S04.E02: Do No Harm

[Athena]

Quote

Claire and Jamie visit his Aunt Jocasta at her plantation, River Run; when tragedy strikes at the plantation, Jamie and Claire find themselves caught between what's right and the law of the land.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[toolazy]

Ugh. I guess it was okay for teevee  but I really didn't enjoy it. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Aside from me ??? when Rollo came back after getting hosed by a skunk, I didn’t care for this. I don’t understand why Jamie and Claire didn’t just tell the mob that Rufus had died from his injuries. But noooo. We needed to see them drag his lifeless body and lynch him. Bunch of morons who couldn’t even tell he was already dead.

Then there were the accents. Ulysses spoke with an American one. Faedre (CC spelling) had a Scots brogue and Rufus an accent from whatever country in Africa he was taken from.

[melody16]

 I loved last week's and I am really disappointed in this one. The story was completely changed from the book. Jamie was neutered once again and because they changed the story, they left out one of my favorite scenes in all the books (when Jamie asks Claire if she believes hes a good man and he tells her she can't be his conscience). And they left out Jamie in his kilt! 

The only real positive for me was that John Bell was wonderful and actually clicked for me as Ian for the first time. 

Edited November 11, 2018 by melody16

[BitterApple]

How were you able to watch the episode tonight? It doesn't come on until tomorrow in my listings.

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

How were you able to watch the episode tonight? It doesn't come on until tomorrow in my listings.

I watch on Amazon Prime  Video/Starz subscription. It might also be available on demand via Comcast.

[Dust Bunny]

After “To Ransom a Man’s Soul”, this might have been hardest-to-watch episode of this show. I was sick to my stomach the whole time. The impaling, the lynching, the fear in the eyes of the house slaves, the privileged class above it all... That combined with all the hate crimes that have been happening lately... Yeah, this was not one I need to rewatch any time soon. But I guess I appreciate that they showed it for the ugliness it is. We have to remember evil that has happened, so we can see it and call it out when it happens now.

A couple things: I did enjoy Jamie with both pistols out. That’s vintage Season 1 Jamie.

The exchange of Wolfe and Young Ian about the Romans made me giggle. Basically, the Romans tried to conquer the Picts of Scotland. But, ultimately, the Romans got so freaked out by the Picts, the Romans built two walls - Hadrian and Antonine - to be separated from the Picts.

Maria Doyle Kennedy was wonderful, as she always is. I really like James Barriscale as Farquard Campbell. He had a great presence.

Got the token season pitchfork scene in. 

John Quincy Myers looks fun. I missed his surgery scene, but it would have made no sense with the episode’s theme and mood.

I’m surprised how excited I am to see Bree and Roger. A whole new narrative is coming next week.

In short, well done episode that I don’t need to see again anytime soon.

[Dust Bunny]

34 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

 I don’t understand why Jamie and Claire didn’t just tell the mob that Rufus had died from his injuries. But noooo. We needed to see them drag his lifeless body and lynch him. Bunch of morons who couldn’t even tell he was already dead.

I think the mob knew. They couldn’t kill him, as he was already dead. But they COULD demonstrate their power over him by hanging his lifeless body. It wasn’t just about revenge - or even the law. It was about power. And showing that to everyone else, as well.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dust Bunny

[Cloudberryjam]

47 minutes ago, melody16 said:

 

Quote

The story was completely changed from the book

 

32 minutes ago, Dust Bunny said:

After “To Ransom a Man’s Soul”, this might have been hardest-to-watch episode of this show. I was sick to my stomach the whole time. The impaling, the lynching, the fear in the eyes of the house slaves, the privileged class above it all... But I guess I appreciate that they showed it for the ugliness it is. We have to remember evil that has happened, so we can see it and call it out when it happens now.

Got the token season pitchfork scene in. 

Haven’t read DOA in a while but this did seem very different from what I recall....Was that convo bw Jocasta and Claire where Jocasta asks Claire which part of RR she admires the most in the book? 

It seems that the producers are trying to really clarify Jamies decision to take Tryons offer despite Claires warnings that they will be on the wrong side of the coming war, by showing that it would be morally unbearable to J&C to stay at RR.  I dont remember it being so clear in the book. I remember wondering why they didnt just stay at RR in the book. This made the decision very easy to understand. It was so unflinching.  The actors did a great job. So terrible— I appreciated that  they did not gloss over the horror. Lots to think about. 

Did I miss Jamie with a pitchfork like in S1? 

On the plus side the wigs and green screen were better this week!! 

I feel like Jamies pointing out how much alike Ellen & Jocasta are, is setting us up for Murtaghs return and his attraction to Jocasta!!!

