S03.E07: Crème De Menthe

[Nidratime]

Quote

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.

I was afraid you might be in the wrong thread, but ....

Spoiler

Jamie can't time travel. He doesn't have the genetic predisposition.

As for the rest, Jamie fully expected to die at Culloden, as we all know, so he wanted pregnant Claire to go back to a time and place where he felt she would be safe -- the place she came from. It's also somewhat unspoken that they felt Claire's pregnancy might be risky. She lost their first child and with more advanced medical care, she'd be more likely to have a successful outcome in the future.

As for Jamie making poor decisions in Claire's absence, he never expected to ever see her again, so his decisions were not made with the thought of her being in his life once more. (One might wonder if he had to worry about the other people in his life, and he can be taken to task for not thinking of *their* safety.) However, once Claire returned, I'm sure he wants her there and can hardly believe that she is. It's no doubt a radical adjustment for both of them and that's what we're seeing in the show.

[WatchrTina]

5 hours ago, Nidratime said:

It's also somewhat unspoken that they felt Claire's pregnancy might be risky.

Yes!  This!  In the book it is heart-breaking that our one-true-pairing is separated for 20 years but when Claire comes back she does tell Jamie that she had a very difficult pregnancy.  My take-away is that, by sending Claire back through the stones, Jamie saved her life and that of his child.  If she had hidden out at Lallybroch waiting for him, he would have lost them both.  And if THAT had happened I don't think feral, cave-dwelling Jamie would have ever recovered from the blow.  

I think the knowledge that their actions saved the life of their child and actually made it possible for Jamie and Claire to be reunited helps them make peace with the 20 years they were cheated out of.  I think it's a shame that the TV version left that out.

Edited November 1, 2017 by WatchrTina

[koboldin]

This reasoning provided in the Karen Campbell script is character assassination. What kind of Jamie have they created who can be both horrified at some virtue threat to his daughter and be such a cheap-ass that he's cool letting his daughter's mother continue living indefinitely in a brothel because free rent?

[koboldin]

And while I really, really want them to hash out what a crap marriage Frank provided within the show - sexually disappointed and ultimately replaced by a different model - this dialogue is ... good lord, this dialogue is a dud. I have no real confidence this writer understands the established ethos and personalities of Claire and Jamie. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, koboldin said:

And while I really, really want them to hash out what a crap marriage Frank provided within the show - sexually disappointed and ultimately replaced by a different model - this dialogue is ... good lord, this dialogue is a dud. I have no real confidence this writer understands the established ethos and personalities of Claire and Jamie. 

This is just horrid. Please never let her write another episode again. Thanks to whoever it was that took out Jamie’s lines demanding if she slept with Frank-considering he didn’t remain a monk! Those lines are so fucking NOT Jamie.?????

[LadyBrochTuarach]

18 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This is just horrid. Please never let her write another episode again. Thanks to whoever it was that took out Jamie’s lines demanding if she slept with Frank-considering he didn’t remain a monk! Those lines are so fucking NOT Jamie.?????

That script makes me CRINGE. This whole episode neither of them seemed like themselves. 

[Keeta]

A few short thoughts on 307:

This episode was okay. My biggest issue was with Claire's behavior, and hers and Jamie's toward each other, though the chaotic plot contributes at least in part to that. It just didn't seem like they've been reunited for a mere 24 hours. I also could not get emotionally invested in saving the excise man's life, despite understanding Claire's perspective in theory. She seemed to be focusing on too many external things (going off on her own to see a patient she literally just met instead of being glued to the side of the man she's been pining for all these years?). Sure, you could argue that maybe this was partly a defense mechanism to just having been assaulted "hey! I know how to be a doctor at least. Great, something else to focus on for a bit."  If so though, it didn't quite come together. Partly a TV writing issue (interesting points above about the script… yeeesh), partly a source material issue (this was never my favorite part of the book). Maybe partly acting too. Caitriona is wonderful, but perhaps some more hints of vulnerability would have helped. 

Ian and Claire's reunion was pretty spot on, mainly due to some excellent acting. 

And finally: best part of the episode was Fergus, and best single moment was his eyebrow raise at the very end. HA. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 hours ago, LadyBrochTuarach said:

That script makes me CRINGE. This whole episode neither of them seemed like themselves. 

