S03.E07: Crème De Menthe

[Athena]

Quote

In the aftermath of a violent confrontation, Claire follows her conscience as a surgeon, even though it could put her and Jamie's lives at risk. At the same time, Jamie attempts to evade the reach of the Crown as its representative closes in on his illegal dealings.

Reminder: This is the No Book Talk topic. No discussion of the books is allowed including saying "in the books..." Book readers are discouraged from posting and liking in this thread. Posts may be removed without warning.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Claire is a better person than I am. Hippocratic oath or no, I don't know that I'd be able to try to save/heal someone who had just threatened to rape and kill me. Realistically, I know that whole thing was just an excuse for Jamie to say she's still stubborn and to show us once again that Claire is a badass with stronger nerves and a stronger stomach than the men around her.

I understand the "modern woman chafing against olde tymey society," but Claire refusing to let Fergus escort her the house of a stranger was just stupid. There's nothing wrong with being cautious, especially when you're a (female0 stranger in a strange land.

So much for Jamie's "don't worry, they'll never find the seditious pamphlets because they're so well hidden!"

Let me get this straight - Jamie thinks Brianna's virtue was endangered by wearing a bikini, but he's totally fine with his wife living in a brothel where just hours ago she was threatened with rape and murder but couldn't report the incident to the police because she was a woman in a brothel with a man who wasn't her husband.

Ha, when Fergus said, "We came as soon as we heard," I started singing Hamilton.

Can't wait until the guy who bought the booze finds the dead body in his crème de menthe.

Oh, Jamie. There's never really a good time to tell your long lost wife you got married again, but maybe when she was telling you about everything that happened was the best opening you were ever going to get.

[Cloudberryjam]

I agree about Claire stubbornly refusing Fergus as escort.  Her character is so smart in many ways but so ....reckless in others. Especially after  the ill fated walk across town in Paris last season, maybe listen to Jamie?  

I like how its getting kinda Hamilton-y with the tricorn hats etc:) We are getting into the same time period as Hamilton now I guess...

When Claire goes to visit that couple was what the sister said supposed to be a prediction for Claire? Or just some babble? 

[TaurusRose]

As of this episode, I pretty much can’t stand Claire. 

[nara]

A lot of exciting things happened this episode, but the casual "your other wife" blew them all away.  Kudos to all those who predicted this!

OF COURSE, Fergus lost his virginity in a menage a trois.   You can take the boy out of the brothel...

Claire's recklessness has gone beyond charming to tedious.

That waitress (Bridget, I think) reminded me of Laoghaire a little in her coloring and expressions.

[rxpert14]

I see lots of posters describing Claire as reckless, but I guess I'm not seeing where Claire was reckless in this episode. Barton would have broken into the room whether she was there or not. Percuval (sp?) would have searched the warehouse and the printshop would have burned had Claire never stepped foot in Edinburgh. I didn't see that any of her doctoring impacted Jamie's business dealings. Other than insisting on going for supplies without Fergus as an escort, which resulted in no shenanigans, then I thought she acted very reasonable. Maybe I missed something?

[Fable]

12 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Let me get this straight - Jamie thinks Brianna's virtue was endangered by wearing a bikini, but he's totally fine with his wife living in a brothel where just hours ago she was threatened with rape and murder but couldn't report the incident to the police because she was a woman in a brothel with a man who wasn't her husband.

I don’t blame Jamie for his reaction.  I agree living in a brothel isn’t ideal,, but that is where Jamie was living when Claire returned and had no expectation of her coming back, so there was no way to make other arrangements.  On the other hand, Claire knew the standards of that day and age and should have realized that was not going to play. 

[Juneau Gal]

7 hours ago, taurusrose said:

As of this episode, I pretty much can’t stand Claire. 

You held out longer than me. I have found her utterly insufferable since Season 2. But I am also the person who sees nothing romantic in wasting 20 years of your life pining over someone you truly believe you will never see again and by doing so ruining other people’s lives along the way. I fear this show is no longer for me. 

[Swiss]

2 hours ago, Juneau Gal said:

You held out longer than me. I have found her utterly insufferable since Season 2. But I am also the person who sees nothing romantic in wasting 20 years of your life pining over someone you truly believe you will never see again and by doing so ruining other people’s lives along the way. I fear this show is no longer for me. 

 First time poster on this Outlander forum but I just had to chime in.  I am so over Claire, I couldn't even finish this episode.  From the way she behaves, does she still think she's back in 1968 Boston? Is she totally clueless to the current dangers around her in Scotland?   Blah....Jamie needs to dump her and stay with his other wife!  She has become quite an unlikable character for me.   Her only redeeming moment last season was when she finally accepted the blame for Faith's death. I actually cheered out loud during that scene..."it's about time"!   I think I am done with this show as well.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Disjointed, out of order thoughts on the episode:

So Jamie is married.  To someone other than Claire, that is.  Huh.  Wonder if it is someone we've met before, like Mary McNab or just some poor random woman who's going to get tossed aside cause Claire's back.  I'm not sure how I feel about that reveal honestly.  On the one hand, I don't blame him for getting remarried - it's been 20 years, it makes sense, and Claire had Frank all those years, even if it was mostly a marriage of convenience for Brianna's sake.  On the other, he should have told Claire by now.  And his current/previous/second wife.  What an asshole thing to do.  Okay, I'll give him a bit of a pass on the second wife, since I guess Claire's only been back a day or two and no telephones back then.  But he still should have told Claire.  After all, he had time to send word to Ned Gowan about it, didn't he?

I wasn't that crazy about Young Ian in the last episode, but I really liked him in this episode.   I'm not sure how old he's supposed to be, but I was thinking it was still under 18,so I must say I'm glad we didn't see nudity during his sex scene.  And Claire was absolutely right about Jamie telling Jenny and Ian that Young I was alright.  She was looking at it from a parent's perspective.  I know Jamie is technically a parent too, and though he would have been there for all his children had he been able, he really doesn't have the experience of having raised a child to have them go missing to understand what Jenny and Ian are feeling.

Interesting that the bar-maid said to YI, "I'm not a whore tonight, am I?"  Does that imply that she does take paying customers other nights?  Did people not worry about STDs at all back then?  I thought syphilis was around, at least.  And what is with every. single. man. on this show thinking that sex is always done doggy-style?  He was at least the third.  Really?  If YI's been around the brothel that much, he must have also seen them using other positions.  Heck, I could see that in the back ground when The Revenuers Sir Percival came to raid the joint. 

Fergus is just kind of...bleh...to me.  And I liked the younger character, so I'm not sure why adult Fergus is really not hitting the right notes for me. 

I can't believe Claire wouldn't take Fergus as an escort/chaperone.  Does she really know her way around 18th century Edinburgh that well after she's been living in 20th century Boston for the past 20 years?  Did she memorize the street map? Cities never change over time, you know.

I was really glad that Jamie didn't immediately blame Claire for any misunderstood/perceived wrongdoing a la  "What have you done, Claire" when he first walked int he room at the beginning of the ep. And instead asked the much more neutral, non-blame placing "What happened?"    I was with him about letting the man die though.   Seemed stupid to perform surgery - especially the kind Claire was attempting on the bed where they sleep (the blood would have seeped into the mattress. ew.) And, omg, I know she's a surgeon, but did she really think drilling a hole in a man's scalp would help?  Has it ever?  I'm sure to the ignorant 18th century folks she looked wise and skillful.  To me she just looked stupid for trying, especially knowing this was a woman from 1968 who should have known better. 