[Petunia846]

I thought they did a very good job with a very hard subject matter.

I think the show has a huge challenge for them in that modern society has changed a lot since the books were published. I think they really need to hammer home that our protagonists (Claire and Jamie and even Ian) are the good guys here, and give them very forward thinking opinions. If they don't, they risk the show feeling very tone deaf and out of touch to the audience. Diana did it in the books to an extent, they were good for when they were published, but we've come a long way even since then, and people like to pile on when things aren't deemed up to the times.

I was worried about how the slavery would play out, as well as how it would feel to have the Frasers making a home for themselves on what should be Native American land. I even commented to my mom before the season started that it's hard to get excited about this season when the promos talk about "discovering the new world" and "taming the wilderness" but obviously that world was already discovered and that wilderness was other people's homes.

Anyway, I think they've done a good job making sure we know that our protagonists don't share the beliefs of that mob but that they're constrained by the circumstances of the times. Even last week, we had Jamie commenting that some people's American dream was other people's nightmare and this week we got a little lesson for Ian in which he concluded that the Native Americans don't seem that different from Scots, and of course the bulk of this episode really laid out how constrained Jamie and Claire will be by the law despite what they would like to do (and what we would like to see them do). I know it wasn't necessarily in the books, but I think it was a needed addition to update the story from when the books were published. I think of myself as pretty well educated, but even I didn't know the full extent of how hard the law made it to free a slave. That was very eye opening. It was hard to watch, but I think it was important to show.

Otherwise, I loved all the new characters and I was happy to see the bit with the skunk. River Run was extremely opulent. I sometimes have a hard time believing the sets as how places would have looked at the time, but that's nothing new to the show. The sets are always over the top.

[Eureka]

8 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I watch on Amazon Prime  Video/Starz subscription. It might also be available on demand via Comcast.

Yes, Comcast has it on demand early. I just finished watching it. Hard to see, but Maria was great.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Eureka

[WatchrTina]

I've watched once and will watch again before I comment more fully.  I really just came here to give an initial reaction to the horror of the episode's ending, but instead I got drawn into the incredibly thoughtful analysis I found already posted here this morning.  I'm so grateful for this online community.  

8 hours ago, Dust Bunny said:

After “To Ransom a Man’s Soul”, this might have been hardest-to-watch episode of this show.

Amen.  But I will watch it again, this time with the closed captions turned on (the accents got a bit thick for me in the early scenes) and I hope that this time I will let go of the expectations I brought to the episode as a reader.

8 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I watch on Amazon Prime  Video/Starz subscription. It might also be available on demand via Comcast.

New Outlander episodes are also available on Sunday morning On-Demand via my cable provider (Spectrum).  Note that if you watch On-Demand you should stay tuned through the credits because they play a mini documentary about the making of the episode at the very end.  I thought this one was particularly good because I had been wondering how they shot the Riverrun arrival scenes (spoiler alert --  they actually found a house in Scotland with a pond out front that could credibly pass for a colonial American plantation house on a river.)

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 hours ago, Dust Bunny said:

I did enjoy Jamie with both pistols out. That’s vintage Season 1 Jamie

Oh yes! I loved that!

[GingerMarie]

That was a heartbreaking episode.  For the writers, actors and audience.   But it had to happen in order to move forward.  Not just for the show but life itself.  This is part of our past and it did shape our future.  

[WatchrTina]

THE GOOD

I think this is a very good episode.  It’s not a fun episode to watch -- it is brutal and disturbing.  But it’s a good answer to the question of what would colonial America (particularly its slave-based agrarian economy) look like to a 20th century person who is dropped into the middle of it?  What, if anything, could she do to make the situation better?  That’s the first question that Claire and Jamie struggle with but then that macro-issue is supplanted by the immediate crisis of how best to help one suffering man. The dilemma faced by Claire and Jamie in this episode is awful and has no good answer and that makes for good drama.

Probably the most important thing this episode does is to clarify why Jamie & Claire would choose to take up the Governor’s offer and go try to tame a bit of the wilderness (even knowing about a coming war) rather than live in comfort on Jocasta’s estate. Jocasta has made peace with slave ownership.  She clearly thinks that she’s a “benevolent” slave-owner, offering as evidence the fact that she keeps family groups together.  So the best thing this episode does is to take Jocasta’s complacent point of view and blow it apart.  It shines a harsh light on the undercurrent of fear and violence that supports the whole system (not to mention the laws designed to prevent people from granting freedom to slaves).  Jocasta brags that very few of her slaves have ever run away – suggesting that her kindness to them is the reason.  But this episode makes clear that fear is the real reason they stay and that even a plantation-owner like Jocasta is a risk if she is seen to challenge the status quo. 

