Jamie is wrong about plenty of stuff. He's not much more than a 2-dimensional character actually. I've always thought this story was about Claire- the every-woman who found herself in extraordinary circumstances. Jamie is the hunk she fell in love with, but he's hardly her equal. She is the heroine of the story. But that's beside the point of this comment. I wonder why anyone bothers to find any logic in these TV episodes? They are all based on books and the books were written and read a long time ago. These are established characters and the TV show can't change them or what they have gone through. So what is the point of criticizing what happens in the show at all? They will all act as they have in the books. That I or you have never read the books isn't even important. I just wish TV Jamie was a bit more appealing and understandable. He's terribly sexist and that seems very wrong, especially this year.
1
OK, where to begin. The overall the piece follows the book ok, but geez did the writers chop it up in many little pieces and throw all the good bits away.
- Jamie's many different business enterprises while trying to care for his family and his torturous lonliness which pushes him to marry Loaghaire.
- Jamie's complicity in hiding young Ian, although it's not his fault, and suffers the wrath of his sister, Jenny.
- The punishment Jamie gives Ian, and the one young Ian gives him in return.
- The knock down drag out fight between Claire and Jamie when they are discovered by Loaghaire's kids and Claire's absolute fury when she finds out that he married her and her furious reaction to the news.
- The frenzied and humiliated retreat by Claire who is nudged on by Jenny to take off on a horse into the woods where she has only a small knife for protection and the confusion and the unrealistic betrayal she feels.
- The shockingly unexpected part about Jamie getting shot by Loaghaire and young Ian coming to get Claire in the woods because they fear he is dying.
- The part when Jamie, severely wounded, is talking to Claire is in a dream and is startled almost beyond belief when she is actually sitting there in front of him.
All of this wild and unpredictable reintroduction for Claire was so good in the book and I was sad that they didn't include them in the scenes in the episode. I know it is an adaptation but it is cruel to change so much for so many of us who have waited so long.
7
Editing?. Jamie is wearing 21st century water shoes when he is on the island.
I thought I saw that too! But haven't had a chance to rewatch the episode to check. I remember thinking there is no way they can be showing that.
First of all, I am supposing that you have not read the book. But have you even watched all the previous episodes? Your lack of sympathy for Jamie certainly suggests otherwise.
This man has sacrificed so much for the ones he loves. Over and over again.
First, the love of his wife and his unborn child, by sending them back.
He tried to give his life for his country. He sacrificed his freedom by going to jail in order to save his family by getting the price on his head.
He gave up raising his son, so not to endanger him.
He does all this while believing that he will never see Claire again.
After all the hardship and suffering, these 2 girls (Laoghaire's daughters, which he doesn't know), with the innocense of children bring him back to life. He falls in love with them and sees a chance to finally be a father.
Which is about the only reason he marries her. Also, he doesn't know Laoghaire's exact involvement in Claire's witch trial.
And then, totally unexpected, Claire comes back to him. He is ecstatic and scared at the same time. While he tells her about Willie right away, he withholds his marriage out of shear horror that she might leave him again.
His plan all along is to tell Claire about the marriage (which Sam Heughan conveys in all episodes through his subtle acting. We can definitely feel that something is eating at him). His plan to first consult with the lawyer about the validy of this marriage, makes total sense IMO.
13
Dear Nia, you are in love with the fictitious male lead in a time-travel romance novel. P.S. he isn't real, no man is like this, as no woman is either. It isn't real, it's romantic fictitious nonsense, reality escape.
2
I was disappointed in this episode. It's difficult not to compare some seminal scenes to the book - and this one - like the print shop scene was one I think that most Outlander lovers were anxiously waiting for. I found it anti-climatic. I thought Balfe did a great job, as usual, but the tussle she and Jamie had after Loaghaire rushed off, was nothing like the cataclysmic explosion in the book. In the book they eviscerated each other verbally and went at each other furiously and the anger and pain of their years apart exploded. In the TV scene, it looked like a couple having a quarrel and some angry make-up sex.
8
The reviewer is knocking Jamie off his pedestal – about time. Yes, in many ways, he is a glorious specimen of manhood – decent, loving, not afraid to express his feelings – but also prone to very unwise choices - marrying Laoghaire, running two risky businesses in Edinborough (Papist pamphlets, liquor smuggling). His casual comment about “being lonely” didn’t cut it with Claire. It’s difficult to rationalize Claire’s marriage to Frank vs. Jamie’s to Laoghaire – Claire was already married, and Jamie sent her back through the stones for the sake of their child. It was unfair of him to challenge her about her feelings toward her first husband! He should be grateful that Frank was a good father – I think this is nothing but jealousy of the dead Frank.