Jamie being so reluctant to move out of the brothel was weird - especially with Claire back.  So Brianna in a bikini is outrageous, but it's okay for him to keep his respectable wife at a brothel?  I guess the reveal that he's already married makes that make more sense.  Was he just going to keep Claire's existence quiet?  Stay married to his second wife, or maybe get a divorce without telling her before agreeing to move out.  Yeah, he obviously doesn't remember Clarie very well at all.  At first I was feeling sorry for Jamie after watching this episode.  Claire comes back and completely destroys the relatively nice life he's set up.  Just like the first time.  But now, if I think that Jamie meant to keep Claire's existence on the down low...he deserved it. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey
much not must

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I wasn't that crazy about Young Ian in the last episode, but I really liked him in this episode.   I'm not sure how old he's supposed to be, but I was thinking it was still under 18

In the last episode, he told Claire he was 16. But yeah, still under 18.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

49 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

In the last episode, he told Claire he was 16. But yeah, still under 18.

Okay, thanks!   I didn't remember that particular line, just remembered that it seemed like he was under 18 for some reason.  Which makes a lot more sense that Jenny and Ian are so worried about him disappearing versus if he was 18, imo. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

Another random thought: If, as Jamie said, Scotsmen wouldn't drink Creme de Menthe, why did he bother smuggling it in the first place?  Did he know he'd need a convenient place to hide a body no one would ever look?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

And another: I'm guess the Campbells will make another appearance down the line, because otherwise that was just a weird and rather pointless encounter. 

[taanja]

So dead dude got stuffed in a vat of creme de menthe? yeah. That's not going to come back and haunt them. 

Is young Ian really 16 years old? Cuz he looks and acts younger. And if he was born 6 yeas after Culloden (remember-- Jamie was running around with the dun bonnet and living in a cave-- AND THE SHOW TIME-LINED IT AS 6 YEARS AFTER THE BATTLE) -- that would make him about 14 yrs old.  I can see him having sex at such a young age not going over well in today's standards so I guess I understand why they might age progress the character.

So Claire and Jamie are going to leave Edinburgh?  Looks that way.

I like that Claire calls Wilobee (sp?) by his real name.

Edited: I knew Jamie was married! He was just so sketch about things and was acting like a guilty cheating husband. Does he have children with this wife? and he didn't mention them cuz then he would have had to explain to Claire about the mother of those children?

Edited October 30, 2017 by taanja
Reasons

[piequinn35]

13 hours ago, Swiss said:

 First time poster on this Outlander forum but I just had to chime in.  I am so over Claire, I couldn't even finish this episode.  From the way she behaves, does she still think she's back in 1968 Boston? Is she totally clueless to the current dangers around her in Scotland?   Blah....Jamie needs to dump her and stay with his other wife!  She has become quite an unlikable character for me.   Her only redeeming moment last season was when she finally accepted the blame for Faith's death. I actually cheered out loud during that scene..."it's about time"!   I think I am done with this show as well.  

Hehehe, I would like that too, but this show loves Claire, so this other wife might be his mistake or we will dislike the person.

[thesparkinside]

19 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I was really glad that Jamie didn't immediately blame Claire for any misunderstood/perceived wrongdoing a la  "What have you done, Claire" when he first walked int he room at the beginning of the ep. And instead asked the much more neutral, non-blame placing "What happened?"    I was with him about letting the man die though.   Seemed stupid to perform surgery - especially the kind Claire was attempting on the bed where they sleep (the blood would have seeped into the mattress. ew.) And, omg, I know she's a surgeon, but did she really think drilling a hole in a man's scalp would help?  Has it ever?  I'm sure to the ignorant 18th century folks she looked wise and skillful.  To me she just looked stupid for trying, especially knowing this was a woman from 1968 who should have known better.

Quick historical note: trephination [drilling a hole in the skull] has been done for millennia. It was usually unsuccessful, as you can imagine . . .

[RulerofallIsurvey]

43 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

Quick historical note: trephination [drilling a hole in the skull] has been done for millennia. It was usually unsuccessful, as you can imagine . . .

I knew doctors in the past had used it in practice, though I was thinking more 'quacks' from the middle ages to relieve headaches and such.  And yeah - I don't know if I've ever heard of a successful use of the procedure, at least before 'modern medicine' with sterile hospitals, precision instruments, and equipment such as blood pressure and brain wave monitors, which is why I was surprised, and a little dismayed, that Claire would even attempt it under the circumstances. 

[taanja]

4 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I knew doctors in the past had used it in practice, though I was thinking more 'quacks' from the middle ages to relieve headaches and such.  And yeah - I don't know if I've ever heard of a successful use of the procedure, at least before 'modern medicine' with sterile hospitals, precision instruments, and equipment such as blood pressure and brain wave monitors, which is why I was surprised, and a little dismayed, that Claire would even attempt it under the circumstances. 

I thought there have been skulls found in Egypt with holes in the head -- evidence of the same procedure. I could be wrong and I am too lazy (and really don't care enough) to look it up.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I rewatched last night.  FF'd through a lot of scenes.  But I've got to hand it to Young Ian.  Fellas - now here's what you say to a woman when you want to/are about to have sex with her: 'I'll do anything you want."  Lol!

ETA: Anyone know what 'Abandawe' or 'bandawe' is?  That's what Margaret Campbell is telling Claire is coming after her. I Googled it and found either something about caves in Haiti (abandawe) or a community in Malawi (bandawe), but I wondered if it was a Gaelic term?

Edited October 31, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey

[Juliegirlj]

Young Ian is a stud! Must be those Fraser genes! 

I have taken issue with some of the dialog this season-their use of modern words that wouldn't have been used pop out frequently, and now, the Scots phrase " dinna fash" is used repeatedly, over and over. 

Why are they making Claire so utterly disagreeable and unlikeable??!! Not sure how long she has technically been back with Jamie, but it certainly is not long enough for her to have missed treating patients. After a 20 year absence from the love of her life, one would think they would be enjoying a bit of a honeymoon phase, and not wanting to be apart at all. 

Brothels were not respectable places in those times-it seems unlikely that Jamie would even be comfortable asking Claire to be in one, let alone live there for any amount of time. 

[areca]

On 10/30/2017 at 1:05 PM, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Okay, thanks!   I didn't remember that particular line, just remembered that it seemed like he was under 18 for some reason.  Which makes a lot more sense that Jenny and Ian are so worried about him disappearing versus if he was 18, imo. 

In that timeframe you were considered an adult (male) at 14 and an adult (female) at 12 at least for the age of consent, marriage, etc.  There were stipulations about being 21 for legal stuff though.  I believe it stayed this way in the UK until the early 20th century.  It actually makes almost no sense in context to norms of the time, IMHO.

Edited November 2, 2017 by areca

[RulerofallIsurvey]

12 hours ago, areca said:

In that timeframe you were considered an adult (male) at 14 and an adult (female) at 12 at least for the age of consent, marriage, etc.  There were stipulations about being 21 for legal stuff though.  I believe it stayed this way in the UK until the early 20th century.  It actually makes almost no sense in context to norms of the time, IMHO.

