S03.E07: Crème De Menthe

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Wouldofshouldof said:

I read the books, so I know Margaret Campbell and her brother figure in the story later on, but I can't remember how.  Can someone remind me?

Oh, my...this might take a bit and I'm going to spoiler tag stuff that hasn't happened on the show just incase: Margret is a sort of tragic figure who her brother is caring for. She was captured and raped by English soldiers the day after Culloden as she was trying to get to her Highland lover and the trauma causes her to retreat inside herself.  In the book, the Archibald is a reverend who fought for the English and who Claire meets in Edinburgh before he gets sent to Jamaica for missionary work.

Spoiler

He holds a grudge against Jamie because he believes Jamie was her Highland lover and it was his fault Margaret was raped, but he's wrong. It also turns out he is the Fiend who was killing whores in Edinburgh in the book and the man who killed the woman in Jamacia Mr. Willowby is accused of killing. Margaret runs away when they get to Jamaica and is taken in by the runaway slaves on the island who are revolting. It was through her that Jamie saw that visage of Brianna when they went to get wee Ian away from Geillis. Mr. Willowby kills Archibald to save Claire from him.

I think that's about the gist of it...this book has so much going on, I swear!

Edited October 30, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Cloudberryjam]

It would make so much more sense for Jamie to have married Mary Mcnabb. But i read someone say (was it on this thread?) that storytelling-wise, it had to be someone

Spoiler

everyone dislikes, so that when Claire comes back, Jamie doesnt look like a total cad and major a-hole by throwing someone nice like MMcnabb under the bus for Claire. Therefore it pretty much had to be Lheery.  This line of reasoning is the only thing that is getting me thru the next ep, because im already getting nerd rage thinking about Lheery. Aaargh she is the worst!!!

Edited October 30, 2017 by Cloudberryjam
because sorry I spoiled!!!!!!!

[LoveLeigh]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Since who Jamie's "wife" is hasn't been revealed by name, and there are the unsullied that lurk in this  thread as well. Or add spoiler tags?

I just want to say that I am not a book reader and hang out in this thread. There is no need for spoiler tags, I expect to read spoilers, that is why I am here. 

Having said that and now that I know that Jamie was married (to Laoghaire) ... what is this big shock? Twenty years passed, Jamie was not living in a vacuum, nothing would surprise me. 

What shocks me more than anything is how I was so excited about this season finally airing after so long a wait and how boring it is. Claire is hateful and Jamie and Claire have no chemistry. They just do not fit as older versions of their younger selves. Something is coming through.... and it is not appealing. 

Claire is shocked at how "rigid" everything is. Well, those were the times back then. She can't bring a 1968 mentality back to the past and expect it to work. She was horrible to Frank and now is sending mixed emotional messages to Jamie. I am growing to totally dislike her (or the actor who plays her?)

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Having said that and now that I know that Jamie was married (to Laoghaire) ... what is this big shock?

That she was responsible for Claire being tried as a witch? That Jamie was aware she was responsible--so why in bloody hell would he marry her? That's the shock. 

 

7 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Claire is shocked at how "rigid" everything is. Well, those were the times back then. She can't bring a 1968 mentality back to the past and expect it to work

I'm blaming this line and others that were out of character on the writer of this episode--who is a new writer this season. Clearly she either didn't watch other episodes, otherwise she wouldn't have written this nonsense.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I'm blaming this line and others that were out of character on the writer of this episode--who is a new writer this season. Clearly she either didn't watch other episodes, otherwise she wouldn't have written this nonsense.

But, they don't have writers just write the episodes without reading them and giving feedback. In the last podcast, Toni talks about how she added or changed a line in Matt's episode 6 script. So, it is a collaborative effort.

[LoveLeigh]

13 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

That she was responsible for Claire being tried as a witch? That Jamie was aware she was responsible--so why in bloody hell would he marry her? That's the shock. 

Eh, men do strange things..... they marry (horrible) women because they get seduced by a physical appearance or by how the woman treats HIM and then they overlook major things and just get on with it. Still not shocked. My father stayed married to my mother for over 50 years, and she despised him and bullied him his entire life, so my perspective may be skewed. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Eh, men do strange things..... they marry (horrible) women because they get seduced by a physical appearance or by how the woman treats HIM and then they overlook major things and just get on with it. Still not shocked. My father stayed married to my mother for over 50 years, and she despised him and bullied him his entire life, so my perspective may be skewed. 

You asked why it would be a shock- as a non-buik reader, maybe it’s not. I know for my friends who read the series-within the context of the story, it was a shock. Maybe it might be for the unsullied as well. For me, I think you should view this from an 18th century perspective and not a contemporary one.

Maybe someone Who is attached to the series can better explain. 