Jocasta may be good at hearing the difference between truth and lies in a person’s voice but, like Claire, she’s not that great at masking her own emotions.  When she expresses her dismay at the news of what those “wicked” men did to Jamie & Claire on the river, you can almost see the wheels spinning as she calculates how best to turn that news to her advantage.  Well done Maria Doyle Kennedy!

I do love those scenes when Claire goes into full WWII Army Nurse/Boston Surgeon mode – giving orders with calm assurance and complete focus on the task at hand.

I love, love, LOVE what they did by changing the story and putting Ian in the room with Rufus so that he could hear Rufus’ tale of having been kidnapped from his family, put on a ship, and taken far away.  Ian, of course, could identify with that story in a way that no one else could. Excellent addition. 

The voice-over of Jamie’s death-bed prayer over Rufus’s body, juxtaposed over the image of Jamie carrying the body out of the house was good.  After that, only ugliness.

 

THE BAD

The scene where Claire invites the two house-slaves to call her Claire was badly written.  Even back in Scotland the servants in Jenny’s house would not have called her Claire.  They would have called her Mistress Fraser.  I know it was written to try to illustrate Claire’s profound discomfort at being waited upon by slaves but in the end it didn’t really make sense or ring true.

Shouldn’t they have removed Rufus’ filthy shirt before starting surgery?  I presume it was left on to mask the fact that they were using a fake body to shoot the bloody surgery but I’ve seen enough episodes of M*A*S*H to know that the first thing Claire would have done would have been to cut that shirt off of her patient.

And the tablecloth! Why wouldn’t they remove that nice linen tablecloth before putting a bloody body on the dining room table? Maybe that makes me shallow but, damn. 

 

THE UGLY

Do I even have to say it?

Edited November 11, 2018 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Just watched this episode On Demand. I was dreading it, a bit, because I knew what event they were probably going to feature.

I read Drums of Autumn a long time ago, and am listening to it again on tape to refresh my memory. I just finished listening to Claire and Jamie's visit to River Run last week, so the book's take is very fresh in my mind. Of course, it was done a bit differently. For instance, Rufus was not taken up to the house and even though Claire thought she might be able to pull Rufus through, she seemed a little more doubtful about his recovery, so her giving him the "poison" was just as tragic, but a tiny bit more understandable. Still, they faced the same situation. Claire was told point blank that Rufus' recovery would be followed by his death for what he allegedly did, so her actions were the lesser of two evils. (Speaking outside of the book, this is reminding me of how we treat and heal people who commit deadly crimes only to put *them* on death row. Of course, none of these modern day people are slaves facing the horrible treatment of overseers, and no doubt deserve to be imprisoned.)

In the book, there was an additional bad incident that spurred Jamie and Claire on their way, which we didn't see in this episode. They may have decided not to use it, or maybe it shows up in the next episode? (They definitely can't fit everything in.)

I kind of hope they get to the Myers' hernia thing, but I guess they'll skip that too. It's not necessary.

As for the variety of accents of the different slaves, we have to remember that there *were* differences among the slaves. Some were born in Africa and some were born in America -- the children of slaves -- Some were educated i.e., taught to read and calculate or taught to do certain gentlemen/women chores because they worked in the house and waited on the family. Some never touched foot in the house. (Note Rufus' surprise that he was inside River Run. No doubt he never mixed with the family.) In the book, Claire is amazed that some of the slaves have Scottish accents, but that was because they grew up in the house around Jocasta, her husband, and their friends, like the young Phaedra. Other slaves might not have spent their formative years with Scots people and, therefore, had different accents like Ulysses.

 

ETA:

I was surprised that Jocasta's friend and neighbor and the other guy -- Wolf? Did not step in and, at least, try to stop the mob from charging towards the house and breaking windows. It would seem the former would try and keep them at bay a bit, just for Jocasta's sake. Isn't one of them interested in marrying her?

Edited November 11, 2018 by Nidratime

[LydiaE]

I thought this episode was dreadful! The overacting done by the actor who plays Jamie was ridiculous. His face in the closing scene was cringeworthy.  

Why has this series become so cheesy, I wonder? Has the viewing demographic shifted over the seasons?

[Quickbeam]

Not my favorite episode. I was pleased to see the Quakers acknowledged in terms of the early abolition movement. Tiny in number, they made quite a roar regarding slavery and later women’s suffrage.

I like the actress playing Jocasta. Not close to my minds eye of her from the books but better. 

[nodorothyparker]

A lot of the acting from extras or minor characters ... wasn't great this time out.  A whole lot of it read very stagey and not up to the quality that I usually expect from this show.   I mean really, you're going to have what are presumably Jocasta's neighbors throwing rocks through hard to come by glass windows and making shouty threats over a couple of minutes like most of them have any actual idea what time it is rather than watches also being a relative luxury? 