I don't think that's as true as most people tend to believe.  While yes, I think boys were expected to work (and girls, especially if rural much the same as on a farm today) at a young age, it didn't mean that they were considered adults in the eyes of the law.  It probably wasn't spelled out in the Law back then, but common law was used.  Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1754 set the legal age to marry with a license at 21 without the consent of the parents.  If married in a church where banns were read 3 consecutive Sundays, a person could be under 21 as long as the parents did not object to the banns being read.  Jews and Quakers were exempt: http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/

Scotland, apparently, did not abide by the Marriage Act of 1754, hence all the "Gretna Green" marriages which are so popular in romantic fiction.  While maybe girls were legally able to marry at 12, (depending on the source) most research I found indicates that the average age for women to marry in Scotland in the 18th century was early to mid 20's. 

I also found this:

Quote

In Scotland the common law recognised 21 years as the age of majority but the law differed from that of England and Ireland in that it recognised two categories of persons under 21 years of age, namely, that of –

(1) a pupil – a male under the age of 14 and a female under the age of 12; and
(2)a minor – a male between the ages of 14 and 21 and a female between the ages of 12 and 21.

A minor has greater legal capacity than a pupil. Thus, for example, a pupil is incapable of making a legal contract but his tutor (i.e. his parent or guardian) may act on his behalf. A minor who has no curator (i.e. father or guardian) may act on his own. If a minor makes a contract without his curator's consent, such contract is not enforceable against the minor if it is to the minor's detriment, but it may be enforced against the other party if it would be to the minor's advantage. (See Brief Summary of the Law of Scotland relating to Minors prepared by the Scottish Law Commission in Report of the Committee on the Age of Majority– the Latey Report (July 1967) (London, Cmnd. 3342) Appendix 5, p. 165 et seq.)

from a study published in 1975: http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation papers/wpAgeofMajority.htm

I included it here because it does mention Scottish common law, and common law, generally, I think, is believed to have preceded any written law.    So, I think Jenny and Ian being worried about, and looking for their 16-year old son still makes sense, even in the context of the time. 

[thesparkinside]

Also, I think it's fair to point out that even if 16 was considered "full-grown", it was still young. And, heck, I'm 30, and my parents would be worried if I went missing!

What Papa Ian was worried about specifically was Young Ian being impressed/pressed--that is, being kidnapped and taken into the navy or onto a merchant vessel. If you could knock someone out and carry them onto a ship, by the time they wake up, the ship is off to sea and will be gone for months or years with no one back home being any the wiser. That was a common practice at the time, and actually was one of the major gripes the new United States had with Great Britain in the early 1800s: the British kept kidnapping Americans and forcing them to work on their ships. That's what Ian was talking about--a blink-and-you-miss-it moment, but a reference to a real historical practice.

[ganesh]

On 10/29/2017 at 6:22 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I understand the "modern woman chafing against olde tymey society," but Claire refusing to let Fergus escort her the house of a stranger was just stupid. There's nothing wrong with being cautious, especially when you're a (female0 stranger in a strange land.

I'm late on my viewing, but come on. It's Fergus for one, who she knows, and who adores her. Just let him escort you so Jamie has a little peace of mind. Isn't that how marriages work?

On 10/29/2017 at 1:34 PM, Cloudberryjam said:

When Claire goes to visit that couple was what the sister said supposed to be a prediction for Claire? Or just some babble? 

Just tv-wise, I would think it's got to be something. I mean, there's magic stones. I wouldn't think Claire would think it's meaningful, but I wouldn't dismiss it either.

I've never been that much of a Claire fan, but I didn't have a problem with her trying to save the tax guy. Dead bodies have a way of turning up. Say she saves him. Who knows if he's so grateful that he looks the other way? I think it was worth a shot. Jamie saying, "I don't feel bad he died" is fair, and he tried to understand Claire's pov when she explained it to him. 

However, I don't think it's so good that he's lying to Ian about the son. Maybe just say, he's working in my print shop. He's young; the city is exciting. Let's all talk about this. Maybe he comes home over the winter. It's not fair to worry the parents. 

Fergus totally stole his scenes. "2 of them, and moi!" I loved how Ian basically repeated Fergus' instructions. 

[Hyla]

I was so relieved when the excise man tripped on the clothes and wasn't able to follow through on that assault he'd promised last episode. I had been worried considering the track record of the show.

Much better that it was a set up to show off Claire's skills as a surgeon. I didn't have a problem with her trying to save him. I don't like how murder and death is treated so lightly on tv and in film, so any show where characters advocate for life or where suffering and death is shown to have consequences is a welcome change for me! (I've read about trepanation before and saw it done to save someone in HBO's Rome so I wasn't surprised when Claire went there. Or that she'd probably considered 'how would I treat this ailment if I were in the 18th century?' all during her medical training. )

My favorite scene was Jamie coming in and taking the knife from Claire. There was sensitivity and understanding there. But, so much tension and uncomfortableness everywhere else!

It makes sense that 20 years of living very separate lives have made them different people and that they have a lot of work to do to reconcile. 

Claire needed to go to the Campbell's by herself. Even if it's taking a risk, being able to walk down a main street in daylight to go visiting without an escort is a minimum requirement of being an independent person. Besides, Fergus had better things to do advising adorable young Ian.

It's Jamie's character who has changed so much! I'm not sure how long it's supposed to have been since he left Helwater, but he was at least 15 years between cave, prison, and parole - and those weren't happy years. It's not surprising he's worn down, bitter and angry. But, to be so casual about dead bodies and where to put them and all these other underworld shenanigans. Claire can't have imagined it was this man and this life she was crossing thousands of miles and 200 years to be with.

And how could Jamie lie to *Ian* like that about young Ian? It was so, so awful to leave him out of his mind worried about his son and then send him out into the night on his one leg to keep searching. Especially with the wonderful reaction shot to Ian's meeting Claire again after all this time and he and Jenny thinking her gone.

It felt like Jamie wanted young Ian as a surrogate son. (But, doesn't he already have Fergus?) And that he thought he had a better understanding of him then his own sister and brother-in-law. Did he maybe have plans to pass the print shop and his other businesses onto him?

What a contrast between Jamie's indignation that 19 year old Brianna may have compromised her virtue and his 16 year old nephew/surrogate seeming to feel it was okay to bring a girl back to his uncle's beloved print shop.

And then burning it down. 

Looking forward to next episode!

Edited November 4, 2017 by Hyla
Punctuation

[Lunula]

On 10/29/2017 at 7:12 PM, rxpert14 said:

I see lots of posters describing Claire as reckless, but I guess I'm not seeing where Claire was reckless in this episode. Barton would have broken into the room whether she was there or not. Percuval (sp?) would have searched the warehouse and the printshop would have burned had Claire never stepped foot in Edinburgh. I didn't see that any of her doctoring impacted Jamie's business dealings. Other than insisting on going for supplies without Fergus as an escort, which resulted in no shenanigans, then I thought she acted very reasonable. Maybe I missed something?

I feel the same here as Rxpert14. I understand the frustration with Claire's sometimes stubborn personality; however, I am not sure how she could be blamed as reckless in this episode.

 

On 10/30/2017 at 0:17 AM, Juneau Gal said:

You held out longer than me. I have found her utterly insufferable since Season 2. But I am also the person who sees nothing romantic in wasting 20 years of your life pining over someone you truly believe you will never see again and by doing so ruining other people’s lives along the way. I fear this show is no longer for me. 

I'm late to the game here, as I only got Starz a couple of weeks ago and have binged this show up to this point. I have to say I fail to see how Claire has "ruined" anyone's life? Frank made his choices, good or bad, and Claire cannot be blamed for that. She was honest with him immediately and he chose to stay with her, asked her to raise the baby as his and also asked that she never tell Brianna the truth. Screwing with Brianna's life was as much Frank as Claire and honestly, how can we blame either of them for keeping the secret? How would her life have truly been ruined if Frank hadn't stayed with Claire and accepted Brianna as his own all these years? And Brianna got two loving parents, not in love with each other, but still solid and loving to her.

