There's a big problem with the way this season has developed: equating Jamie and Frank. Since a lion's share of the episodes are devoted to Jamie, and he's a much more interesting character than the bland, bourgeois Frank, who cares about him, particularly since he's played by Menzies, who I can't stand to look at since the finale of Season One. So Claire's concern for, nay, equating Jamie and Frank makes no sense, and makes her seem foolish.
2
Claire unwisely wants time/history to work in two different - and paradoxical - ways. She wants to preserve history by assuring that Black Jack Randall survives and issues progeny, therefore guaranteeing his future descendant Frank comes into being. However, she also wants to change history by attempting to stop the Jacobean Rebellion and the massacre at Culloden. You can't have it both ways - trying to bend history this way and that is impossible and a conundrum.
3
Murtagh has certainly evolved from what seemed largely to be comic relief in the first season.
Is anyone else disappointed that twice now, we have seen Claire's story told in silent montage? I would have liked to here how it was told once, preferably from Claire.
I suspect that Claire will be forced to save Randall and heal his wound in order to save Frank.
Is anyone else disappointed that twice now, we have seen Claire's story told in silent montage? I would have liked to here how it was told once, preferably from Claire.
I suspect that Claire will be forced to save Randall and heal his wound in order to save Frank.
1
While I very much loved the time in France as portrayed in the books, this season has been disappointing as it appears there is difficulty bringing this part of the story to life. However, fans should hang in there as there are important characters and events introduced in this time period that have resonated through the whole 9 book series.
I think the creators of this TV series have become a little too entranced with the outward trappings and costumes of the time. Now they are getting back to telling the story.
I think the creators of this TV series have become a little too entranced with the outward trappings and costumes of the time. Now they are getting back to telling the story.
6
I agree that the story would benefit from Jamie's perspective, but we have to remember that the books and story are told mostly from Claire's perspective or the author as narrator. I have no doubt that the majority of readers are women and that this is no surprise given its romantic premise. I bought most of the books after beginning to watch the first series and enjoyed the first few. By the time I got to the sixth and seventh I was getting bored and found them very repetitive. The dramatization on television can be enjoyed without reading the books, not just for the acting and story but also for the costumes and settings.
1
I agree that this was the best episode so far although I am starting to hate Claire even more. I was starting to get bored. I have not read the books. I found it hard to get through the first one so I prefer the series. I think Claire was extremely selfish to ask Jaimie to wait one year to kill Randall after what he did to him. She chose Jamie or Frank. I don't think she should be worrying about his existence.
5
This was a good episode. Back to some high adventure and tight pacing. The idea to tell more of the story from Jamie's perspective is a very good one. Voice-over is always a clumsy cinematic device, and one of Outlander's faults is its overuse of it.
3
From the beginning of the story in Season 1, Claire has been her own worst enemy, and, unfortunately, her propensity for causing trouble for others hasn't diminished either. The episodes are getting better and this one is the best so far, perhaps because it follows the book a bit more closely. . .at least, the events are similar. It's difficult for me to feel sympathy for Claire since she continually interferes in other lives and her manipulations and strategies usually end in disaster. Jamie usually pays the price, but others do as well. As for Claire's suffering, she wasn't considering her delicate and rather dangerous condition when she jumped into that carriage for a bumpy, high speed ride to the forest. Was her fear for the life of Frank more important at that moment than her desire for protecting Jamie's unborn child?
10
Claire continuously manipulates other peoples' lives for what she perceives as her and Jamie's benefit, based on her unique position and knowledge, but she comes across to me as little more than a particularly annoying busybody.
2
Loved that Randall was oozing blood just as Claire was doing the same thing. Riveting. Well done Matt Roberts...so much book business to pare down. I thought it was well handled.
11
As I feared the complexities of this book are being far to subtly handled to make a compelling story, especially for someone who has not read the book.
Very good episode - probably the best of the season so far (in my opinion). I really wish they didn't have to use sexual assault as a plot device so much though. From some of the comments I've seen, I think the book readers need to make peace with the fact that the TV version and book version will be different. It HAS TO be different. Not everybody is that impressed with the Outlander books. I barely made it through book 3 (Voyager). If there is to be a season 3, the showrunners will need to make A LOT of changes from that book, especially that last part. Just my opinion.
7
Well, we know that Black Jack is not killed or castrated, because the whole scene did not fade into nothingness, leaving Claire in the 20th century alone or with someone other than Frank, and Jamie who knows when or where. This is a point that has been missed by the protagonists in the show (don't know about the book, having not read it): if Black Jack is killed prematurely and Frank is never born, Frank and Claire never meet and marry, Claire never goes to Scotland (it was his idea) and she never goes through the stones, never goes back to the 18th century, never meets and has a passionate romance with Jamie...
...of course in that case Jamie doesn't have the duel with Black Jack and doesn't kill him, so Frank is born and marries Claire and takes her to Scotland, etc... (This is what is called time paradox, which has been explored by science fiction writers; of course Diana Gabaldon isn't one.)
...of course in that case Jamie doesn't have the duel with Black Jack and doesn't kill him, so Frank is born and marries Claire and takes her to Scotland, etc... (This is what is called time paradox, which has been explored by science fiction writers; of course Diana Gabaldon isn't one.)
4
Well Steven, you will find out soon enough that DG does address this issue, but I'll not spoil it for you.
8
Sigh. Not everything is an error. Perhaps keep watching and you might find that out?
1
Actually, it would have been far more logical for Claire to fret about Jamie's death in a duel with Black Jack, since we know that Frank will indeed be born, thus proving that Black Jack survives the duel.
3
Your suggestion about a look-in to Jamie's perspective in this episode is so in accord with my own opinions about this and other episodes. I believe such a strategically-adopted approach might have been exceptionally beneficial. Instead we got one ham-handed overshare of Jamie's perspective in Ep. 109 - and no more. When we have entire scenes and even episodes created out of whole cloth, which slow down the action and detract from the central relationship of the story, we are told such is in the implied authority of the Producer to "adapt" the books. Yet at other times we are told that other kinds of license (such as more Jamie-orientation) are inconsistent with the parameters of the books. Seeing this, it's hard not to agree with those who see the production as taking a willful stand AGAINST the Jamie character at almost every turn. Such an approach hampers the drama and is grossly unfair to the story, the fans, and to the abilities of many of the actors, especially Sam Heughan.
3
Unfortunately I rather think that the show is not concentrating on Jamie, and that character is not as strong as the book, because of the drawbacks of Sam Heughan as an actor. His looks are so overly exaggerated and stage like it's painful to watch. Never seen anything like it in a major television series lead.
"Jamie’s desire for revenge is boiling underneath the surface, and his ability to lie apparently is deft enough to fool Claire." I don't think Jamie lied to Claire about anything. He fully intended to keep his promise until he (must have) witnessed BJR doing something so heinous to Fergus, who is essenyakyy an adopted son now, that he had to act.
15