I don’t think things will ever be the same between Jenny and Claire…too much distrust on Jenny’s part, and while she is smart enough to know there’s something – er, fishy – going on, with Claire suddenly reappearing after 20 years, I wonder if practical Jenny would ever understand the real story (time travel). Jamie believed her because he wanted to. Speaking of trust, Jamie and Claire really need to get back to their trusting each other – too much snarkiness going on just now. But…I know they will be united and do everything possible to rescue Young Ian. Loving every minute of this series.
7
Yes, it is time Jamie got knocked of his pedestal. Glorious specimen of manhood, you're talking about his body I believe as no man (or woman) is perfect.
It's interesting that Jamie has fathered two children whom he has not raised or supported financially and Laoghaire is condemned for something she could not have done, the claiming of alimony. Up until the mid 20th Century women couldn't own property, only males could own property and the amount of alimony was based on the value of property because women couldn't work out side the home. So Laoghaire could not have set the amount of alimony as the law benefited males and, lawyers and judges were all male. It's very sexist writing to vilify the females and hero worship the males in this show, but it's not anything new.
Any why can't Jenny understand time travel when only males can? Barnyard males. Jenny was running the Lallybroch estate for all those years and kept it afloat and yet her character cannot possibly understand time travel, because she's too practical? Smacks of sexism.
2
You forget...Jaimie is Laird. They were raised to understand that he is command of the family. Whether they agree with him or not. Also, Jenny is his sister...no matter what she will protect him from others no matter how mad she is at him. Ms. Valentine should look up some Scottish History to get her head around this story, the background and then re-write her review. We are not going to ever hate Jaimie. Hasn't Jaimie been through enough protecting his family from strife that befalls his family at every turn. I think so and am willing to buy into it. When you get whipped to an inch of your life for trying to save your sister from getting raped, then you can try again to get people to look badly on Jaimie.
8
Ms. Valentine should look up some Scottish history? The author of the books was born in Arizona, her father Mexican ancestry, and when she decided a historical romance novel would be easiest to research and write, she had no background in history. Jamie wasn't whipped to an inch of his life trying to protect Jenny, that whipping came after, when he was caught and imprisoned for theft and then murder.
I think this week's episode is one of the best this season; perhaps the very best. Contrary to Ms. Valentine's view, I think a major focus of the show so far this season is precisely to show how Jamie is not a perfect man but a very flawed human one who fails to consider the impact of his actions on others. He put his nephew in harm's way by having him participate in Jamie's illegal smuggling business as well as his printing business, which involves the printing of seditious pamphlets, either one of which could result in Young Ian being hanged if caught! Jamie lied to Young Ian's worried father, claiming that he hadn't seen Young Ian. Of course, the mere fact that Jamie chose to become a smuggler, rather than trying to earn a living by legal means shows a flawed character. Jamie also callously took Claire to his apartment in a brothel--it isn't as though Edinburgh would have lacked an inn or other accommodation for travelers that would have been a more fitting place to bring his long-lost first wife! Jamie's decision to neglect telling Claire that he had married her mortal enemy Laoghaire until his sister Jenny conspires to have Laoghaire come to Lallybroch was both understandable as an act of cowardice as Jamie admits to Claire but was also an act of deception, as Claire viewed it. But Jamie is forgiven because his personal charm and charisma and the deep well of long-established love all of his family feels for him overcomes their anger--an utterly believable outcome.
8
What you see as negatives about Jamie are inventions or manipulations of Gabaldon's work by the TV show runners. They appear to think that Jamie as written was too good to be true so for viewers to relate, he must be made more flawed, ignoring millions of readers who have been enthralled by his inborn nobility and Claire's feistiness as well as their deep loyalty to one another. You don't go back 200 years and give up even time with your daughter for an ordinary man with whom to bicker. Claire already had that in Frank. Consider:
-Jamie remains a Scottish patriot and warrior. The seditious pamphlets replace the sword and firearms the English have taken from him.
-His honest print shop business would support him alone in his spartan living conditions but he needs money to support 2 families and the tenants of Lallybroch even though he is no longer laird and owes them nothing. For them he risks smuggling, a victimless crime depriving the hated English of taxes. Jenny seems insufficiently grateful for his sacrifices.
-Book Jamie was embarrassed to bring Claire to the brothel which was a temporary solution to their need for food, dry clothes and a bed bigger than his print shop cot.