My parents were married over 40 years and it was loveless for years before my dad died - in fact, there were many times I wanted them to divorce - but they both made their own choices to stay together, for whatever reasons. They were grown-ass adults, they both chose to stay.

Jamie was also making his own choices, her presence and his love for her certainly changed the course of his life, but how is she responsible for ruining it? Her own? Not really - she always loved Jamie, but she made her choices and stayed with Frank and had a beautiful daughter who had a beautiful life and she forged an amazing career. 

What life has Claire ruined?

*EDIT* to post: How adorable was Jamie putting on his reading glasses in the print shop? He looks like he hasn't aged a day, but he needs readers! :)

Edited December 4, 2017 by Lunula

[veronicalodge44]

i'm catching up on this series way after the fact, but after watching this episode i just have to comment - why is there constant drama?  there are barely any times in-between dramatic, heavy, painful events.  i would really enjoy seeing more of some scenes of just "slice of life" types of moments and interactions, and some episodes where, i don't know, maybe only one dramatic thing occurs.

 

since claire has returned, we have had: an attack and attempted rape, a man die and need to be disposed of, an "inspection" by percival, a break-in to the print shop, a fire to said print shop, discovery of jamie's seditious treatises, and jamie needing to rescue young ian.  

 

when i'm watching this show, i feel like i get whiplash when so many melodramatic developments occur in a row like this.  while i was glad they didn't rush the sex scenes between the reunited jamie and claire, i can't help but wonder why can't other types of scenes be given a more leisurely pacing, or even be included between all the constant drama?  (and i did agree with some other posters that the sex scenes went on for too long in the end.)

 

i used to think it was all the constant killing and rape threats and the like that kept me from enjoying the scenes set in the distant past, but now i think it's more of this pacing issue for me.  i would give anything for more 'casual' scenes between characters, scenes that are allowed to breathe.  perhaps my frustration is, in part, that i am much more into characterization than plot, or, to put it another way, i rarely enjoy shows that do not sacrifice characterization for constant plot (this is the main reason why i gave up on game of thrones around season 5).

 

does anyone else have this experience whilst watching this show?

[nara]

5 hours ago, veronicalodge44 said:

i'm catching up on this series way after the fact, but after watching this episode i just have to comment - why is there constant drama?  there are barely any times in-between dramatic, heavy, painful events.  i would really enjoy seeing more of some scenes of just "slice of life" types of moments and interactions, and some episodes where, i don't know, maybe only one dramatic thing occurs.

 

since claire has returned, we have had: an attack and attempted rape, a man die and need to be disposed of, an "inspection" by percival, a break-in to the print shop, a fire to said print shop, discovery of jamie's seditious treatises, and jamie needing to rescue young ian.  

 

when i'm watching this show, i feel like i get whiplash when so many melodramatic developments occur in a row like this.  while i was glad they didn't rush the sex scenes between the reunited jamie and claire, i can't help but wonder why can't other types of scenes be given a more leisurely pacing, or even be included between all the constant drama?  (and i did agree with some other posters that the sex scenes went on for too long in the end.)

 

i used to think it was all the constant killing and rape threats and the like that kept me from enjoying the scenes set in the distant past, but now i think it's more of this pacing issue for me.  i would give anything for more 'casual' scenes between characters, scenes that are allowed to breathe.  perhaps my frustration is, in part, that i am much more into characterization than plot, or, to put it another way, i rarely enjoy shows that do not sacrifice characterization for constant plot (this is the main reason why i gave up on game of thrones around season 5).

 

does anyone else have this experience whilst watching this show?

I think it’s probably due to translating novels into a tv show. The show runners seem reluctant to sacrifice “events” that happen in the books for moments of characterization. I feel the same way about the sex scenes. I was wondering about why Jamie talks so much during sex and someone told that it’s because he has all these great lines during sex scenes.  Apparently, when they consolidate those scenes they are reluctant to sacrifice the dialogue that fans like. As a result, he talks alot

[Cdh20]

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 12:43 PM, taanja said:

 

Is young Ian really 16 years old? Cuz he looks and acts younger. And if he was born 6 yeas after Culloden (remember-- Jamie was running around with the dun bonnet and living in a cave-- AND THE SHOW TIME-LINED IT AS 6 YEARS AFTER THE BATTLE) -- that would make him about 14 yrs old.  I can see him having sex at such a young age not going over well in today's standards so I guess I understand why they might age progress the character.

 

 

 

They should have changed the year he was born, so it matched up with him being 16 in this episode- apparently they think we cannot add?

[Cdh20]

On 2017-10-30 at 1:00 AM, Swiss said:

 First time poster on this Outlander forum but I just had to chime in.  I am so over Claire, I couldn't even finish this episode.  From the way she behaves, does she still think she's back in 1968 Boston? Is she totally clueless to the current dangers around her in Scotland?   Blah....Jamie needs to dump her and stay with his other wife!  She has become quite an unlikable character for me.   Her only redeeming moment last season was when she finally accepted the blame for Faith's death. I actually cheered out loud during that scene..."it's about time"!   I think I am done with this show as well.  

It wasn’t anyone’s fault the baby died, it’s sad that Claire blamed herself.

[ganesh]

Shit, it's 2019 and we still ask our lady friends if they're ok walking alone ffs. 

[Camera One]

So much for exploring the world of printshops...

For the first time in a long time, I actually thought Jaime was rather unlikeable in this episode.  I didn't think Claire needed to apologize for ruining everything.  The guy could have barged in, even if she had stayed in the room.  Sir Percival and his sidekick would have been sniffing around, regardless.  Especially with Jaime's sloppy arrangements including his super-hidden seditious pamphlets.  All of this would have happened if Claire didn't come back.

Not to mention Jaime defending keeping the secret about Young Ian from Ian Sr.  Jaime was being all sorts of shady and different from the honorable man he was when he worked at the upper class manor.  

Senior Ian looked a lot older.  They might as well have everyone look the same age as before, if they're not going to bother with the two main characters.

Though Claire beating herself up over not being able to save someone who was trying to kill and rape her was ridiculous.  

Also not-very-smart was her decision to walk around Edinburgh unaccompanied.  

Speaking of that opportunistic fortune teller (Claire was giving him a free prescription; the least he could do was to translate his sister's "vision").  I do like seeing Claire healing people, so I like her idea of doing that as a job.  I wonder if that woman with visions was the skeleton found in the West Indies from a few episodes back.  

Fergus and Young Ian's antics makes it all the more unlikely that Jaime wouldn't have slept with anyone until he got married.  

At least the show has its momentum back now that they don't need to do a split narrative for Jaime and Claire.  But it's back to the same old pattern of constant life and death situations.

[Beeyago]

6 hours ago, Camera One said:

So much for exploring the world of printshops...

For the first time in a long time, I actually thought Jaime was rather unlikeable in this episode.  I didn't think Claire needed to apologize for ruining everything.  The guy could have barged in, even if she had stayed in the room.  Sir Percival and his sidekick would have been sniffing around, regardless.  Especially with Jaime's sloppy arrangements including his super-hidden seditious pamphlets.  All of this would have happened if Claire didn't come back.

Not to mention Jaime defending keeping the secret about Young Ian from Ian Sr.  Jaime was being all sorts of shady and different from the honorable man he was when he worked at the upper class manor.  