[FnkyChkn34]

51 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

That she was responsible for Claire being tried as a witch? That Jamie was aware she was responsible--so why in bloody hell would he marry her? That's the shock. 

 

I'm blaming this line and others that were out of character on the writer of this episode--who is a new writer this season. Clearly she either didn't watch other episodes, otherwise she wouldn't have written this nonsense.

 

44 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

But, they don't have writers just write the episodes without reading them and giving feedback. In the last podcast, Toni talks about how she added or changed a line in Matt's episode 6 script. So, it is a collaborative effort.

I think the line is something like "I forgot how bloody rigid this century is..." or something like that.  So the writer used the word "forgot" - not like Claire was actually shocked or never knew in the first place.  IMO, this is a line that could work on paper, but I agree that on the screen, it did not.  So maybe this is the editors' fault?  For keeping it in the episode?

[DittyDotDot]

59 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Eh, men do strange things..... they marry (horrible) women because they get seduced by a physical appearance or by how the woman treats HIM and then they overlook major things and just get on with it. Still not shocked. My father stayed married to my mother for over 50 years, and she despised him and bullied him his entire life, so my perspective may be skewed. 

For me, it was a surprise, not so much because Lagohaire is just so horrible--I'm of the belief that she was young and foolish back when the witch trial happened--but more because after the witch trial in the books, we never hear hide-nor-tail of her again until she bursts in on Jamie and Claire having sex in Voyager two books later. It just never occurred to me that she was still even a player in the story anymore. Like I said, I had already figured Jamie was married and I had a list of names I was considering, but Lagohaire didn't even make the list simply because I'd totally forgotten about her.

Non-book readers were already speculating Jamie had a wife somewhere, so I don't think them overtly saying it on the show ruined anything. If they handle the drama that ensues after the reveal right, I think it will be a surprising payoff to their current speculation.

Edited October 30, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Cloudberryjam]

Ack so so sorry i didnt put a spoiler tag!!!!!! 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, Cloudberryjam said:

Ack so so sorry i didnt put a spoiler tag!!!!!! 

You can go back and edit it and add them. Or ask a moderator to add them.

[Cloudberryjam]

ok done. whew. sorry folks! I thought the name had been mentioned and also major brain freeze!!  super sorry!!!

Edited October 30, 2017 by Cloudberryjam

[GingerMarie]

Has anyone noticed all the different stories to explain where Claire has been for the past 20 years.  First the one she told Fergus, then Ian and then Ian SR?  Loved Loved when Jamie told her we lied our way through Paris and 'I didn't know lies came in shades'.  PRICELESS.  I think J&C need to talk and get this lie fixed or Claire may be burning at the stake..  

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, GingerMarie said:

Has anyone noticed all the different stories to explain where Claire has been for the past 20 years.  First the one she told Fergus, then Ian and then Ian SR? 

No, she hasn't. She said she returned to America/Colonies/Boston, because she thought Jamie had died in Culloden. She only added "wife of a traitor, dangerous for Lallybroch" to Fergus.

[FnkyChkn34]

5 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

It's known in both the books and the show that Ian was arrested and thrown in jail repeatedly in the first few years following Culloden.  And, yes, it's known he's in poor health in the books and Jenny's speculation is that it was due to being thrown in cold and drafty cells for days on end when they were already starving and such. 

Right, I knew it was known that he's been in jail multiple times.  But I was just wondering if the diagnosis of tuberculosis was "official."  I'm thinking they didn't know what that was back then?    

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Right, I knew it was known that he's been in jail multiple times.  But I was just wondering if the diagnosis of tuberculosis was "official."  I'm thinking they didn't know what that was back then?    

If I recall correctly, I think Jenny said it was "consumption." Not sure when TB was officially declared then, just like the condition that Colum suffered from didn't have a name until years later.

[DittyDotDot]

18 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Right, I knew it was known that he's been in jail multiple times.  But I was just wondering if the diagnosis of tuberculosis was "official."  I'm thinking they didn't know what that was back then?    

They called it Consumption back then, I think.

ETA: What @GHScorpiosRule said while I was distracted by a co-worker.

Edited October 30, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[GingerMarie]

17 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No, she hasn't. She said she returned to America/Colonies/Boston, because she thought Jamie had died in Culloden. She only added "wife of a traitor, dangerous for Lallybroch" to Fergus.

But Jamie told Jenny and Ian that he thought Claire had died.  But you are correct she is sticking to the America story.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, GingerMarie said:

But Jamie told Jenny and Ian that he thought Claire had died.  But you are correct she is sticking to the America story.  

Yes, he did, which makes her story about returning to America plausible. She thought he died; she left; he didn't die, and assumed she had died, but when she returned, realized she hadn't.  He just told everyone she was "gone." That could have meant he thought she was dead, but couldn't face up to actually admitting and saying it.