I totally agree with your first statement. But I can't agree with the last-completely. Jamie and Claire started out like themselves, and Jamie, for the most part was himself, except for the whole let's live in a brothel/lying to Ian about Wee Ian. Because I really loved the opening after Barton slipped and fell on his head on the hearth=HE killed his own self; Claire was just unable to save him. But, I digress. I loved the quiet way he said "Sassenach," asked Claire what happened, quickly seeing she was in shock, because she was, that's how Cait was playing her, how he gently took the knife/dagger from her hand. THAT is PURE JAMIE.  And it just fell apart from there, for these two. Karen what'sherface should stick to being a supervising producer, whatever the fuck that means.

[Keeta]

Don't look now y'all, but this writer co-wrote one other episode: 311 "Turtle Soup".

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Keeta said:

Don't look now y'all, but this writer co-wrote one other episode: 311 "Turtle Soup".

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

38 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And it just fell apart from there, for these two

Well, there was a nice moment in the middle where they came back to themselves -- when Claire was worried about what she had brought down on Jamie (and PS Claire -- you were attacked by Jamie's pre-existing enemies so NOTHING is your fault) and Jamie reassured her that SHE was what really mattered to him.  That happens after the patient dies and the whole episode come out from under the burden of THAT messy plot device. It's a nice Jamie-and-Claire unity moment.  Aaaaand then she decides to go to the Campbells and the moment dies.

I've been wondering if this episode didn't suffer from some editing issues.  Remember in the very first episode when Black Jack goes from zero-to-60, throwing Claire up against a rock face and trying to rape her within a minute of laying eyes on her for the first time?  We found out later (when the DVDs came out) that there was actually a deleted beat in that confrontation where fleeing Claire is grabbed by Jack, they struggle, they fall on the ground, she continues to struggle, Jack gets turned on, Claire screams bloody murder in his ear and flees again.  All that got cut so Jack's anger in the next moment we saw seemed out-of-proportion to Claire's merely having run away from him.  Something like that happens in THIS episode.  Claire is standing there trembling one moment and in the next moment she is crouched over her "patient" calmly declaring to Jamie that of course she must save the rapey guy because "I'm a doctor."  That transition was SO abrupt -- I wonder if something was cut?  I wonder if they filmed a few moments in which we would SEE Claire bent over the guy, calming herself down by refocusing her attention on doctoring.  I've said before that if THAT is what was going on in that scene (Claire suppressing her own fear by focusing her attention on someone who needed her skills) then it doesn't really come through and maybe, just maybe, the edit is to blame.

45 minutes ago, Keeta said:

She seemed to be focusing on too many external things (going off on her own to see a patient she literally just met instead of being glued to the side of the man she's been pining for all these years?). Sure, you could argue that maybe this was partly a defense mechanism to just having been assaulted "hey! I know how to be a doctor at least.

ETA:  Or, basically, what KEETA just said.

Edited November 1, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Well, there was a nice moment in the middle where they came back to themselves -- when Claire was worried about what she had brought down on Jamie (and PS Claire -- you were attacked by Jamie's pre-existing enemies so NOTHING is your fault) and Jamie reassured her that SHE was what really mattered to him.  That happens after the patient dies and the whole episode come out from under the burden of THAT messy plot device. It's a nice Jamie-and-Claire unity moment.  Aaaaand then she decides to go to the Campbells and the moment dies.

Right! Totally forgot about that! Bad me! Bad me! I love that moment and the writers in their Q&A yesterday confirmed that line was deliberate/callback to "The Wedding."

3 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I wonder if they filmed a few moments in which we would SEE Claire bent over the guy, calming herself down by refocusing her attention on doctoring.  I've said before that if THAT is what was going on in that scene (Claire suppressing her own fear by focusing her attention on someone who needed her skills) then it doesn't really come through and maybe, just maybe, the edit is to blame.

No. They said their favorite prop was that trephine, and they WANTED to show Claire "doctoring" just to show her skill as a surgeon. Of course that doesn't mean there was a more smoother transition scene that was filmed and edited out. If there was some more dialogue, they should have kept it in. As it is, it's very clunky. And Cait's hair looks shorter, too!