Senior Ian looked a lot older.  They might as well have everyone look the same age as before, if they're not going to bother with the two main characters.

Though Claire beating herself up over not being able to save someone who was trying to kill and rape her was ridiculous.  

Also not-very-smart was her decision to walk around Edinburgh unaccompanied.  

Speaking of that opportunistic fortune teller (Claire was giving him a free prescription; the least he could do was to translate his sister's "vision").  I do like seeing Claire healing people, so I like her idea of doing that as a job.  I wonder if that woman with visions was the skeleton found in the West Indies from a few episodes back.  

Fergus and Young Ian's antics makes it all the more unlikely that Jaime wouldn't have slept with anyone until he got married.  

At least the show has its momentum back now that they don't need to do a split narrative for Jaime and Claire.  But it's back to the same old pattern of constant life and death situations.

Yeah, this episode was not great.  But I don’t think they’re doing a bad job of aging Claire and Jamie. They’re what, in their mid to late 40’s now? That’s not that old.  

[gingerella]

Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ! After thoroughly enjoying the hell out of the Christmas episode in Boston, and the reunion episode (I actually liked the Christmas epi best this season, which surprised me),  we're back to constant attempted rapes, murders, disposing of bodies in unsavory manners, and illegal activities again, and it seems like Claire hasn't even been back 48 hours yet, I mean has she even bathed since she's been back in Scotland?! Sometimes it's just too much, and I think I enjoyed the Christmas Boston episode so much because there was angst but there was also plot resolution to some story lines and nobody was getting raped or killed and no illicit business was being conducted, it was just life scenes as they relate to the overarching story lines. With Jamie comes a constant barrage of life and death problems and it's fucking exhausting! I suppose these things play out in a more natural and less hurried time line within the books as I've heard they're massive a la GoTs tomes, but still, I'd rather have a longer season and stretch these things out a bit more, which is one reason I loved S01 so much, yes there was a lot of violence but it was stretched out a bit more, it's amazing how much of a difference it makes to the overall timing when you have an extra 3 episodes to play with.

Anyway, let's get to it shall we?

Edinburgh, Scotland 1766:

Claire & Jamie

As Jamie came into the room and found Claire standing over the almost dead rapist/creepster that Sir Percival sent over, when he removed the dirk from Claire's hand I was reminded once again of a similar scene when they were attacked on the ridge whilst having a honeymoon romp in S01. Claire was staring at her bloodstained hands then and this felt like another mirror scene, and in both scenes this shows us that while Claire is a badass woman in so many ways, when she is forced to defend her life and has to kill another to do so, she is shaken to her core, she isn't ruthless and isn't accustomed to such violence in her life from her own time. In the aftermath of that scene, I did notice that Claire calls Jamie by his real name in front of Madame Pauline, and I immediately have a bad feeling about that as I don't trust Mme. Pauline at all right now. Claire's insistence that she must try to save this man 'because she's a doctor' doesn't hold water for this Viewer. This man was going to violently rape her and likely kill her afterward so she owed him nothing and trying to save his life will only put other lives in danger with him living. So what the fuck was the point in that? The only good thing to come from that scene was seeing her and Mr. Willoughby together. I like this new character very much, he seems genuinely kind, he cares about Jamie, one of many whom Jamie has helped give a hand up to and then has indebted to him for life, though he asks not for such fealty.

I loved when Jamie and Claire are talking and the following exchange occurs:

Jamie: "Since you left, I've been living in the shadows...When you walked into the print shop it was as if the sun returned and cast out the darkness."

This is another mirror scene/dialogue from The Wedding, when Jamie is recalling every moment of the day leading up to their marriage ceremony, and he tells Claire that when they removed her cloak and he saw her standing there outside the church, it was as if the sun suddenly came out on a cloudy day. I love that he returns to metaphors from their past and uses them as a foundation for their present.

Then he says after Claire makes it clear she's going to call in on that gentleman's sister alone:

Jamie: "You will return, afterwards...?"

He is so afraid of losing her again that he's literally wanting her to stay locked up in his room at the brothel, and never go anywhere unless he or someone he trusts is with her, just to be sure she's going to stay with him this time. I cannot imagine the angst and fear that he is experiencing, right along with the joy of being reunited with Claire, yet moments of panic when he's weighing in his mind "will this moment possibly make me lose her again?!"

The entire scene with the seers was odd, and felt very random. Other than setting the stage for Claire to suggest that she misses practicing medicine and can hang out a shingle and bring in money for them so they can get proper lodging, it was like a WTF scene with a woman who appeared to be mentally ill being subdued by her brother vis a vis drugs.

The conversation between Jamie and Claire about how Brianna was raised also felt oddly placed to me, like it was shoehorned into the Show, whereas in the Books it probably is fleshed out in a way that makes a lot more sense. This felt like a convo the showrunners felt had to be in the Show, but where to put it, oh let's just put here here! It felt off to me for some reason. But the substance was interesting...Claire is Miss Judgey McJudgepants over Jamie lying to Ian Sr., which truth be told, was hard to watch since they're like brothers and have been through so much together over the years. It felt like Jamie felt that only he really understood Ian or Fergus for that matter, and since he couldn't raise his own children - one died, one bastard, and one living 200 years in the future - he could at least appease his desire to be a real father by sort of adopting Fergus and Ian as his own. We hear this in his conversation with Claire judging him:

Claire: "Since when do you lie to your family....Jenny and Ian are his parents and they should have a say in his welfare (grossly paraphrasing)...Well that's a small white lie..."

Jamie: "I dinna realize lies had shades...I'm Brianna's father, but I dinna have a say in how you and Frank raised her!"

Jamie was so so hurt and angry that he's never been able to raise any of his own children, being a loving father is probably the most important thing to him because we've seen how he holds his parents in such high esteem in how they raised him. And since procreation is so important to him in terms of carrying on his family's bloodlines, this combines to be something he cannot resolve in his heart and it just comes out as an angry rant. Claire cannot really understand this yet, because despite losing Faith, she didn't have to give up their second child, she got to raise Brianna and experience all the joys and tribulations that come with that. This whole exchange is rather heartbreaking since it's something that cannot be taken back or changed, it just is what it is. In fact, this scene made me go back to re watch most of A. Malcomb, and I was much more emotional watching the scene where Jamie tells Claire about Willie, because Jamie would have made a wonderful father under other less contentious and dangerous times. If he'd been able to raise a family at Lallybroch, I think he would have been in heaven.

Also, one little thing that keeps coming up since they've reunited is that Jamie seems to talk of Claire's leaving the morning of Culloden as if she left him. As if it was her idea to leave and not his forcing her to go. He made her go. He literally walked her up to the Stones and put her hands onto them because he was desperate to have her go back to her own time, so he could know she was safe as was his child. But the last three episodes, since A. Malcomb, Jamie acts like Claire up and left him of her own accord. Am I the only one noticing this weird affectation when he speaks of their time apart? It's even more bizarre given that from what we saw before Culloden, Claire was willing to die with him there, so it's not like she was all "Hey, before you start killing redcoats, would you mind dropping me off at the Stones so I don't get killed with y'all too?!?" She begged and pleaded with Jamie to let her stay with him there.

Two Boys, a Father, and a Hoor

I really enjoyed seeing the brotherly bond that Fergus and Ian have together! They're funny, charming, and their scenes together were just fun to watch! I loved the way they worked together to sell the French brandy to that one merchant, getting him to up his price by throwing in 2 casks of Creme de Menthe, which I heartily agree is disgusting!  The celebratory drink at the pub, where Ian asks Fergus with great curiosity, "Does French brandy really increase the firmness of a cock?!?" and Fergus says honestly, "I actually find the opposite to be true" was just good writing right there!