Aside from that, this is one that definitely had to be powered through.  I get what they were going for in trying to condense down all the various book reasons as to why Jamie would reject the seemingly easier path of inheriting a ready made plantation to trek off into the wilderness one episode later, and unfortunately a number of those plot points have to do with some really difficult subject matter they decided to go front and center with.  A lot of it ended up feeling pretty rushed though because with TV you naturally don't get the book's more laconic pacing of Jamie coming to understand that Jocasta intends to fully get her money's worth of using him as her lackey to run things and run interference with her various suitors before she ever has any intention of handing over the keys.  You don't get that book scene of him sharing a rare moment of real bitterness with Claire that he's a man in his mid-40s who's never had a chance to have anything lasting of his own while their discomfort with being surrounded by people being held as property only grows.  Jamie as someone who has actual experience being held to labor against his will and watching someone he loves be marched away to be sold into servitude is treated almost like an afterthought to Claire, who to her credit is acting very much like a modern person probably would when confronted with the terrible reality of something she's previously only read about in books, but is once again marching around half cocked with absolutely no regard for the time she's chosen to be in or what her limitations would realistically be there.  So in the end she's faced with the fact that she probably made things worse for everybody than if she'd done nothing at all and left with no choice but a very bad one.  But by the time the credits roll, they've made their case that Jamie and Claire inheriting River Run and remaining fixtures of that society is untenable to them so mission accomplished, I guess.

I didn't have any real strong expectations about portraying Jocasta either way, but Maria Doyle Kennedy did a fantastic job convincing me that she is in fact Dougal and Colum's sister.  At various points you could see the wheels spinning in her head in figuring out whether to placate or argue with Jamie or anyone else.  She has the same ruthlessly practical sensibilities in justifying, even if just to herself, her slave ownership and right up to the point that the angry villagers, er county neighbors, with torches were about to break down the door and she lost it over "your wife's foolishness" was doing a nice job of selling that she was taking Claire and Jamie seriously at all in what they were trying to do.

Seriously, though, Claire?  If you're going to perform surgery on the dining room table, at least remove the nice tablecloth first.  Somebody had to make that by hand.

[ferjy]

I thought it was a very good episode. Difficult material and very emotional, and the scenery was beautiful. It was more interesting than a lot of other episodes I thought. A nice switch from Jamie and Claire moaning and writhing and swooning over each other all the time. I`d rather see Claire healing than humping any day. It was shades of the first season with the injustices against Scots, here against the slaves and the natives (in mention). One niggle, I`d rather see a string mop on Jamie`s head than that horrid rats nest they have on him now.

[ferjy]

17 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Aside from me ??? when Rollo came back after getting hosed by a skunk, I didn’t care for this. I don’t understand why Jamie and Claire didn’t just tell the mob that Rufus had died from his injuries. But noooo. We needed to see them drag his lifeless body and lynch him. Bunch of morons who couldn’t even tell he was already dead.

Then there were the accents. Ulysses spoke with an American one. Faedre (CC spelling) had a Scots brogue and Rufus an accent from whatever country in Africa he was taken from.

They explained it in the episode. If Rufus didn`t pay for his ``crime`` then the other slaves would be punished in his stead. If Jamie hadn`t brought Rufus out, they would have gone after the other slaves. This way, Jamie and Claire knew Rufus was already dead so even though it would still be a horrible spectacle, it was the lesser of two evils. 

The crowd was so riled up, they probably wouldn`t have even thought about whether Rufus was dead. And if they had noticed his condition, they probably thought he was passed out from his wounds.  Or as Dust Bunny said, it was the show of his being punished that counted, even if they knew he was dead.

[morgan]

I just finished and liked it more than I expected to.  I had even told my husband this was an episode to power through, it’s the next few I’m excited about.  I thought they did a great job showing the impossibility of staying at river run, the horror of slavery and even good intentions often aren’t enough.  My heart broke for Rufus.  I loved meeting Jocosta, Ulysses, Phaedra, etc.  And young Ian was finally young Ian to me!

I can’t wait for next week with Bree and Roger and Frasier’s Ridge!

[LoveLeigh]

The content of this episode was beyond sad, but let's face it: it is history.

What I have grown to love about Outlander is that it takes it's time to unfold within each episode. Nothing is rushed. Every scene is precisely measured. 

I had just come off watching this week's new episode of Ray Donovan, which played out in staccato lightening speed (and I loved that too) but the contrast when I watched this episode made me appreciate the style of Outlander. 