[GingerMarie]

18 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

If I recall correctly, I think Jenny said it was "consumption." Not sure when TB was officially declared then, just like the condition that Colum suffered from didn't have a name until years later.

Consumption was also called the wasting disease but it was TB.  Wonder if Claire brought back the PCN to treat the STD's.  I would have given Jamie a shot of that bad boy when I said hello.   One can not be too careful.....

[FnkyChkn34]

They both thought the other one had died; that's their excuse for not looking for each other I guess.  If anyone wants to question it though, it's pretty easy to do: "Uh, hey Claire, why didn't you just hide out and wait for the battle to be over to see if Jamie really would die or not?  You know it only took like 12 minutes, right...?"  But, alas, that would have been too easy for Claire to do, so she hopped the first ship to the Colonies.  Yep, makes sense.  At least her having done that (we pretend), makes Jamie's story more plausible and him not look like so much of an idiot.  In the colonies... dead... same diff.

[GHScorpiosRule]

11 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

They both thought the other one had died; that's their excuse for not looking for each other I guess.  If anyone wants to question it though, it's pretty easy to do: "Uh, hey Claire, why didn't you just hide out and wait for the battle to be over to see if Jamie really would die or not?  You know it only took like 12 minutes, right...?"  But, alas, that would have been too easy for Claire to do, so she hopped the first ship to the Colonies.  Yep, makes sense.  At least her having done that (we pretend), makes Jamie's story more plausible and him not look like so much of an idiot.  In the colonies... dead... same diff.

Well leaving for the Colonies is a more believable lie than the one used in the buik- that Claire left for France. She would have been able to learn Jamie survived sooner/ she could have learned he was alive (better means of communication?).  What would have been her excuse for waiting so long since the trip between France and Scotland wasn’t as vast?

[LoveLeigh]

5 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 I think you should view this from an 18th century perspective and not a contemporary one.

 

I think an 18th century perspective broadens the view in terms of why he would have married her. Claire was gone, others presumed she was dead, maybe he wanted children and thought Laoghaire was suitable for that, she loved HIM, and he did not have to remain loyal to Claire's memory by distancing himself from the woman who created problems for Claire. He married a woman who was totally in love with him. 

I just don't see it as such a shocking choice for Jamie to make. 

[FnkyChkn34]

19 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

I think an 18th century perspective broadens the view in terms of why he would have married her. Claire was gone, others presumed she was dead, maybe he wanted children and thought Laoghaire was suitable for that, she loved HIM, and he did not have to remain loyal to Claire's memory by distancing himself from the woman who created problems for Claire. He married a woman who was totally in love with him. 

I just don't see it as such a shocking choice for Jamie to make. 

But, did she really still love him?  Sure doesn't seem like it... ;-)

[DittyDotDot]

9 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

But, did she really still love him?  Sure doesn't seem like it... ;-)

Oh, I think she believed she loved him and that's why his still carrying a torch for Claire pissed her off. I think she thinks she wins in getting Jamie, but then is rudely awoken to the reality that Jamie not only doesn't love her, but married her out of a sense of duty more than anything. It didn't help that Jamie just didn't understand her. They just weren't a good fit and both seemed to bring out the worst in each other.

Edited October 30, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well since buik talk is allowed, I’ll put this out here-Jamie did NOT CHOOSE to marry the hosebeast. It was at Jenny’s urging and she was not aware of what that twat had done. Moore did her character no favors by having her taunt Claire and say she would “dance upon” Claire’s “ashes.” And speaking for myself, I was, am not interested in “redeeming” her as Anne Kenney(?) said they wanted to do because they knew what happens in the buik. It might have been Toni who said that. 

Jenny saw how deep Jamie was falling into depression and just existing, and so she put the marriage in motion. Jamie just went along because HE. DID.NOT.CARE.

That said, he was still a jerk for not telling Claire and he admits he didn’t because he didn’t want to lose her.

As someone not that attached to the series, BUT who ❤️❤️❤️Jamie and Claire (even when she pisses me off), this was a shock for me and I didn’t care for it.

6 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Oh, I think she believed she loved him and that's why his still carrying a torch for Claire pissed her off. I think she thinks she wins in getting Jamie, but then is rudely awoken to the reality that Jamie not only doesn't love her, but married her out of a sense of duty more than anything. It didn't help that Jamie just didn't understand her. They just weren't a good fit and both seemed to bring out the worst in each other.

Not only that, but I think he said the few times he bedded her, he felt like he was raping her; despite her saying she was willing. Or maybe I’m confusing that with another story I read.

At this point, she didn’t want him, but she certainly didn’t want a suddenly alive Claire to have him, either.