I do wonder though, how did these two boys not know that the dead body was in one of the casks of Creme de Menthe, and how would one get a body into a cask to begin with?!? Don't they realize someone will find the body? That seemed like an odd touch.

Seeing Ian Sr. again was wonderful, and I like that they aged him realistically. Jamie just looks a little bit older and his hair is so godawful that it distracts me greatly. And Claire doesn't look much older at all so the aging thing isn't working for me with those two, at least with Ian it did. But I felt awful for him, coming all the way to Edinburgh on one leg, to look for his son who clearly is a serial runaway.

Up in Flames

The first thing I noticed was that yet again Claire yells Jamie's real name in public, in front of a crown of onlookers. They say later that Sir Percival will not find them at Lallybroch because he only knows Jamie as Alexander Malcomb, but with Claire saying Jamie's real name at least twice in public now, someone has got to have heard it and remembered it...

I kept wanting someone to grab the sign! When it started burning up it was like Claire's back and Jamie's Edinburgh life is up in flames. He built that life alone, in the dark aftermath of losing Claire and his unborn child. Now Claire's back and it's time for a new chapter, two as one. Jamie is like a phoenix though, he always rises from the ashes, whether he wants to or not!

I did note the exchange, I think it was between Jamie and Fergus, after Jamie carried Ian out of the fire and it was decided that Ian would be returned to Lallybroch:

Fergus: "M'lady does not yet know about your other wife?"

Jamie: "Not yet, but Bel Brachen is not close to Lallybroch..."

I don't know what Bal Brachen is, or how it's spelled, but I now I do know that Jamie has another wife somewhere that we don't know about. That said, it can't be legal if Claire is still alive so I'm not going to get too worried about it...for now!

Overall, this was a rather unsatisfying episode after two great ones...And I was surprised that we've had two episodes in a row without mention of Brianna and Roger in Boston 1968. I want to know if they got together during that visit and became a couple. Did Brianna really drop out of Harvard or did she take a leave of absence? Where are they right now? I want to know!

ETA: Remembering the bed convo from last episode, where Jamie says he "never thought he'd laugh again in a woman's bed, let alone visit one except as a brute blind with need", and Claire asked him "Is that what you'd do, when you had the need?" and Jamie got very flustered and embarrassed and didn't want to answer her, perhaps that's about this other wife...? Though he said he never loved anyone except Claire so there's that...at least I don't feel we're heading into a situation where he's torn over another woman, more like how to get out of this entanglement?

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by gingerella

[Camera One]

2 hours ago, gingerella said:

In the aftermath of that scene, I did notice that Claire calls Jamie by his real name in front of Madame Pauline

The first thing I noticed was that yet again Claire yells Jamie's real name in public, in front of a crown of onlookers. They say later that Sir Percival will not find them at Lallybroch because he only knows Jamie as Alexander Malcomb, but with Claire saying Jamie's real name at least twice in public now, someone has got to have heard it and remembered it...

It really was quite frustrating that she was so careless.  Seriously, did she forget that it's the 1700s and one wrong move can get one murdered, raped or tortured or all of the above?

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

I do wonder though, how did these two boys not know that the dead body was in one of the casks of Creme de Menthe, and how would one get a body into a cask to begin with?!? Don't they realize someone will find the body? That seemed like an odd touch.

It's a case of really bad communication.  No one told the boys about the body, and no one expected the boys to sell Creme de Menthe  or throw some in for free.

[SassAndSnacks]

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ!

This is the best terminology to describe this episode.  <insert derisive sound effect>

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

I did notice that Claire calls Jamie by his real name in front of Madame Pauline

Yes!  And then she kept doing it. <facepalm at Claire>

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ! After thoroughly enjoying the hell out of the Christmas episode in Boston, and the reunion episode (I actually liked the Christmas epi best this season, which surprised me),  we're back to constant attempted rapes, murders, disposing of bodies in unsavory manners, and illegal activities again, and it seems like Claire hasn't even been back 48 hours yet, I mean has she even bathed herself?! Sometimes it's just too much, and I think I enjoyed the Christmas Boston episode so much because there was angst but there was also plot resolution to some story lines and nobody was getting raped or killed and no illicit business was being conducted, it was just life scenes as they relate to the overarching story lines. With Jamie comes a constant barrage of life and death problems and it's fucking exhausting! I suppose these things play out in a more natural and less hurried time line within the books as I've heard they're massive a la GoTs tomes, but still, I'd rather have a longer season and stretch these things out a bit more, which is one reason I loved S01 so much, yes there was a lot of violence but it was stretched out a bit more, it's amazing how much of a difference it makes to the overall timing when you have an extra 3 episodes to play with.

Anyway, let's get to it shall we?

Edinburgh, Scotland 1766:

Claire & Jamie

As Jamie came into the room and found Claire standing over the almost dead rapist/creepster that Sir Percival sent over, when he removed the dirk from Claire's hand I was reminded once again of a similar scene when they were attacked on the ridge whilst having a honeymoon romp in S01. Claire was staring at her bloodstained hands then and this felt like another mirror scene, and in both scenes this shows us that while Claire is a badass woman in so many ways, when she is forced to defend her life and has to kill another to do so, she is shaken to her core, she isn't ruthless and isn't accustomed to such violence in her life from her own time. In the aftermath of that scene, I did notice that Claire calls Jamie by his real name in front of Madame Pauline, and I immediately have a bad feeling about that as I don't trust Mme. Pauline at all right now. Claire's insistence that she must try to save this man 'because she's a doctor' doesn't hold water for this Viewer. This man was going to violently rape her and likely kill her afterward so she owed him nothing and trying to save his life will only put other lives in danger with him living. So what the fuck was the point in that? The only good thing to come from that scene was seeing her and Mr. Willoughby together. I like this new character very much, he seems genuinely kind, he cares about Jamie, one of many whom Jamie has helped give a hand up to and then has indebted to him for life, though he asks not for such fealty.

I loved when Jamie and Claire are talking and the following exchange occurs:

Jamie: "Since you left, I've been living in the shadows...When you walked into the print shop it was as if the sun returned and cast out the darkness."

This is another mirror scene/dialogue from The Wedding, when Jamie is recalling every moment of the day leading up to their marriage ceremony, and he tells Claire that when they removed her cloak and he saw her standing there outside the church, it was as if the sun suddenly came out on a cloudy day. I love that he returns to metaphors from their past and uses them as a foundation for their present.

Then he says after Claire makes it clear she's going to call in on that gentleman's sister alone:

Jamie: "You will return, afterwards...?"

He is so afraid of losing her again that he's literally wanting her to stay locked up in his room at the brothel, and never go anywhere unless he or someone he trusts is with her, just to be sure she's going to stay with him this time. I cannot imagine the angst and fear that he is experiencing, right along with the joy of being reunited with Claire, yet moments of panic when he's weighing in his mind "will this moment possibly make me lose her again?!"

This, for me, was really the only bright spot of the entire episode.  I appreciate how they are conveying his apprehension, his nervousness, and his fear of losing her again.  

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

The conversation between Jamie and Claire about how Brianna was raised felt oddly placed to me, like it was shoehorned into the Show, whereas in the Books it probably is fleshed out in a way that makes a lot more sense.