Plus, the set was filled with such detail. That plantation was actually in Scotland (where this season was filmed) and it really did look like it took place in North Carolina. Claire's face, when she looked out at the slaves, was so revealing. It was so realistic I felt as if I was there.  

[WatchrTina]

I read the live tweets at #DoNoHarm and someone made a very good point that I haven't seen here yet.  When Jamie suggests to Claire that she "help" Rufus the same way she helped Colum she reacted negatively.  Rufus was a young man, not an elderly man come to the end of a long and painful illness.  Giving a young man a painless death to "save" him from a lynch mob is not quite the same thing as euthanizing an elderly, terminally ill patient who asked you to help him.  But someone on twitter noted that Claire helped Geordie die back in season one when the boar had gored him and he had no chance of recovery.  It's a shame Jamie did not know about that because referencing THAT episode might have made the decision to "help" Rufus slightly less painful for Claire.

EDIT:  Now that I think about it, Claire didn't actually do anything to "help" Geordie die -- she just didn't object when Dougal untied the tourniquet.

EDIT2:  I'm also remembering that Book!Claire also "helped" someone terminally ill die back in Boston (that's why she's at liberty to go take a long leisurely tour of Scotland in season/book 3 -- she's forced to take a leave of absence).  As a reader, that bit of her personal history informed her actions at the sawmill with Rufus.  We don't have that information for TV!Claire -- but we do know the Geordie story.

Edited November 12, 2018 by WatchrTina

[ferjy]

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

THE GOOD

I think this is a very good episode.  It’s not a fun episode to watch -- it is brutal and disturbing.  But it’s a good answer to the question of what would colonial America (particularly its slave-based agrarian economy) look like to a 20th century person who is dropped into the middle of it?  What, if anything, could she do to make the situation better?  That’s the first question that Claire and Jamie struggle with but then that macro-issue is supplanted by the immediate crisis of how best to help one suffering man. The dilemma faced by Claire and Jamie in this episode is awful and has no good answer and that makes for good drama.

Probably the most important thing this episode does is to clarify why Jamie & Claire would choose to take up the Governor’s offer and go try to tame a bit of the wilderness (even knowing about a coming war) rather than live in comfort on Jocasta’s estate. Jocasta has made peace with slave ownership.  She clearly thinks that she’s a “benevolent” slave-owner, offering as evidence the fact that she keeps family groups together.  So the best thing this episode does is to take Jocasta’s complacent point of view and blow it apart.  It shines a harsh light on the undercurrent of fear and violence that supports the whole system (not to mention the laws designed to prevent people from granting freedom to slaves).  Jocasta brags that very few of her slaves have ever run away – suggesting that her kindness to them is the reason.  But this episode makes clear that fear is the real reason they stay and that even a plantation-owner like Jocasta is a risk if she is seen to challenge the status quo. 

Jocasta may be good at hearing the difference between truth and lies in a person’s voice but, like Claire, she’s not that great at masking her own emotions.  When she expresses her dismay at the news of what those “wicked” men did to Jamie & Claire on the river, you can almost see the wheels spinning as she calculates how best to turn that news to her advantage.  Well done Maria Doyle Kennedy!

I do love those scenes when Claire goes into full WWII Army Nurse/Boston Surgeon mode – giving orders with calm assurance and complete focus on the task at hand.

I love, love, LOVE what they did by changing the story and putting Ian in the room with Rufus so that he could hear Rufus’ tale of having been kidnapped from his family, put on a ship, and taken far away.  Ian, of course, could identify with that story in a way that no one else could. Excellent addition. 

The voice-over of Jamie’s death-bed prayer over Rufus’s body, juxtaposed over the image of Jamie carrying the body out of the house was good.  After that, only ugliness.

 

THE BAD

The scene where Claire invites the two house-slaves to call her Claire was badly written.  Even back in Scotland the servants in Jenny’s house would not have called her Claire.  They would have called her Mistress Fraser.  I know it was written to try to illustrate Claire’s profound discomfort at being waited upon by slaves but in the end it didn’t really make sense or ring true.

Shouldn’t they have removed Rufus’ filthy shirt before starting surgery?  I presume it was left on to mask the fact that they were using a fake body to shoot the bloody surgery but I’ve seen enough episodes of M*A*S*H to know that the first thing Claire would have done would have been to cut that shirt off of her patient.

And the tablecloth! Why wouldn’t they remove that nice linen tablecloth before putting a bloody body on the dining room table? Maybe that makes me shallow but, damn. 

 

THE UGLY

Do I even have to say it?

BIB 1 - I thought so too at first but then decided it`s better to ruin the tablecloth than the probably beautifully crafted wooden table underneath.

BIB 2 - Ha ha, the dreaded thing gets rattier every week!