[WatchrTina]

I accept the trephine scene, plot holes and all (seriously, NO "barber/surgeon" in that time would just LEND a medical device like that at a moment's notice) because they needed Claire to meet the Campbells quickly and they needed the exciseman to die so his injury needed to be ultimately and quickly fatal -- not a lingering death -- but also something that Claire thought she MIGHT be able to treat.  Thus: head injury + trephine + hurried visit to the pharmacy.  I'll hand-wave all that away.  I'll even get on board with the notion that they wanted to take the opportunity to introduce the complexities that Claire's Hippocratic oath brings to the series.  I get what they were t trying to do but (IMHO) they failed in the execution.  Cait is a WONDERFUL actress so I blame that lightning-fast transition of trembling by the door holding a knife to kneeling by the patient declaring "I'm a doctor" in a calmly assured voice to writing, directing and editing.  Somebody f**ked up.

Edited November 2, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Juliegirlj]

While I do appreciate when they use appropriate dialogue of the time, the Scots phrase "dinna fash " was used repeatedly-I don't know if I can recall any other time it was used. This season has especially bothered me for the inappropriate use of language. Don't they have a proofreader of sorts to ensure realistic speech in the place/time it is set in? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, Juliegirlj said:

While I do appreciate when they use appropriate dialogue of the time, the Scots phrase "dinna fash " was used repeatedly-I don't know if I can recall any other time it was used. This season has especially bothered me for the inappropriate use of language. Don't they have a proofreader of sorts to ensure realistic speech in the place/time it is set in? 

That's how the Scots spoke, and yeah, it was used or variations of it in season one. I have no problems with it. I actually like it. There are endearments "Mo Neaghan Down, Mo Chroi, Mo Chree" that I miss. "dinna fash" basically means "don't worry." And it's a phrase that Jamie has used in the past.

I really do miss the Scottish cast and that one guy who helped Sam with his Gaelic, providing the audience and "teaching" us how to pronounce words in Gaelic.

Especially ❤️???❤️Sam. ❤️???❤️

Sigh....

Wot?

Edited November 1, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Juliegirlj said:

While I do appreciate when they use appropriate dialogue of the time, the Scots phrase "dinna fash " was used repeatedly-I don't know if I can recall any other time it was used. This season has especially bothered me for the inappropriate use of language. Don't they have a proofreader of sorts to ensure realistic speech in the place/time it is set in? 

Diana has a great love of using the same phrases over and over and over again in the books, and "dinna fash" is a particular favorite of hers for Jamie. I know they had a language consultant on the show in S1, I would assume that's still true. But like with most shows, the longer it goes on, the less they tend to lean on that resource. It's been my observation, shows generally will take more liberties with the time period and language the longer they run. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[DittyDotDot]

Sorry, I got sidetracked and forgot to mention what I found most interesting about your observation @Juliegirlj was that I wondered if the "dinna fash" didn't stand out to you because there is less and less Scottish-isms being heard now?  "Dinna fash" was used quite a bit in S1, but maybe it wasn't noticed as much because it was in a sea of Scottish terms and phrases. Which could actually be intentional--even if it is somewhat distracting--to show the changing culture in the Highlands after Culloden. 

[TaurusRose]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 2:45 PM, 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. 

5

Hey!  Them there dragons are real!  LOL  And you just had to go and remind me that one of those little babies is dead.  *cue banshee-like wailing*  I was looking forward to the reunion as well, but Claire just made me want to slap the you know what out of her in this episode and then I remembered...Claire really started getting on my nerves last season during the Paris fiasco.  If she doesn't turn it around soon, I'm afraid I will be out, too.

[whoknowswho]

9 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Hey!  Them there dragons are real!  LOL  And you just had to go and remind me that one of those little babies is dead.  *cue banshee-like wailing*  I was looking forward to the reunion as well, but Claire just made me want to slap the you know what out of her in this episode and then I remembered...Claire really started getting on my nerves last season during the Paris fiasco.  If she doesn't turn it around soon, I'm afraid I will be out, too.

I only recently started watching GOT, well, I've now watched the entire series 4 times, and am on Book 3... Viserion made me very, very sad. 