[WatchrTina]

I'm taking my response to this conversation to the Book vs. Show thread because I'll be going FAR downstream.

[mary2013]

54 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Not only that, but I think he said the few times he bedded her, he felt like he was raping her; despite her saying she was willing. Or maybe I’m confusing that with another story I read.

At this point, she didn’t want him, but she certainly didn’t want a suddenly alive Claire to have him, either.

Jamie believed she was abused in the past because she didn't respond to him in bed, even though he did everything he knew to please a woman. She admitted later that she didn't respond because she always felt Claire in bed with them.

[WatchrTina]

2 minutes ago, mary2013 said:

even though he did everything he knew to please a woman

I don't recall Jamie ever saying that but even if he did I would question whether or not that is true, especially in light of what we learn in a later book (see the post I just put in the Book vs. Show thread.)  We saw Jamie with Mary McNab (he kept his eyes closed) and with Geneva (he got the job done but he clearly took no joy in it.)  I think it's fair to assume those episodes foreshadow what it was like in his second marriage bed.

[mary2013]

9 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I don't recall Jamie ever saying that but even if he did I would question whether or not that is true, especially in light of what we learn in a later book (see the post I just put in the Book vs. Show thread.)  We saw Jamie with Mary McNab (he kept his eyes closed) and with Geneva (he got the job done but he clearly took no joy in it.)  I think it's fair to assume those episodes foreshadow what it was like in his second marriage bed.

I went back and checked.  Jaime  says, "She was afraid of me.  I tried to be gentle wi' her - God,  I tried again and again, everything I  knew to please a woman.  But it was no use."

While Claire is patching him up, Jamie is describing his marriage-everything he did upset the hosebeast. She would cry, she wouldn't speak to him. Jamie blamed himself.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

So I could go back and reply to multiple comments, but I'll put my thoughts in first. I'll skim comments again and reply after if I've missed something. Everyone's pretty much covered everything. 

 

I was happy with the first few minutes and opening scene. I liked how Claire handled fighting off the exciseman, and then how Jamie came on and gently took the dagger from her. Shades of old school Outlander, I loved it. I was fine with that PART of the change. But not the rest of it. The brain surgery and her saving him. Mentioned later on in the post. 

Fergus and Ian's friendship wins me over. I can look over Fergus not appearing 30, just because I love this bromance so much. I preferred this version of them together, over the buik conversation in J&C's brothel room. 

Speaking of the room, what is up with Jamie wanting to stay there with Claire?  Someone mentioned he's being rational, in that she just came back, and his life is in Edinburgh, etc. But what about his printshop setup, couldn't they stay there for awhile? That would be more respectable, looking at it from that point of view.  He apoplogizes to Claire for bringing her to a brothel, then suggests to stay there. Gah! What is up with Jamie? 

I despised the whole brain surgery thing. It makes sense that it was Claire's coping mechanism, but they could have used that in so many other scenarios. I preferred the buik version of how this played out, with Willoughby shooting the man. Who, by the way, isn't an exciseman. And doesn't try to rape Claire. (Don't get me started about Claire and everyone else's rape or near rape throughout this series, it drives me up the wall, and others already touched on it. I'm not opening that door again). Anyways. Brain surgery. Ahem. 

It was unnecessary, and there were other ways to get Claire to the apothecary. My initial thought was "you've got time for that? WTF is up with this episode, we're only 10 minutes in..." and there was SO MUCH good material to use for these scenes. Sigh. I hope they can come back next week with a bit more structure. 

Apothecary.

Claire: "Hey Jamie, I'm going to get some medical supplies from the apothecary. You know, because you tend to get yourself into sticky situations pretty often, I would like to have some stuff handy" 

Jamie: "cool, as long as you come back to me, you left for 20 years the last time. And take someone with you, I don't want you hurt"

Claire: "I'll be back in 20 minutes. Just kidding, it takes 20 minutes just to walk there. I'll be back in 2 hours. I don't need a body guard, I'm a 20th century woman, I can defend myself. Hmmph." 

Meets Campbell. Civil conversation. Helps his sister. Goes back to Jamie. No massive argument, everything is cool. No stupid brain surgery that doesn't even make sense and where the EFF did that surgical tool come from, no one would give it to a random whore that wants it for some random lady to perform brain surgery, those instruments were shit-ton-expensive-back-then-and-women-of-the-18th-century-are-incompetent-and-don't-study-medicine. Mmmm. 

 

What did I miss. Oh. The argument Jamie and Claire have. Yes, they're angry at each other, and realistically speaking, it makes sense. I can live with Jamie's side of it for sure. Claire needs to calm the eff down. She's lived in both centuries, he hasn't. She knows what the times are like. Yes, she's only been there for a day, but in the buik she had months to prepare herself mentally. She knew what she was getting into. 