[Biggie B]

Quote

How were you able to watch the episode tonight? It doesn't come on until tomorrow in my listings.

I watch it on the Starz network, and the first run episode is on every Sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. It's not on demand, nor do I pay for it - it's just part of the Starz regularly scheduled first run shows. Starz has more than one channel, and the new weekly episode is on later on at least one of the other channels.

I liked this episode a lot. It's been ages since I read the books, and while I remember the plot on a broad level, I don't remember the details or how things differ from the books, and I don't much care. I just let the story unfold before me - whatever happens, happens. Sometimes it's well done and sometimes it's less than fabulous, but overall, it's a beautifully made show and it's compelling enough to keep me coming back. 

I thought Ian was excellent this week, even though he didn't have a major story line in this episode. I appreciated how calm and efficient he was in helping Claire do the surgery on Rufus. I liked his scene when he and the other fellow were getting ready to bathe Rollo - his facial expressions were on point. 

I do remember not really liking or trusting Jocasta when I read the books, and this episode did little to change my mind. River Run isn't a good place - it gives me the creeps.

It was sickening to watch what happened to Rufus, and then I reminded myself that lynching was still going on deep into the 20th century, two centuries after Rufus - which is disgusting and completely depressing. Still, I thought it was a powerful episode and offered a small window into an environment that is almost beyond our ability to imagine (slavery and all its horror).

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, Biggie B said:

I watch it on the Starz network, and the first run episode is on every Sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. It's not on demand, nor do I pay for it - it's just part of the Starz regularly scheduled first run shows. Starz has more than one channel, and the new weekly episode is on later on at least one of the other channels.

The original poster @BitterApple was asking how I was able to watch before the Sunday night airing on Starz, as I had watched it at midnight Saturday.

[Biggie B]

Oh, sorry @GHScorpiosRule - I misread.

[Scarlett45]

@Petunia846 thank you for your post- it was very thoughtful. (I’m currently watching the episode)

 

I did know how hard it was to free a slave. And how difficult it was to be a free black person in the colonies (and eventually states)  One of the reasons why the few slaves that were freed were the children/siblings of their owners.

Maria Doyle Kennedy is fantastic, I loved her in the Tudors.

@GHScorpiosRule I’m 99% sure the differing accents were intentional- Rufus was born in a country in West Africa and learned English as a second language after his enslavement. Phaedra and Mary were likely born and raised at River Run and as House slaves, they were probably children of houseslaves and spent their early childhood around people with Scottish Accents. Ulysses was likely born and raised by people who spoke in an American accent (given his age he didn’t grow up at River Run but had training as a house slave on another plantation).

 

Punishing the other slaves for the “crime” of one assures the slaves will be to terrified to organize and fight against their owners for any length of time. Slave rebellions happened but they were a spark. We have another 60yrs before Nat Turner.

 

@BitterApple my directv recorded it as usual. 

 

That was a hard one. When I did my 23 & Me DNA I found my maternal halogroup, to think the slave trade took one woman’s DNA across the world, and that her descendents lived through THAT long enough to get to me. I’m in awe of the resiliency of the human spirit. I saw it in the faces of Ulysses, Mary and Phaedra. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Scarlett45

[Jadzia]

Hearing "Lieutenant Wolff" with a Scottish accent sounded like "Lieutenant Worf" and for a minute I thought I was watching a different Ron Moore show.

This season is pretty depressing so far.

[CarpeFelis]

Anyone else notice that in one scene Jocasta screwed up and pronounced Lieutenant the American way rather than “leftenant”?

Edited November 12, 2018 by CarpeFelis
typo

[Squirrely]

Meh. I feel like, as usual, too much time was focused on the wrong thing. It was that much worse knowing that poor Rufus was never going to be allowed to live. And come on! Jamie and Claire knew it in the book. Why are they so much dumber in the show? Jamie knew it right away in the book, and Claire fully understood the situation quickly as well. Moving him to the house, putting him through the whole hook removal, and then upstairs to their bed (really?) just prolonged his misery. 

The actress playing Jocasta is amazing. She's a Mackenzie all right! 

Also quite enjoyed the actor plying JQM, even though he's nothing like I imagined. His scene with Young Ian was the highlight of the episode for me. Lots of foreshadowing Ian's future there. 

Ulysses and Phaedra were also cast very well. This episode's character introductions helped make up for the baby faced kid playing Bonnet, that's for sure! Though I'm still really missing Duncan Innes.

[Petunia846]

7 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

EDIT:  Now that I think about it, Claire didn't actually do anything to "help" Geordie die -- she just didn't object when Dougal untied the tourniquet.

The way she asked him about how he grew up gave me Geordie flashbacks as well.