When Clair said something snippy about losing her "patient" the jist of it irked me yet again with her holier-than-thou, totally forgot you're in back in Scotland in the 1700s and have zero sense. (ie--dining with the whores like it's the Paris Court) I just had enough. It's piss poor writing. She can still be a special snowflake, but she has to be more sensible in general or she's going to get herself killed or burned as a witch. Her medical instruments concern me, so does her obviously polyester clothing, and updated blouse. 

 I don't remember Claire being as annoying as she is on the TV show...I liked her in the books.

Wonder how Laoghaire is going to react to the first Mrs. Fraser coming back in the scene? Not well, I expect.

 

Edit--Well, I watched the rest--and I'm glad I did. I loved young Ian--he looks an awful lot like the actress who plays Jenny to me. I loved him, and I liked him and Fergus together. They were worth price of admission.

And of course, Jaimie said "Sassenach", and my heart  just melted a bit again.  I ended up liking the rest of the episode far better than the first 20 mins I watched. 

But they need a couple of dragons. Just sayin'. :)

Edited November 2, 2017 by whoknowswho
needed to add more.

[LadyBrochTuarach]

13 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I totally agree with your first statement. But I can't agree with the last-completely. Jamie and Claire started out like themselves, and Jamie, for the most part was himself, except for the whole let's live in a brothel/lying to Ian about Wee Ian. Because I really loved the opening after Barton slipped and fell on his head on the hearth=HE killed his own self; Claire was just unable to save him. But, I digress. I loved the quiet way he said "Sassenach," asked Claire what happened, quickly seeing she was in shock, because she was, that's how Cait was playing her, how he gently took the knife/dagger from her hand. THAT is PURE JAMIE.  And it just fell apart from there, for these two. Karen what'sherface should stick to being a supervising producer, whatever the fuck that means.

 Confession: I wrote that in anger and shouldn't have ? I didn't mean it! I swear! ?

 I think I'm just so frustrated with this episode, I had to close my eyes a few times and think, is this REALLY happening? No discredit to Sam and Cat, they're amazing, and I think it was tough to work with the material presented this episode, considering they KNOW these characters and these roles.  

Pondering in full now...

Okay, yes, I agree. The first few minutes they were both on, and I was so happy. But both characters petered in and out, but, especially Claire. Sam was definitely more on with Jamie, I'll give you that! The Sassenach got me too, my heart dropped a bit! 

I agree, Karen should bugger off the writing. 'Twas verra kind of ye to give her supervising producer. I would say, take a hike, Karen. Away from Outlander, FAR AWAY. 

 

12 hours ago, Keeta said:

Don't look now y'all, but this writer co-wrote one other episode: 311 "Turtle Soup".

FUCK. 

 

And this is why, today, for the first time ever, I resorted to an Outlander FanFic. I needed to ease my heart by reading some J&C love stories that I haven't already read 100 times over. Don't hate on me! *runs away and hides in the Dunbonnet's cave* 

[Emily Thrace]

On 10/30/2017 at 3:47 PM, DittyDotDot said:

They called it Consumption back then, I think.

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

Consumption was a bit of a catch-all term for lung disease back in the day. Asthma was often referred to as consumption, along with COPD and most other chronic lung conditions. Ian could simply have scar tissue from old lung infections. Claire will probably be able to clarify in the next few episodes.

[theschnauzers]

Regarding the reason why Jamie married Laoghaire:

As I recall the book, Jenny set it up because she felt Jamie should be married, and because Laoghaire was unable to provide for her daughters, which is where Marsalis comes into the picture, as well as Fergus’ interest in her. Jenny was trying to solve a couple of issues on her to do list, but didn’t count on Claire returning. Thus, Jenny’s first reaction to Claire’s return, which Jamie resolves even in the book through Ned’s advice.

Edited November 2, 2017 by theschnauzers

[DittyDotDot]

8 hours ago, Emily Thrace said:

Consumption was a bit of a catch-all term for lung disease back in the day. Asthma was often referred to as consumption, along with COPD and most other chronic lung conditions. Ian could simply have scar tissue from old lung infections. Claire will probably be able to clarify in the next few episodes.

It'll be years until anyone realizes Ian has "consumption." As I recall, Claire thinks it could be tuberculosis, but it had progressed so far at that point it really didn't matter what it was called, there was nothing she could do other than make him as comfortable as possible.