Hello, writers, where have you taken our Jamie and Claire? They disappeared into the abyss this episode, and I felt completely disconnected from them. I never have in either the novels or show, up until this point. (I had some uncomfortable feels about last weeks episode, but I'll post about that in the other thread later), but I could still live with their characterizations up until now. Someone mentioned a new writer came in this episode. Clearly she did not read the books, or watch the other episodes, or read previous scripts. I feel that it's too late in the game for new writers, it's a heavy, quick paced, plot that has a lot of focus on the personalities and relationship of two people. And if that gets derailed, I don't know where we are going from here. 

My final thoughts are that this episode seemed disjointed, and they were trying to madly stitch together some threads for the next episodes. Willoughby interested by Claire's brain surgery, but disturbed by it(where is the "healthy balls" scene!? I loved that scene, it was hilarious!) leading into his interest in medicine. Young Ian 

Spoiler

Being kidnapped, foreshadowed by Ian and Jenny's worrying. 

I think the unfinished conversations between J&C are purposely left open for next episode, and the huge shebang that will go down. They need something to argue about aside from miss.psycho.pants getting her panties in a bunch. I understand that Jamie is upset he didn't raise Brianna, and that Claire was with another man for 20 years, but damn, Jamie, that's your fault. YOU sent her back. And I also feel Claire should have fought harder to stay. Couldn't she have waited a day before going back through the stones to see if he loved or died? Plausible if we're going with the show version. Which I'll stick to for this scenario, for convenience sake. 

I could have done without Claire's reference to Frank. Frank lovers, hate on. I didn't like it, I don't care how great of a father he was to Brianna. She didn't need to mention it. Jamie never got to meet his daughter, don't stab him in the heart and light him on fire. Leave the man be. 

I feel the episodes are getting messier as they go on. And I mean that in the sense of cohesiveness being nonexistent. Personalities and characterizations I feel are not entirely consistent. That leaves me, as a viewer, confused, and frankly uninterested in the main characters. I felt like I was watching a show I would play in the background while I cooked or did laundry. Sorry, to those who liked this episode! Hate on. 

 

Side note: I'm glad they dumped parts of Willoughbys character. But he seems to just sort of float in the background. It doesn't seem like his character is very interesting or has much substance. Hopefully they'll bring that in, in coming episodes. 

 

I think i covered everything I wanted to. That was long, sorry guys. 

 

Eta: I stand by Claire telling Jamie he isn't Young Ian's father. That was completely out of character for me, and I wish they would have kept closer to the book for how Jamie feels about Young Ian running from home. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by LadyBrochTuarach
Missed something

[LadyBrochTuarach]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well since buik talk is allowed, I’ll put this out here-Jamie did NOT CHOOSE to marry the hosebeast. It was at Jenny’s urging and she was not aware of what that twat had done. Moore did her character no favors by having her taunt Claire and say she would “dance upon” Claire’s “ashes.” And speaking for myself, I was, am not interested in “redeeming” her as Anne Kenney(?) said they wanted to do because they knew what happens in the buik. It might have been Toni who said that. 

Jenny saw how deep Jamie was falling into depression and just existing, and so she put the marriage in motion. Jamie just went along because HE. DID.NOT.CARE.

That said, he was still a jerk for not telling Claire and he admits he didn’t because he didn’t want to lose her.

As someone not that attached to the series, BUT who ❤️❤️❤️Jamie and Claire (even when she pisses me off), this was a shock for me and I didn’t care for it.

Not only that, but I think he said the few times he bedded her, he felt like he was raping her; despite her saying she was willing. Or maybe I’m confusing that with another story I read.

At this point, she didn’t want him, but she certainly didn’t want a suddenly alive Claire to have him, either.

I can live with this. I felt the same way reading he books. Laoghaire just wants to fulfill her fantasy of having Jamie, the crush she's had for years. But when they do marry, I think she realizes that he will never truly love her. And that's probably part of the reason she can't be with him physically or emotionally. 

I think Jamie wasn't really altogether thinking about "yes, I'm getting married, I'm going to have a woman in my bed again!" Rather, I'm lonely, I miss Claire, but she's gone. Someone wants me, and they need help to raise their children. They need to be taken care of, I can do that. I've done it my whole life for others" 

He needs to feel like a man again, like Jamie. But that role of his true self could not be filled. And when he realized it, he left her and went to Edinburgh. And I agree with you, Laoghaire didn't want Claire to have him, Claire dead or Claire alive. She felt he was always hers, even if she didnt physically want to be with him. 

[Haleth]

11 hours ago, mary2013 said:

Jamie believed she was abused in the past because she didn't respond to him in bed, even though he did everything he knew to please a woman. She admitted later that she didn't respond because she always felt Claire in bed with them.