I also forgot to mention, I didn't really see much of Dougal or Colum in Jocasta, but I thought she did remind me a lot of Jenny. (Now that I'm reading posts about it, I can see her brothers in there, but the Jenny vibe was strong.) Great casting/acting.

Claire and Jamie have to be "so much dumber" because the show has a wider/different audience from the books. Plus it's easier to not pay attention to what's going on in a show than it is when you're reading a book, and therefore shows have to hit the audience on the head with things more than books do. And if the audience here misses the point that Claire and Jamie are good guys with similar sentiments to ours in modern times, then those are going to be audience members who check out of the show and stop watching. If the show's going to stay in the US for awhile, as the books do, it's important for people to see all this upfront so our protagonists don't look like jerks. It took up a lot of this episode, but in the long run it was necessary.

[fresiaa]

After the first "it is not like the book moaning" I really, really like the episode.

I fully agree with Petunia846 that it is good the story is updated to more 2018 stronger emotional objections. It would be more historically correct to apply sixties sentiments, but it wouldn't connect with todays audience.

 

Still.... I very much wanted to see the books skunk scene. I like slapstick.

 

edit to add

Quote

River Run was extremely opulent. I sometimes have a hard time believing the sets as how places would have looked at the time, but that's nothing new to the show. The sets are always over the top.

True to the book, because River Run is the wealthiest estate around for a (storyline) reason.

Edited November 12, 2018 by fresiaa

[Nidratime]

Quote

I fully agree with Petunia846 that it is good the story is updated to more 2018 stronger emotional objections. It would be more historically correct to apply sixties sentiments, but it wouldn't connect with todays audience.

We also have to keep in mind that Claire was very progressive for *her* time. Remember how she went off to the frontlines to treat the wounded in WWII, leaving Frank behind the lines. Remember how she clashed with the Dean and other academics back in Boston when she and Frank were attending a party and she was speaking her mind about politics, post WWII. Remember that she was the only woman in her medical class and that she became great friends with the only African American male student and, when she left the 1960's, she entrusted Joe with the task of looking after Brianna -- to checking in on her and advising her -- not some other white person or an attorney.

In her earlier life, as a child, she obviously learned to live freely, traveling the world with Uncle Lamb sampling different cultures. She wasn't raised with the stereotypical social cues that would keep her in line. However, I would think she'd be very sensitive to different cultures and learn not to interfere, so there's that.

As for Jamie, leaving aside the influence of Claire, he experienced what it's like to be downtrodden, to be taken from one's home, imprisoned, and indentured based on both who he is was well as what he did. Jamie's sympathies are understandable, although not all Scots would see it his way, I'm sure.

[Haleth]

It's been years since I read Drums, so I don't remember Jocasta being blind in the book.  I'll fault my memory and assume this wasn't a change for the show.

Sad to admit but I lost track of time and missed the first 10 minutes, then I promptly fell asleep and only woke up to see the end.  I'll catch it sometime today.

[GHScorpiosRule]

8 hours ago, Squirrely said:

Moving him to the house, putting him through the whole hook removal, and then upstairs to their bed (really?) just prolonged his misery. 

They didn't move Rufus to their bed. They put him on the dining room table. Claire didn't remove or ask them to remove the tablecloth, which made it look like he was on a bed.

46 minutes ago, Haleth said:

It's been years since I read Drums, so I don't remember Jocasta being blind in the book.  I'll fault my memory and assume this wasn't a change for the show.

She was blind in the buik.

[aemom]

25 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

They didn't move Rufus to their bed. They put him on the dining room table. Claire didn't remove or ask them to remove the tablecloth, which made it look like he was on a bed.

After the surgery was all over, she did have Rufus moved to their bedroom.  That's where she gave him the poisoned tea.

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, AEMom said:

After the surgery was all over, she did have Rufus moved to their bedroom.  That's where she gave him the poisoned tea.

Oh yeah, Thanks. Forgot about that. Though how could I, when we saw Jamie pray over him? Duh. Stoopid me.

[WatchrTina]

20 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

THE UGLY

Do I even have to say it?

Quoting myself because evidently I DO have to say it.  The ugliest thing in this episode is slavery and all the cruelty implicit in that deplorable practice. 

[taanja]

3 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Quoting myself because evidently I DO have to say it.  The ugliest thing in this episode is slavery and all the cruelty implicit in that deplorable practice. 

Not ... the WIG???????

[iMonrey]

First of all, I have to say that the idea of this never-before-mentioned Aunt who just so happens to very conveniently live in the states and owns a wealthy plantation naming Jamie as her sole heir within minutes of meeting him is very Harlequin Romance. In fact the way Jamie and Claire stumble in and out of fortune is often way too convenient and one of my few gripes about the show/books. 