[FnkyChkn34]

28 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It'll be years until anyone realizes Ian has "consumption." As I recall, Claire thinks it could be tuberculosis, but it had progressed so far at that point it really didn't matter what it was called, there was nothing she could do other than make him as comfortable as possible.

That must be in later books?  He isn't nearly that sick yet in book 5, I don't think.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

That must be in later books?  He isn't nearly that sick yet in book 5, I don't think.

It's in Echo in the Bone. It's hard to say how sick Ian is over the years because we don't see him, only get the occasional letter. My impression was he suffered on and off for years before the disease took hold towards the end. So, I think @WatchrTina's assertion that Ian looks more weathered by time could be due to his health declining makes a certain amount of sense and is as good an explanation as anything else.

Edited November 2, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

21 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

It's in Echo in the Bone. It's hard to say how sick Ian is over the years because we don't see him, only get the occasional letter. My impression was he suffered on and off for years before the disease took hold towards the end. So, I think @WatchrTina's assertion that Ian looks more weathered by time could be due to his health declining makes a certain amount of sense and is as good an explanation as anything else.

OK, thanks, that's what I figured.  I guess that should have been in spoiler tags?  But I personally don't care.  I'm only on book 5, and we're only watching season/book 3. ;-)  

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

OK, thanks, that's what I figured.  I guess that should have been in spoiler tags?  But I personally don't care.  I'm only on book 5, and we're only watching season/book 3. ;-)  

No, you didn't need to spoiler tag it. ALL BOOK TALK is allowed in the episode threads. It's just previews or spoilers about future episodes that need to be spoiler tagged. 

[FnkyChkn34]

15 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No, you didn't need to spoiler tag it. ALL BOOK TALK is allowed in the episode threads. It's just previews or spoilers about future episodes that need to be spoiler tagged. 

I thought it was just book talk is allowed for the current episode?  Like, "they did this differently in the book..."  Otherwise, there should be a spoiler tag on the entire thread too, shouldn't there?

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I thought it was just book talk is allowed for the current episode?  Like, "they did this differently in the book..."  Otherwise, there should be a spoiler tag on the entire thread too, shouldn't there?

Ummm...did I misunderstand? Calling @Athena!!!!

[FnkyChkn34]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Ummm...did I misunderstand? Calling @Athena!!!!

No worries, it could easily be me who misunderstands!  I just saw the "Book and Spoiler Policy" thread now, which does seem to say that all book talk is allowed in any "book talk" thread.  But - and I'm sorry if I'm out of line here - that doesn't make much sense. :-) 

Like I said, I personally don't care about spoilers, but what if I'm someone who is only through book 5 and don't want to be spoiled about book 8?  I'm here in a book/season 3 episode thread, so it makes sense to me that I shouldn't be spoiled about something 5 books in the future.  Do I really have to participate in the "no book talk" threads only, even as a "spoiled" book reader for the current season?  But then what if I accidentally say "they did this differently in the book" for the current episode?  I'd be in trouble, haha.  So it's a little bit confusing, if I'm honest. ;-)  

Edited November 2, 2017 by FnkyChkn34

[Athena]

40 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

No worries, it could easily be me who misunderstands!  I just saw the "Book and Spoiler Policy" thread now, which does seem to say that all book talk is allowed in any "book talk" thread.  But - and I'm sorry if I'm out of line here - that doesn't make much sense. :-) 

Like I said, I personally don't care about spoilers, but what if I'm someone who is only through book 5 and don't want to be spoiled about book 8?  I'm here in a book/season 3 episode thread, so it makes sense to me that I shouldn't be spoiled about something 5 books in the future.  Do I really have to participate in the "no book talk" threads only, even as a "spoiled" book reader for the current season?  But then what if I accidentally say "they did this differently in the book" for the current episode?  I'd be in trouble, haha.  So it's a little bit confusing, if I'm honest. ;-)  

All book talk is allowed in all book threads.  The book threads are an exception which are done book by book basis.  

Game of Thrones episode threads had a similar set up. It would be extremely hard to design multiple set of threads. As many of the book readers in this thread have read all or most of the books and/or do not mind being spoiled to the future, this was the best solution. It is not fair to book readers to hold back or spoiler tag discussion on the show when they have so much knowledge about the books going forward. As the show progresses, the books may also tend to blur together using details and foreshadowing.   