-The lie to Ian was magnified from a much more benign one
-Book Jamie didn't know Laoghaire had tried to get Claire killed so he was susceptible - lonely and sentimental at Christmas, pushed by Jenny, needing to be a father.
A shabbier Jamie and timid Claire chops at the root of this tale.
4
So who asked Jamie to support 2 families (which two families?) and the tenants of Lallybroch? Jamie the Lord, was collecting rents from the tenants too. Jenny seems ungrateful for his sacrifices? Who asked him to sacrifice himself for Jenny, did Jenny? He made himself the martyr for what? It's his choice. Yeah, males are so susceptible to female manipulation, so stupid and yet so cleaver. Strange.
1
The 2 families are the McCraes, Jenny and Ian and their constantly enlarging brood of children they can't support on their own and Laoghaire with her 2 daughters. Apparently you didn't register that Jamie is NOT laird of Lallybroch anymore but signed over his heritage to his oldest nephew young Jamie backdating it to a month before Colloden so Lallybroch couldn't be confiscated by the English as rebel property. Yet his sense of duty lingered on, to the point of risking hanging by giving himself up to the English so Jenny would receive the bounty for "betraying him" to the redcoats.
You dismiss this sacrifice as his choice, one he didn't have to make yet if he had left family and tenants in the lurch that would not have raised him in your estimation either.
2
Lest we forget Sam Heughan is the hottest thing there is short of a volcanic eruption, Lust and sexual power often trump good judgment.
11
Caitriona Balfe seems to rule every emotional scene between her and Sam Heughan. I keep waiting for him to stand still and face her instead of looking away. This is a woman's drama and perhaps he's uncomfortable with the emotion.
1
Strange how I see the complete opposite. Jamie keeps expressing his love for Claire in sheer poetry while she barely acknowledges him, let alone reciprocates. Once she grunts and goes off to make an optional house call to a "patient". On the clifftop it's she who looks everywhere but in his eyes and after another declaration of utter devotion from him starts burbling about how her life in Boston was pretty good. The Claire who fought wolves and redcoats for this man and gambled everything to return now found it "hard" to deal with a hostile sister-in-law and clearly regretted second marriage of desperation?
5
Laine, you have fallen in love with a fictitious character from a book made into a TV series. What man would put himself through all this for a woman? It doesn't happen, ever, except in fictitious time-travel partly historical romance novels.
Will you please stop being so condescending and obnoxious to anyone who disagrees with you? I have no beef in this since after Season 1 I stopped watching the show. Readers are giving an opinion; they are not "in love." And verisimilitude is not a requirement in fiction. What man would put himself through all this? I honestly don't know, and neither do you. This character seems to do so. Deal with it.
11
Thanks Genevieve. There I was thinking it was just me. I hoped this episode might deliver enough to save the story, and it came very close. The fight scene was brilliant, and the actors were both amazing. I felt confident the writers would come up with some explanation to right the wrongs they created by allowing Jamie to know Laoghaire had tried to kill her. (We seem to have conveniently forgotten that, at this stage, Geillis actually did die. They cast her asunder too.) So, I knew we were in trouble when Jamie told Claire "you told me to be nice to the lass". Nice retort, Claire. Then the writers replaced Claire's flight from Lallybroch on a horse with her plodding across the yard with her handbag. Cold. Laoghaire appears not to kill Jamie but to shoot Claire, but it's OK our superhero takes a bullet to save her. And the crowning insult? I fell in love with the kids in 10 minutes and decided to marry Laoghaire to be with them. (Does anyone else find this a bit creepy?) The only saving grace for this series now is the quality of the cast, who manage to make much of this believable, but at this stage it should no longer be called Outlander but Scot On A Pedestal. Seems a lot of viewers seem to think everything is fine as long as Jamie's hair looks good and he bares his chest regularly. The writers need to lift their game.
16
Jamie's hair is looking pretty stringy and is thinning. I also wonder why Jamie takes full advantage of Claire being a 20th century nurse/doctor/Harvard trained surgeon and NOT say to her, when he's shot, has a fever from infection, "don't give me that injection.... let God's will be done". Bullc__p. Jamie is so hypocritical and a manipulator, yet, he has such a hard bod and looks so good in 18th century Scottish clothing, lets give him a pass for every negative and silly thing he does.
The character “Jamie” is wearing a wig. I don’t think his wig hair is thinning. I believe the make up artists dirty his wig hair a bit to represent life in 18th century Scotland countryside. How often do you think they could properly wash their hair and with what kind of soap. No shampoo around.