Secondly, Maria Doyle Kennedy will never not be Vera Bates to me, so I can't help but see something inherently evil about every characters she plays. 

I wasn't clear on what went down with Rufus in the forest. He apparently cut someone's ear off with an ax, but did we get the story of why? Was the guy just whipping him too hard or something and he snapped? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

First of all, I have to say that the idea of this never-before-mentioned Aunt

Jamie told Claire about Jocasta in season 1 "The Wedding" episode, though all we heard clearly was "Jocasta" but none of the details of where she lived.

[Nidratime]

Quote

I wasn't clear on what went down with Rufus in the forest. He apparently cut someone's ear off with an ax, but did we get the story of why? Was the guy just whipping him too hard or something and he snapped? 

I believe Rufus was being lashed by the overseer who isn't exactly the nicest guy in the world, and I'm guessing Rufus just had enough and "lashed" back with the ax. I would bet it was something building up over time because we are given very good hints that the overseer is a mean SOB.

Quote

Jamie told Claire about Jocasta in season 1 "The Wedding" episode, though all we heard clearly was "Jocasta" but none of the details of where she lived.

Jocasta is also referenced in an episode where Jamie and Claire are visiting Lallybroch. Jenny's family receives a package with books and other items from Jocasta. I'm guessing, because she's clearly doing well in America, she's sending back nice things to the family that they might not be able to afford. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Nidratime

[fresiaa]

7 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I believe Rufus was being lashed by the overseer who isn't exactly the nicest guy in the world, and I'm guessing Rufus just had enough and "lashed" back with the ax. I would bet it was something building up over time because we are given very good hints that the overseer is a mean SOB.

 

Something like that. If I remember correctly from the book, the overseer "disappears" overnight - said in vague terms that hinted he's killed for his multiple misdeeds. My speculation, on Jocasta's order and conveniently  giving Jamie more room to be "needed at the job".

[qtpye]

9 hours ago, iMonrey said:

First of all, I have to say that the idea of this never-before-mentioned Aunt who just so happens to very conveniently live in the states and owns a wealthy plantation naming Jamie as her sole heir within minutes of meeting him is very Harlequin Romance. In fact the way Jamie and Claire stumble in and out of fortune is often way too convenient and one of my few gripes about the show/books. 

Secondly, Maria Doyle Kennedy will never not be Vera Bates to me, so I can't help but see something inherently evil about every characters she plays. 

I wasn't clear on what went down with Rufus in the forest. He apparently cut someone's ear off with an ax, but did we get the story of why? Was the guy just whipping him too hard or something and he snapped? 

I am a woman of color that has absolutely no Irish or Scotch ancestry within me.  Maria Doyle Kennedy is gorgeous and I am always stunned by her beauty and talent in whoever she plays. I hate that my home country of the United States throws away actresses after they hit 35 because she is an example of a lady who grows more fascinating with each year she ages.

[Pestilentia]

On 11/12/2018 at 4:39 AM, Petunia846 said:

And if the audience here misses the point that Claire and Jamie are good guys with similar sentiments to ours in modern times, then those are going to be audience members who check out of the show and stop watching. If the show's going to stay in the US for awhile, as the books do, it's important for people to see all this upfront so our protagonists don't look like jerks.

I understand and agree, but as a book reader I think the way the showrunners pick and choose only the high drama scenes to show us does make Claire and Jamie look like jerks. They bring disaster wherever they go. They make terrible situations ten times worse than they need to be. Claire's bullheaded insistence on forcing her 20th century  opinions on everyone and everything is beginning to get to me- it's like she is intentionally abrasive.  

And yeah, TV needs drama. But the show is slipping and relying too much on violence and turmoil and pain- no one wants to watch this level of thing for entertainment- not me, anyway. Could we not have a bit more quiet time and daily drudgery? Does every episode need to include catastrophic death? It's too much.

[Ziggy]

19 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Jocasta is also referenced in an episode where Jamie and Claire are visiting Lallybroch. Jenny's family receives a package with books and other items from Jocasta. I'm guessing, because she's clearly doing well in America, she's sending back nice things to the family that they might not be able to afford. 

That was before Culloden, so Jocasta was still living in Scotland.  She left for the colonies right after Culloden.  But, yes, Jenny did mention that "Auntie Jocasta" had sent them some books.

Wan't there another reference to her at some point?  I seem to remember another time when i thought, "Yep, planting seeds."

[MV713]

In the books wasn't Jocasta a bit older?

[Quickbeam]

2 hours ago, MV713 said:

In the books wasn't Jocasta a bit older?

And wider?