This has worked best as I think the few readers who have read only one or two of the books stay in No Book Talk with no issue and then venture in the book threads, use the Ask the Outlanders, or they lurk here at their own risk. 

[FnkyChkn34]

1 minute ago, Athena said:

All book talk is allowed in all book threads.  The book threads are an exception which are done book by book basis.  

Game of Thrones episode threads had a similar set up. It would be extremely hard to design multiple set of threads. As many of the book readers in this thread have read all or most of the books and/or do not mind being spoiled to the future, this was the best solution. It is not fair to book readers to hold back or spoiler tag discussion on the show when they have so much knowledge about the books going forward. As the show progresses, the books may also tend to blur together using details and foreshadowing.   

This has worked best as I think the few readers who have read only one or two of the books stay in No Book Talk with no issue and then venture in the book threads, use the Ask the Outlanders, or they lurk here at their own risk. 

Thank you for the explanation!  I understand. :-)  

[Coconuts]

11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

As it is, it's very clunky. And Cait's hair looks shorter, too!

Curly hair does that though, especially in changing humidity. When I went to bed last night, my hair was on my shoulders. It's raining today, and it's 1/2" above them today, and yesterday wasn't super dry.

[Nightshade]

Unlike many I liked this episode.  I like the characters of Jamie and Claire equally and they have been apart for 20 years living extremely different lives being 

changed, growing in the process. Jamie seems relaxed and that wasn't possible until sometime after moving to Edinburgh, when Jamie suggested they remain

in the brothel I understood his cheapness, but definitely did not agree. Claire is more regimented at this time, probably owing to med school, being a doctor along 

being a wife and mother.  Jamie and Claire won't become that inseparable couple again, who become stronger than any obstacles they face in the blink of an

eye, maybe in two. I like the contrast in TV show.

[WatchrTina]

I'm feeling a bit sad this morning.  In the past couple of days Matt B Roberts held a twitter Q&A and some "fans" made some pretty snarky comments, masquerading as questions. They were displeased by the changes vs the book in Jamie's behavior.  Matt got irritated.  I'm not going to link to it but I think the "Outlander News" site did a recap.

Sigh. This discord in the family gets me down.  But it also got me thinking.  I now think we can actually SEE in the episode the same debates that must have played out in the writers room.  Recall that whole scene where Claire calls out Jamie on lying to Ian's face, (when he claimed to not know where wee Ian was.)  A lot of people hated that action by TV!Jamie but now I think that the underpinnings of that disagreement ("Well in the book Jamie doesn't actually KNOW (yet) that Wee Ian IS in Edinburgh when he talks to Ian Sr. so that's not ACTUALLY lying) is addressed in the show when Jamie asks if there are really "shades" of lies.  Jamie rightly points out that he and Claire lied their way through Paris and are lying now about where she's been.  Claire is also right that sometimes you HAVE to lie (she'll be denounced as a lunatic or a liar or maybe even burned as a witch if the wrong person hears that truth of where Claire has been) but lying to a parent -- a parent who is also a person you know and love -- about the whereabouts of his missing child is a whole other class of lie.  I'm starting to think that Jamie & Claire's disagreement in the episode mirrors a disagreement they had in the writers room about what is and is not a "lie" and where would Jamie -- 40-something, ex-con, printer of seditious materials and part-time smuggler Jamie -- draw the line.  

I like this interpretation because it means the writers ARE thinking about these things.  It means that Jamie's actions in this episode (whether you like them or not) WERE deliberate --  were debated at length -- and were not the result of a newbie writer not "getting" our Jamie.

[toolazy]

On 11/3/2017 at 6:53 AM, WatchrTina said:

I'm feeling a bit sad this morning.  In the past couple of days Matt B Roberts held a twitter Q&A and some "fans" made some pretty snarky comments, masquerading as questions. They were displeased by the changes vs the book in Jamie's behavior.  Matt got irritated.  I'm not going to link to it but I think the "Outlander News" site did a recap.