I hope they didn't film any flashbacks to this.  Please no.

Laoghaire was a 16yo mean girl.  She didn't need to suffer for it for the rest of her life.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Haleth

[GHScorpiosRule]

54 minutes ago, Haleth said:

I hope they didn't film any flashbacks to this.  Please no.

Laoghaire was a 16yo mean girl.  She didn't need to suffer for it for the rest of her life.

OH MY GOD. I'd totally forgotten aboot this! I hope and pray (pleasepleaseplease) they didn't feel the "need" to expand and further "redeem" this character and show us that she was abused by her two former husbands, OR the perfunctory sex scenes where Jamie is picturing Claire's face.

[Atlanta]

LadyBrochTurach, I think the 'healthy balls' scene was on the ship, IIRC. It's been awhile.

[Ziggy]

21 hours ago, Nidratime said:

But, they don't have writers just write the episodes without reading them and giving feedback. In the last podcast, Toni talks about how she added or changed a line in Matt's episode 6 script. So, it is a collaborative effort.

I'm sure that's true, but Claire didn't behave that way in the book.  She had a couple of hiccups, but for the most part she was aware of her surroundings and aware of the times and culture of the 18th century.  So the writing in the show really was off.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I'm sure that's true, but Claire didn't behave that way in the book.  She had a couple of hiccups, but for the most part she was aware of her surroundings and aware of the times and culture of the 18th century.  So the writing in the show really was off.

They've changed a number of things regarding character's attitudes, how they're perceived, even their ages. And remember, Frank, has not been written exactly as he was in the books nor has Laoghaire. I'm not supporting it or arguing against it. I'm just noting that it's been happening all along, and in some cases, fans have voiced approval, depending upon what it was they objected to in the novels.

[whoknowswho]

19 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

They both thought the other one had died; that's their excuse for not looking for each other I guess.  If anyone wants to question it though, it's pretty easy to do: "Uh, hey Claire, why didn't you just hide out and wait for the battle to be over to see if Jamie really would die or not?  You know it only took like 12 minutes, right...?"  But, alas, that would have been too easy for Claire to do, so she hopped the first ship to the Colonies.  Yep, makes sense.  At least her having done that (we pretend), makes Jamie's story more plausible and him not look like so much of an idiot.  In the colonies... dead... same diff.

And therein lays my entire problem with this show, and with the books.  I would have stayed put, would have saved a lot of time and angst.

I actually only watched 20 mins of this episode and decided, I'm just done with it. The first season was so, so good--so far this season the only episode I enjoyed was Helwater. And I HATE that Claire brought a medical instruments kit--and leaves it open for Willowby and everyone to see--want to get tried as a witch again?  You could at least hide your instruments.  I hated that Jamie had little reaction but shock to last week's photographs--they've carved this show up in a way that the magic is just gone for me. They spent 20 years apart--and it worked in the books, but visually we are seeing 2 people who have not aged. I'm 54, and my once nice body has changed a great deal from it's 35 year old self.  Especially after you've had kids. 

I loved the first three books, but made a decision to stop reading after that, and I guess that's where I am in the show, too. Somehow I would have made it that they hadn't spent 20 years apart, but I guess with Brianna, you can't cheat and only make it say 10 years. 20 looks great on paper, but not so much with perfect skin and rock hard bodies on screen.

[FnkyChkn34]

5 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

And therein lays my entire problem with this show, and with the books.  I would have stayed put, would have saved a lot of time and angst.

I actually only watched 20 mins of this episode and decided, I'm just done with it. The first season was so, so good--so far this season the only episode I enjoyed was Helwater. And I HATE that Claire brought a medical instruments kit--and leaves it open for Willowby and everyone to see--want to get tried as a witch again?  You could at least hide your instruments.  I hated that Jamie had little reaction but shock to last week's photographs--they've carved this show up in a way that the magic is just gone for me. They spent 20 years apart--and it worked in the books, but visually we are seeing 2 people who have not aged. I'm 54, and my once nice body has changed a great deal from it's 35 year old self.  Especially after you've had kids. 

I loved the first three books, but made a decision to stop reading after that, and I guess that's where I am in the show, too. Somehow I would have made it that they hadn't spent 20 years apart, but I guess with Brianna, you can't cheat and only make it say 10 years. 20 looks great on paper, but not so much with perfect skin and rock hard bodies on screen.

That's always been my problem with the book and now the show.  Jamie just assumed he'd die because so many Highlanders died, so he made Claire go back?  I guess they knew that times got rough after Culloden even for the survivors, but still.  Claire could have always gone back at any time; she didn't have to go *before* the battle.  That part never made sense to me.