Right you are! (and so very perceptive.) Totally different place and tone in the books.  This scene annoys me as it plays here.  

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

Am I the only one noticing this weird affectation when he speaks of their time apart? It's even more bizarre given that from what we saw before Culloden, Claire was willing to die with him there, so it's not like she was all "Hey, before you start killing redcoats, would you mind dropping me off at the Stones so I don't get killed with y'all too?!?" She begged and pleaded with Jamie to let her stay with him there.

No, you aren't the only one.  I actually have a visceral every time he mentions it like that.  She absolutely didn't want to go.  I'm wondering if it became a coping mechanisms for him over the last 20 years. 

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

I don't know what Bal Brachen is, or how it's spelled

Balriggan

3 hours ago, gingerella said:

Overall, this was a rather unsatisfying episode after two great ones

Agree.  I felt like the writing was poor, the story was rushed, and there were parts that simply didn't make sense or seemed contrary to the characters as we now know them to be.  

I also feel like Jamie and Claire needed a moment to breathe, reconnect, and talk away from everyone else.  They didn't get that, and so neither did we, and it was a disservice to both them and us.  

[Camera One]

37 minutes ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I also feel like Jamie and Claire needed a moment to breathe, reconnect, and talk away from everyone else.  They didn't get that, and so neither did we, and it was a disservice to both them and us.  

Especially since they just got back together.  Why does it immediately need to be a life-and-death situation, and destroying the entire printshop setting and Jaime's new life that we never really got to see.  Couldn't we have spent a few episodes in Edinburgh before everything came to a head with the authorities?  Or maybe have an episode with Claire making her way to Edinburgh while we saw Jaime's normal life and routine.  Though I suspect the Writers wanted shocking surprises and have us in the dark like Claire.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Camera One

[Anothermi]

On 3/24/2021 at 11:23 PM, Camera One said:

Speaking of that opportunistic fortune teller (Claire was giving him a free prescription; the least he could do was to translate his sister's "vision").  I do like seeing Claire healing people, so I like her idea of doing that as a job.  I wonder if that woman with visions was the skeleton found in the West Indies from a few episodes back.  

Good catch @Camera One.  Although last time we had a similar one-off scene (John Grey as a boy) I think it took until the following season—and a few episodes into it too boot—for that cameo to be returned to. But I like your idea! That would at least give those characters  a reason-for-being beyond reminding Claire that she still wants to do doctoring.

Sorry to say that I don't have a lot to contribute to this episode because it's left me feeling exasperated. 

Two episodes and Jamie's life as a printer is over. The pamphlets in his shop WERE treasonous and calling for the true King to be returned. Previously apolitical Jamie Fraser now appears to be a convert to the Jacobite cause and I've wasted my own time trying to make sense of what we were shown before in relation to what they show us now.  I'm packing up and moving to the couch that Camera One and @gingerella were posting from last episode!  However, I'm wondering if Jamie was not the writer of those pamphlets—just the printer as he was listed on the "Roger" pamphlet? Printing treason is equally seditious behaviour though.  But the printing press is done. Tally Ho to some other crisis. 

On 5/31/2021 at 3:13 PM, gingerella said:

we're back to constant attempted rapes, murders, disposing of bodies in unsavory manners, and illegal activities again, and it seems like Claire hasn't even been back 48 hours yet

Exactly!  I'm exhausted just reading that line. 

On 5/31/2021 at 3:13 PM, gingerella said:

Claire's insistence that she must try to save this man 'because she's a doctor' doesn't hold water for this Viewer.

Nor this viewer. Unless it's because she wants to see just how much complex surgery she can accomplish in this century?  Like Survivor: Surgery Edition.

On 5/31/2021 at 3:13 PM, gingerella said:

The only good thing to come from that scene was seeing her and Mr. Willoughby together. I like this new character very much, he seems genuinely kind, he cares about Jamie, one of many whom Jamie has helped give a hand up to and then has indebted to him for life, though he asks not for such fealty.

I agree about Mr. Willoughby. He's the new Murtagh (sob) but with the tables turned. Murtagh got Jamie out of scrapes and Jamie gets Mr. Willoughby out of scrapes. Otherwise they seem to fulfill the same function. (except Willoughby's speech is easier to understand.) 🤣

On 5/31/2021 at 3:13 PM, gingerella said:

Also, one little thing that keeps coming up since they've reunited is that Jamie seems to talk of Claire's leaving the morning of Culloden as if she left him. As if it was her idea to leave and not his forcing her to go. He made her go. He literally walked her up to the Stones and put her hands onto them because he was desperate to have her go back to her own time, so he could know she was safe as was his child. But the last three episodes, since A. Malcomb, Jamie acts like Claire up and left him of her own accord. Am I the only one noticing this weird affectation when he speaks of their time apart? It's even more bizarre given that from what we saw before Culloden, Claire was willing to die with him there, so it's not like she was all "Hey, before you start killing redcoats, would you mind dropping me off at the Stones so I don't get killed with y'all too?!?" She begged and pleaded with Jamie to let her stay with him there.

Yes! I was scratching my head at this one. Where is it coming from?  But then, Jamie seems to be a different man in this episode. He lied to  Claire about marrying again since she left. Fine he didn't love ANY of the other woman he was with. Standard response of many men except the Jamie of S01 who's now MIA.

I guess that's why I can't get into discussing this episode. Claire is annoying, Jamie is annoying. The constant "PERIL" is annoying.  Gah!

Edited June 2, 2021 by Anothermi

[SassAndSnacks]

7 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I guess that's why I can't get into discussing this episode. Claire is annoying, Jamie is annoying. The constant "PERIL" is annoying.  Gah!

Annoying is a great way to sum up this episode.  Honestly, I think it is one of the weakest, if not THE weakest, of the entire series.  

[gingerella]

On 6/2/2021 at 12:18 AM, Anothermi said:

On 3/24/2021 at 11:23 PM, Camera One said:

Speaking of that opportunistic fortune teller (Claire was giving him a free prescription; the least he could do was to translate his sister's "vision").  I do like seeing Claire healing people, so I like her idea of doing that as a job.  I wonder if that woman with visions was the skeleton found in the West Indies from a few episodes back.  

Good catch @Camera One.  Although last time we had a similar one-off scene (John Grey as a boy) I think it took until the following season—and a few episodes into it too boot—for that cameo to be returned to. But I like your idea! That would at least give those characters  a reason-for-being beyond reminding Claire that she still wants to do doctoring.

This is such a great concept! One thing that I keep noticing is how people from Claire's past (Jamie's world) and present (Claire's original time) keep colliding. I cannot be coincidental. A while back I said that I think the Stones call those who are destined to travel to them, not the other way around. So it cannot be coincidence that Roger turns out to be Dougal MacKenzie's relative. So thinking forward, or backward, I can't really say which, it stands to make perfect sense that the seer is the same woman whose bones Claire and Joe are examining in 1968. In fact, I'd go so far as to wager if it IS her, she pissed off someone terribly and they killed her for her crazy rants. But why is she important to the story, that's what I want to know! Let's see if we find out this season or next.

 

On 6/2/2021 at 7:49 AM, SassAndSnacks said:

On 6/2/2021 at 12:18 AM, Anothermi said:

I guess that's why I can't get into discussing this episode. Claire is annoying, Jamie is annoying. The constant "PERIL" is annoying.  Gah!

Annoying is a great way to sum up this episode.  Honestly, I think it is one of the weakest, if not THE weakest, of the entire series.  