Sigh. This discord in the family gets me down.  But it also got me thinking.  I now think we can actually SEE in the episode the same debates that must have played out in the writers room.  Recall that whole scene where Claire calls out Jamie on lying to Ian's face, (when he claimed to not know where wee Ian was.)  A lot of people hated that action by TV!Jamie but now I think that the underpinnings of that disagreement ("Well in the book Jamie doesn't actually KNOW (yet) that Wee Ian IS in Edinburgh when he talks to Ian Sr. so that's not ACTUALLY lying) is addressed in the show when Jamie asks if there are really "shades" of lies. 

Jamie knew he was there in the book and lied to Ian's face about it.  The difference is that Claire did not know at the time that he was lying.  

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

18 minutes ago, toolazy said:

Jamie knew he was there in the book and lied to Ian's face about it.  The difference is that Claire did not know at the time that he was lying.  

I saw Diana commenting on this and she felt it was different. In the book, he had promised young Ian he could be the one to explain it and had intentions of going home. In the show, Jamie was saying he should raise their child instead of them. Like he would be better at it. Also, in the book, didn't Jamie try and keep Ian away from all his shady stuff? In the show, he had Ian all up in it and was "showing him the ways of the world" 

I don't know, the lying did seem different to me too. But who knew lies had shades I guess.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Rilla-my-Rilla

[toolazy]

2 minutes ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

I saw Diana commenting on this and she felt it was different. In the book, he had promised young Ian he could be the one to explain it and had intensions of going home. In the show, Jamie was saying he should raise their child instead of them. Like he would be better at it. Also, in the book, didn't Jamie try and keep Ian away from all his shady stuff? In the show, he had Ian all up in it and was "showing him the ways of the world" 

I don't know, the lying did seem different to me too. But who knew lies had shades I guess.

Yeah, that's true.  There was more justification for his lie in the book - he had more honorable intentions.  But he still lied.

[Nidratime]

One thing I've been meaning to mention about this episode: I was surprised that, during the negotiations for the contraband alcohol, Fergus seemed to take a backseat to Young Ian, letting Ian do all the talking. I would think it would've been Fergus who took the lead since he's older and more savvy.  I don't know if this was done for any particular reason, or they just wanted to give Young Ian more of a starring role since he is soon going to be the reason our main characters are going to go off on this major voyage to save him.

[Kim0820]

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

I do appreciate how insecure Jamie still is. When he asked uncertainly whether Claire would return after seeing Margaret Campbell, I got the

Then I wanted to slap the back of Jamie’s head when he said and thinks it’s perfectly okay to set up house at a fucking brothel!??

Cute, like in the beginning he would not go anywhere without her.

Well he said the brothel was temporary 🙂

On 10/29/2017 at 1:14 AM, koboldin said:

Definitely a mixed bag. The resentment of Jamie to not raising Brianna and the stupid bikini got an unresolved scene.  Claire gets sanctimonious about young Ian and parenting. I guess they are using Brianna as a way to show Jamie's anger at not getting to raise his own children. This is maybe to make Claire already jumpy before Jamie and L's marriage is revealed? I'm not liking their using Brianna this way at all.

Claire need not have used such a photo.  Why does she think he could even begin to understand that?  

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

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.????

I  noticed that right off too.  That whole thing was his idea.  Which was pretty lame.  I mean at least make sure he dies at Culloden first.  Then go explain to the family that you think you are better off in America and a danger to them as a traitor's wife.  But plot points.  

On 10/29/2017 at 9:26 AM, DittyDotDot said:

Also, I actually get why other people outside of Jamie and Claire would see Claire as abandoning them. They don't know Jamie basically forced Claire back through the stones, nor do they know there was no way for her to contact and/or help them over the last 20 years of famine and hardship. All they know is she showed back up when things had gotten better. And, I can see Claire feeling a certain amount of guilt over that even if it wasn't her fault. Guilt is weird that way.

They had her advice to plant potatoes.  I think she even told Jenny there would be hardship.  Jenny listened, because Jamie told her she should, even if she didn't understand.  So they should have been better off than society generally that didn't have that clue.

On 10/29/2017 at 10:03 AM, FnkyChkn34 said:

 liked this episode, but - anyone else annoyed that Claire just screams "Jamie" anywhere and everywhere??  He's Alexander in Edinburgh!

Yes, I rewound to catch it again, "did she say 'Jamie?'"  Also Ian saying "Uncle Jamie."  If this is supposed to be a disguise, it's not being used well enough.  But then he thinks using two of his own middle names is enough.