Jamie was only 22 when he met Claire.  Now he's presumably only 42, maybe 43.  A 37-year-old Sam Heughan works for me as a 42 -or-43-year-old Jamie.  Maybe the problem is/was that he didn't really look only 22?  (I'm 36, and I legitimately just got carded at a bar over the weekend.  So I guess I can buy that they look young, especially Claire who had the advantage of 1950-60s hygiene and nutrition.)  

Sorry to hear that you aren't enjoying the show anymore.  I know that I still am, even if it takes using my imagination.

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

That's always been my problem with the book and now the show.  Jamie just assumed he'd die because so many Highlanders died, so he made Claire go back?  I guess they knew that times got rough after Culloden even for the survivors, but still. 

It's not just that. He probably expected to die because he promised he'd turn himself in to Rupert for killing Dougal. Not that Rupert would kill him, but who knows what would have happened? Claire didn't want to go; she fought against going back, even though she'd promised him that she would return to Frank should they fail in stopping Charlie "Mark Me" Stuart and Culloden.

As with a lot of contemporary shows, if I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, then I can do it here as well. Plus, Gabaldon has written Jamie and Claire looking young for their years, despite everything that Jamie has been through. This is a series about magick and time traveling, so I can go with the flow, so tae speak. I'm not looking for documentary-type realism here.

[whoknowswho]

4 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

That's always been my problem with the book and now the show.  Jamie just assumed he'd die because so many Highlanders died, so he made Claire go back?  I guess they knew that times got rough after Culloden even for the survivors, but still.  Claire could have always gone back at any time; she didn't have to go *before* the battle.  That part never made sense to me.

Jamie was only 22 when he met Claire.  Now he's presumably only 42, maybe 43.  A 37-year-old Sam Heughan works for me as a 42 -or-43-year-old Jamie.  Maybe the problem is/was that he didn't really look only 22?  (I'm 36, and I legitimately just got carded at a bar over the weekend.  So I guess I can buy that they look young, especially Claire who had the advantage of 1950-60s hygiene and nutrition.)  

Sorry to hear that you aren't enjoying the show anymore.  I know that I still am, even if it takes using my imagination.

It's been years and years since I read the books--that's right, Jamie is a fair bit younger than Claire, who was in her late 20s, right? 

She didn't used to irk me--but the whole "I must do surgery on this man who tried to rape me" just was wrong and quite stupid. While drilling a hole in the skull is a perfectly correct thing to do to a person with severe brain swelling --it was just silly here.  I actually turned it to GOT, which has more believability, and in a show with dragons, that's saying something! But there, the beautiful people get scars and change over the years. 

I was born in the 60s, and at my age, have no grey hair and few wrinkles, while my mother was getting grey at 18. But physically, my body has changed--the sands of time have shifted so to speak. And I'm a nurse and still in good shape, but hard work has taken it's toll.  Mom and I both quit reading the books after Voyager, and I think a part of it was the constant rapiness, constant constant danger--people may have lived exciting and dangerous lives back then, but damn, these folks never have a day without danger. It's every-single-freaking-day. I'd rather have less action and more character development.

 I thought I'd be so happy to have Frank dead and gone, and Jamie and Claire in Scotland...but I just couldn't get into it.  Maybe I'll try to watch the rest of the episode, I quit after raper-exciseman died.  It just isn't doing it for me. And that is kind of sad, because I love Sam...and feel like a dirty old lady perve for liking him. :) But I cannot stand Claire anymore--and that surprised me. 

[FnkyChkn34]

5 minutes ago, whoknowswho said:

It's been years and years since I read the books--that's right, Jamie is a fair bit younger than Claire, who was in her late 20s, right? 

She didn't used to irk me--but the whole "I must do surgery on this man who tried to rape me" just was wrong and quite stupid. While drilling a hole in the skull is a perfectly correct thing to do to a person with severe brain swelling --it was just silly here.  I actually turned it to GOT, which has more believability, and in a show with dragons, that's saying something! But there, the beautiful people get scars and change over the years. 

I was born in the 60s, and at my age, have no grey hair and few wrinkles, while my mother was getting grey at 18. But physically, my body has changed--the sands of time have shifted so to speak. And I'm a nurse and still in good shape, but hard work has taken it's toll.  Mom and I both quit reading the books after Voyager, and I think a part of it was the constant rapiness, constant constant danger--people may have lived exciting and dangerous lives back then, but damn, these folks never have a day without danger. It's every-single-freaking-day. I'd rather have less action and more character development.

 I thought I'd be so happy to have Frank dead and gone, and Jamie and Claire in Scotland...but I just couldn't get into it.  Maybe I'll try to watch the rest of the episode, I quit after raper-exciseman died.  It just isn't doing it for me. And that is kind of sad, because I love Sam...and feel like a dirty old lady perve for liking him. :) But I cannot stand Claire anymore--and that surprised me. 