So.Much.Word to all of this! Huzzah.

On 5/31/2021 at 7:05 PM, SassAndSnacks said:

This, for me, was really the only bright spot of the entire episode.  I appreciate how they are conveying his apprehension, his nervousness, and his fear of losing her again.  

Jamie's fear of losing Claire again is so visceral and I'm not quite certain that Claire really gets that yet. She does profess in bed, I will never leave you again, but that's before she goes off to administer to the seer, where she just insists on going alone and damn Jamie's fears! Woman, have ye learned nothing whilst you've been away?!?

On 6/2/2021 at 12:18 AM, Anothermi said:

I'm packing up and moving to the couch that Camera One and @gingerella were posting from last episode!  However, I'm wondering if Jamie was not the writer of those pamphlets—just the printer as he was listed on the "Roger" pamphlet? Printing treason is equally seditious behaviour though.  But the printing press is done.

Welcome to our side of the couch! While this is good conjecture, I don't think it really matters because Sir Percival wants Jamie to pay for the sin of not cutting him in on the extra sales in Arbroth and Dundee, so he'd make sure it was inferred that Jamie wrote them, even if he didn't. But then again, we don't really see anyone delivering rough copy for Jamie to print so who knows how he runs his business?! We saw it for maybe 5  minutes in total before it went up in flames. And damn, it was a great set too, wasn't it? I loved that back private area, it was so atmospheric (and not for nothing would have been better for them to bed down there, it was romantic and private, save for Ian Jr., which also begs the question, where does Fergus sleep/live?

On 5/31/2021 at 7:00 PM, Camera One said:

On 5/31/2021 at 3:13 PM, gingerella said:

I do wonder though, how did these two boys not know that the dead body was in one of the casks of Creme de Menthe, and how would one get a body into a cask to begin with?!? Don't they realize someone will find the body? That seemed like an odd touch.

It's a case of really bad communication.  No one told the boys about the body, and no one expected the boys to sell Creme de Menthe  or throw some in for free.

I get the feeling we're not going to get resolution on this issue either, since Jamie and the Boy Gang seem to be splitting up right now. Jamie, Claire and Ian are heading to Lallybroch, and Willoughby and Fergus are staying in Edinburgh, the latter to try to stop the one-eyed man. So how and where will that merchant find a dead body in his Creme de Menthe?

On 5/31/2021 at 7:42 PM, Camera One said:

Especially since they just got back together.  Why does it immediately need to be a life-and-death situation, and destroying the entire printshop setting and Jaime's new life that we never really got to see.  Couldn't we have spent a few episodes in Edinburgh before everything came to a head with the authorities?  Or maybe have an episode with Claire making her way to Edinburgh while we saw Jaime's normal life and routine.  Though I suspect the Writers wanted shocking surprises and have us in the dark like Claire.

This is why I liked the Freedom and Whiskey episode so much! We had that room to breathe without all the life and death situations that are Jamie's daily existence.

On 6/2/2021 at 12:18 AM, Anothermi said:

Unless it's because she wants to see just how much complex surgery she can accomplish in this century?  Like Survivor: Surgery Edition.

Ha! Good one, sometimes if feels like Claire is on Survivor and Jamie is on Naked and Afraid...or maybe visa versa!

On 6/2/2021 at 12:18 AM, Anothermi said:

Yes! I was scratching my head at this one. Where is it coming from?  But then, Jamie seems to be a different man in this episode. He lied to  Claire about marrying again since she left. Fine he didn't love ANY of the other woman he was with. Standard response of many men except the Jamie of S01 who's now MIA.

Jamie lies to Claire about having another wife. He lies in front of Claire to Ian about having seen Ian Jr. He withholds information about being a smuggler to Claire until he has to tell her. We know from what we've seen of Mary McNabb and Geneva, that he really did not love either of them, and perhaps it's true that he never loved whomever his other wife is, but all the subterfuge is making things worse. Just tell her everything and be done with it FFS! And the oddest part is that he tells Claire almost immediately aboutbhaving a son, and Claire mentions a few times about knowing he'd have had a life of his own over the past 20 years, so why not tell her then? She gave him several openings to talk about this. And yet, Jamie IS honest that he's no longer the same man she married 20 years ago, so he IS being honest about that. He's had to make his way in the world when he wished he could just die already. It goes back to what @Anothermi said earlier in this season I think, that Jamie never had a plan without Claire, he only had plans with her. So he's been winging it for 20 years, not really giving a shit because he had literally no shits to give about his life. He tried to die so many times and was always thwarted so he's just making the best of his shit sandwich of a life until Claire returns. So I have to cut him some slack because I don't think he'd have made the same decisions if Claire had not left or had returned much sooner.  She'd have wanted to live a quiet life with him, somewhere safe, so I've no doubt all the complications are because he really had no fucks to give about what happens to him because Claire wasn't there, his heart was gone. Get into smuggling to make money? Sure why not! Print seditious materials? Sure, what the hell, I have nothing to lose, I've already lost everything that's important to me! That said, he does think of Fergus and Ian as surrogate sons, but it's not the same thing as it would have been had Claire been there the whole time.

ETA: 

I’ve been thinking about why this episode really bothered me, and aside from all of the above, I am left feeling like, what the hell is in this relationship for Claire, other than very passionate sex, which I’m sure she could find back in Boston if she tried dating people. Her existence with Jamie has always been one without comfort, without safety - despite Jamie’s declarations of protection for her, without stability, and now without her daughter or her friends or her career. Being with Jamie has always brought with it illegal troubles, prison and torture, near rape so many times I’ve now lost count, violence, and constantly feeling like they’re always on the run. There isn’t even any money for a comfortable daily life. So really, what the hell is she even there still if this is just more of the same? She hasn’t learned a damn thing since she was last there and still endangers herself by moving through life there as if she is in 1968 Boston, so I find myself feeling annoying and frustrated after this last episode because I am doubting the validity and necessity of their relationship, which really is the centerpiece of this Show. I get why Jamie wants her, I am starting to doubt why she would want him now.

Edited June 3, 2021 by gingerella

[Cdh20]

Quote by Gingerella: I get why Jamie wants her, but I am starting to doubt why she would want him now. 
 

And this is exactly what is wrong with this episode!

[mythoughtis]

When exactly did Jamie have time to get married?   He was in prison until 1756, and then he went to the English estate.   He got Geneva pregnant in 1757.   He then stayed on the estate for several more years - Willie was at least 7 or 8 when he left.  That makes him back in Scotland just in time to print the pamphlet that Roger  found and he is involved in smuggling.  So exactly how long could he have been married? 
He’s not very likable right now - and he was up until after he left the English estate.   

Edited August 23, 2022 by mythoughtis

[Scarlett45]

On 8/22/2022 at 9:39 PM, mythoughtis said:

When exactly did Jamie have time to get married?   He was in prison until 1756, and then he went to the English estate.   He got Geneva pregnant in 1757.   He then stayed on the estate for several more years - Willie was at least 7 or 8 when he left.  That makes him back in Scotland just in time to print the pamphlet that Roger  found and he is involved in smuggling.  So exactly how long could he have been married? 
He’s not very likable right now - and he was up until after he left the English estate.   

Jamie got married right after he was released from parole on the estate (within that year).

Spoiler

Not sure where we are in the episode threads, but he and Laoghaire didnt court or live together very long, less than a year after marriage they were separated. And then he went to Edinburgh to start the smuggling/printing business, so he has left the estate for 3-4yrs. Willy is like 9-10years old at this point.