jamie resort to the tricks the clans used to pull on each other and use them on the British, like setting horse's free, damaging carts, stealing food(and giving stolen food to needy families)?  Like the Scottish knew that Jamie and Dun Bonnet were the same person but the redcoats did not.  They wanted Dun Bonnet for entirely different reasons.

[Haleth]

2 hours ago, Grashka said:

Recently I read that Black Jack Randall showed more respect for Claire than Frank because the former had more esteem for her professional calling (her gift of healing) than the latter. Go figure.

That is really messed up.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I can only speak for myself (obviously), but I don't think Frank is the devil or evuhl. I just don't like him-I've always felt this way and that was before Claire stepped through the stones the first time.

[DittyDotDot]

2 hours ago, mjforty said:

As for the wanted posters, am I wrong in remembering that Dun Bonnet was a bit of a vigilante?  Didn't Jamie resort to the tricks the clans used to pull on each other and use them on the British, like setting horse's free, damaging carts, stealing food(and giving stolen food to needy families)?  Like the Scottish knew that Jamie and Dun Bonnet were the same person but the redcoats did not.  They wanted Dun Bonnet for entirely different reasons.

I don't remember Jamie actively "pranking" the redcoats, but, yeah, as I recall, the story of the Dunbonnet wasn't born out of the "Leap of the Cask" legend, but the Redcoats were aware of the Dunbonnet's existence and were actively trying to capture him.

[ElsieH]

This review is funny.... And mentions a lot of the things that bugged me about this one. 

https://www.gofugyourself.com/outlander-s3-e2-the-ballad-of-the-dun-bonnet-09-2017

Edited September 21, 2017 by ElsieH
Because the stupid link doesn't want to work from my phone

[lianau]

15 hours ago, Grashka said:

I think it may be a part of the reasons, but overall my impression is that Frank hate stems from perception of his character as this hateful, patriarchal figure. I noticed this is true for many female fans, particulary on tumblr (which is brimming with very feminist approach to "Outlander"), that they despise everything Frank is standing for or representing - quite conservative  male, not always happy with his wife career - choices and sometimes critical of the way she carries herself. 

That also describes Jamie very well . 

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, ElsieH said:

This review is funny.... And mentions a lot of the things that bugged me about this one. 

https://www.gofugyourself.com/outlander-s3-e2-the-ballad-of-the-dun-bonnet-09-2017

Heather and Jessica are awesome.  And hilarious.

[MV713]

loved that review!

[WatchrTina]

Well I just listened to Ron's podcast (with Toni Graphia and Matt Roberts.)  The most interesting thing I learned was that they actually filmed a scene wherein the evil Scottish Redcoat is punished for maiming Fergus.  Jamie drowns him in the mill pond. That WOULD have been satisfying to see and it would have been interesting to see a reminder of what "our" Jamie is capable of when his need for vengeance is roused (which we see in a major way in one of the future books) but I think I agree with Ron's decision to leave it out.  The Redcoat going unpunished reinforces the reality of the ongoing injustices that the Scots were subjected to in the aftermath of Culloden during the "Highland clearances".  Homes were burned, people were imprisoned, people starved. There was no "justice" for the Highland Scots at this time -- the Redcoats and "loyal" Scots (the Lowlanders that fought for King George) just got away with it all. That's a bitter note but a true one.

[Starla]

I was a little late watching this episode, and most everything I wanted to say has been said. 

I had one thought that I haven't seen mentioned... Isn't there a scene after Jamie kills the deer in the forest, where he has an otherworldly vision of fairies or non-human entities moving through the forest? I'm not sure if it was in Voyager, or if he later told the story in one of the Lord John books. I was struck by that scene when I read it, and would have been interested to see it in the episode to add a magical element to the show. It reminds me of the previous otherworldly vision Claire had with the baby in the forest in season 1. I know Outlander is more historical fiction than fantasy, but for a world that includes time travel, I think it would be interesting to have a little more magic and mystery. 

Overall I loved the episode, and teared up at several character interactions. Absolutely love Jenny, she is a hero.