Yeah, that part really bothered me too, but it might be good to keep in mind that this episode was written by a brand new writer.  DG said herself that there was one episode this season where characters weren't themselves (and I think she may have even gone so far as to say the viewers wouldn't like it? can't remember details).  But this was that episode.  So I'm holding out hope that next week gets better.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

4 hours ago, Atlanta said:

LadyBrochTurach, I think the 'healthy balls' scene was on the ship, IIRC. It's been awhile.

I just double checked, it's when Jamie tells Claire to wait in their room at the brothel while he is off dealing with the Brandy casks. And she's hiding under the sheets as she has no clothing as of yet. 

Quote

“Brandy seems to be your downfall,” I observed. “I’m sorry I haven’t anything to give you for your head; I don’t have any medicines with me at the moment.”

“Oh, not worry,” he assured me. “I having healthy balls.”

Excerpt From: Gabaldon, Diana. “Voyager 3.” Random House Publishing Group, 2010-03-31T07:00:00+00:00. iBooks. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

Yeah, that part really bothered me too, but it might be good to keep in mind that this episode was written by a brand new writer.  DG said herself that there was one episode this season where characters weren't themselves (and I think she may have even gone so far as to say the viewers wouldn't like it? can't remember details).  But this was that episode.  So I'm holding out hope that next week gets better.

I'm definitely not one to overly criticize one writer because I know it's a collaboration, and so there are aspects of each episode that I'm sure are compromises. However this is what someone posted somewhere else about Gabaldon's opinion:

 

Quote

Apparently DG isn't all that wild about ep 307 either.
This was written yesterday.
Diana Gabaldon: I really enjoyed the first six episodes, myself--particularly the Jamie parts of 1-4.

To be honest, my least favorite episode would be The Search from season one.

[Outlanderfan]

On 10/29/2017 at 3:59 AM, DakotaLavender said:

I am not enjoying this season at all. Something is missing and I think Claire and Jamie lost their chemistry. They just do not seem to be in love. There is no spark and the plot is really boring me. 

I noticed this also.  However, the part that bothered me the most is that in the past they worked as a team, plotted as a team and functioned with consensus.  This is two people who have been going it alone for 20 years.  It shows.  I do not like it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Outlanderfan said:

I noticed this also.  However, the part that bothered me the most is that in the past they worked as a team, plotted as a team and functioned with consensus.  This is two people who have been going it alone for 20 years.  It shows.  I do not like it.

At the risk (again) of sounding like a broken record, it's only been one day since Claire showed up.  ONE Day. I have no doubt they will be a team again; until it's Jamie and Claire against the world, the sea, as they embark on their adventure this season. 

Frankly, I would find it more unrealistic, if they were in sync right away, without having to readjust to who they are NOW.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I noticed this also.  However, the part that bothered me the most is that in the past they worked as a team, plotted as a team and functioned with consensus.  This is two people who have been going it alone for 20 years.  It shows.  I do not like it.

Well, then I would say the writers and actors were very successful since, I'm sure, that's exactly what they were trying to achieve! (Umm, not the *you* not liking it part ;-)

[Outlanderfan]

On 10/29/2017 at 1:21 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Since I don’t give any fucks about Brianna, I don’t care really how she’s used. What I do not care for is this ongoing theme that Claire chose to leave on the eve of Culloden. With all the “you left,” “I left” nonsense. When those of us who watched last season know and saw she fought NOT to go back and it was Jamie insisting she do so.????

This is exactly what I do not understand.  Jamie forced Claire to go back, he gave her no other choice, he refused to go back with her.  Now he has all this underhanded stuff going on, and has made poor decisions and she is now supposed to deal.  I am not even sure he wants her there.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Outlanderfan said:

This is exactly what I do not understand.  Jamie forced Claire to go back, he gave her no other choice, he refused to go back with her.  Now he has all this underhanded stuff going on, and has made poor decisions and she is now supposed to deal.  I am not even sure he wants her there.

Regarding the bolded--Jamie couldn't go back with her. He didn't/couldn't hear the buzzing. It's been revealed in later buiks he can't time travel. And Claire is very much aware (because he told her) of Jamie's smuggling, and she's fine with it. As she told him in "A. Malcolm."

And Claire promised Jamie back in season two, that if they failed to stop the rising or Prince Charlie, that she would go back to Frank. So that she would have someone to take care of her and their child.

[Petunia846]

The other reason, in the book, that Jamie makes Claire go back is because she had really difficult pregnancies. With Faith she almost died along with Faith, but in the 20th century she had a chance at modern medicine helping keep both her and the baby alive. And in the book, Claire does mention that Brianna was a hard pregnancy too. Of course we got basically none of that in the show, so people forget...