[WatchrTina]

Okay I have a wee complaint about the end of the episode.  The Redcoat Captain who visits earlier in the episode comes right out and says that they believe the "Dunbonnet" -- a hermit-like character who is KNOWN to be in the area -- may in fact be the infamous Red Jamie.  Ian says "Dunbonnet?  Never heard of him.  We don't get out much."  And then Jenny says that as for her "traitorous" brother -- she hasn't seen hide nor hair of him in six years.  When Jamie decides to have Jenny turn him in it seems clear that his intention is to shore-up Jenny's assertion that she hasn't seen him in 6 years.  That's why he shaves his beard and cuts his hair -- so that he looks like his old wanted posters and does NOT look like the posters of the Dunbonnet.  That being the case -- WHY IS HE WEARING THE DAMNED DUNBONNET (the brown tam-o-shanter hat) when he stages his "return"?  I know it made for a nice visual to see it lying in the dirt as the newly re-born "Jamie" goes to meet his fate -- symbolizing his shedding of that identity.  But by wearing that hat he's practically confirming that he IS the Dunbonnet and if that's true, then Jenny's assertion that he's been gone for six years and has only now resurfaced is clearly a lie.

Jamie should NOT have been wearing that damn hat when he staged his "return."

[toolazy]

On 9/23/2017 at 10:46 AM, Starla said:

I was a little late watching this episode, and most everything I wanted to say has been said. 

I had one thought that I haven't seen mentioned... Isn't there a scene after Jamie kills the deer in the forest, where he has an otherworldly vision of fairies or non-human entities moving through the forest? I'm not sure if it was in Voyager, or if he later told the story in one of the Lord John books. I was struck by that scene when I read it, and would have been interested to see it in the episode to add a magical element to the show. It reminds me of the previous otherworldly vision Claire had with the baby in the forest in season 1. I know Outlander is more historical fiction than fantasy, but for a world that includes time travel, I think it would be interesting to have a little more magic and mystery. 

Overall I loved the episode, and teared up at several character interactions. Absolutely love Jenny, she is a hero.

 

It was the Wild Hunt and I can't for the life of me remember the context in which he tells the story.  Oh wait, I know......

Spoiler

It's in the book where he and Lord John go to Ireland - is thatrThe Scottish Prisoner?  Someone sees the Wild Hunt there. 

23 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Okay I have a wee complaint about the end of the episode.  The Redcoat Captain who visits earlier in the episode comes right out and says that they believe the "Dunbonnet" -- a hermit-like character who is KNOWN to be in the area -- may in fact be the infamous Red Jamie.  Ian says "Dunbonnet?  Never heard of him.  We don't get out much."  And then Jenny says that as for her "traitorous" brother -- she hasn't seen hide nor hair of him in six years.  When Jamie decides to have Jenny turn him in it seems clear that his intention is to shore-up Jenny's assertion that she hasn't seen him in 6 years.  That's why he shaves his beard and cuts his hair -- so that he looks like his old wanted posters and does NOT look like the posters of the Dunbonnet.  That being the case -- WHY IS HE WEARING THE DAMNED DUNBONNET (the brown tam-o-shanter hat) when he stages his "return"?  I know it made for a nice visual to see it lying in the dirt as the newly re-born "Jamie" goes to meet his fate -- symbolizing his shedding of that identity.  But by wearing that hat he's practically confirming that he IS the Dunbonnet and if that's true, then Jenny's assertion that he's been gone for six years and has only now resurfaced is clearly a lie.

Jamie should NOT have been wearing that damn hat when he staged his "return."

I doubt brown bonnets are rare enough around there to actually identify him to the British. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by toolazy

[aliferous85]

Yeah, that.

"Jenny, I've come home" should win some prize for the most Not Obvious Whatsoever Line ever.

Legit medical question: do you really tie a tourniquet around the upper arm for an amputation at the wrist? 

Claire's faux domestic bliss irritated me. I recall that in the books, she was struggling with motherhood and loneliness and I'd have liked to see that play out. Then they wouldn't need the scene with the twin beds. Just what?