4
In defense on JAMMF, he began to tell Claire about his second marriage by saying he tried to speak to a lawyer (plausible strategy), then Laoghaire and her lassies rushed in. I also thought he sounded a little cavalier in the face of Claire's hurt, but we've seen him be terrible at explaining other women before. I'm reminded of the scene in Paris when Claire discovered the bite on his thigh. He has a few clueless-dude qualities and he should - he's only a fictional human. The next morning when they've both calmed down a little, and Claire is leaving with that GORGEOUS leather saddlebag, he does sincerely apologize. I thought it was a perfect episode. I wish they would never leave Lallybroch.
3
Though I really enjoyed the episode overall, there were a few changes that I didn't love (and seemed unnecessary): 1) The Laoghaire reveal. It was so shocking (and funny) in the book. This TV reveal seemed so anticlimactic. After hiding the fact that he was married all this time he then randomly comes out and just "tells" her? Having Marsali (cough) "interrupt" them was so much better. It's hard to figure out why they shied away from this book scene. 2) Departure from the corporal punishment. I feel that they caved to political correctness, with Jamie even making a comment about other ways to teach a lesson. The mutual corporal punishment was an important book scene that forced Ian to grow up a bit and recognize that his actions have consequences for others and it also further cemented the bond between Jamie and Ian. Also, it was a sort of penance and a taking of responsibility for Jamie. 3) Laoghaire's character. The book Laoghaire seemed much more formidable and strong (not to mention furious). The TV Laoghaire seemed a bit pathetic, crying and running off after accidentally shooting Jamie (while trying to shoot Claire). We all love to hate Loaghaire but she is much more fun to hate when she is waving a gun around at Jamie and not apologizing for it or starting to cry. They did a great job condensing some of the other source material (such as not having Claire actually have to leave and come back). Overall, good job.
1
Absolutely agree re the scene where Marsali bursts in. Why did they water it down so much?
TV show runners in 2017 have self-imposed PC constraints that author Gabaldon did not choose to limit herself. They would not have an underage child (the younger daughter) burst in on a sex scene involving her adopted father. (Yet they did choose to show Black Jack Randall raping Fergus, a 10 year old boy...go figure).
1
So it's fun to hate?
Was hoping this episode would see Claire regaining her senses and returning to the 20th century.
The swim to the island was just about a jump the shark moment for me. Can anyone seriously believe that either Jamie or Young Ian would be able to survive swimming in those frigid waters? And how was Ian supposed to swim back to the mainland with the treasure chest?
On the plus side, Jenny dumping a bucket of cold water on Claire and Jamie was a great moment.
11
Jeez. My issues with the Claire/Jamie relationship aren't nearly as substantial as my issues with the preposterous plot.
Young Ian swims out to the island to retrieve the treasure, and lo and behold, seemingly out of nowhere, a tall ship appears without either Claire or Jamie first seeing (to use nautical terms) the hull up on the horizon. In real life, a tall ship would take hours to reach the island once it was visible from a distance. And the fact that the tall ship was making a bee line for the island as opposed to any other place on the planet? As if. Also, how ridiculous was it that Young Ian didn't manage to hear a sound or see anything until it was too late. Finally, how dumb was it that Jamie didn't bring back part of the loot when he swam there the first time? He could easily have stuffed a few jewels into his cheeks, or wrapped them in his shirt and tied the shirt around his waist. Or perhaps just commandeered a rowboat at a later date to get the treasure.
As for Claire and Jenny, why didn't Claire just show Jenny the photos from the future, and then explain the real situation? The importance of hiding the truth from Jenny is never adequately explained.
8
It's preposterous because it's a TV show and has only a certain number of minutes to tell it's story for that specific episode. If Jamie had done what you suggest there would be no story with young Ian and that Claire and Jamie get to go to the Caribbean and show off their hot bodies in wet clothing and tans.
It's all preposterous, Jenny and Laoghaire have not aged well, but they are younger than Claire and Jaime, who don't look changed at all from 20 years ago. Maybe it's because they have children but Claire had a child too.
1
What has drawn me to the series as the show is the hyperrealism in the emotional experience of the characters. I have felt that the show often improves the books by giving scenes a clean edit. But this episode had one of the first major fallouts for me that I am surprised the writers missed. The sacrifice Claire made for Jamie by leaving Brianna would have ABSOLUTELY come up in conversation in the fight or on the cliff. "I left my daughter for you!" is what EVERY mom would have been thinking when Jamie started revealing his flaws. I question whether there aren't enough parents in the writer's room. To hear Claire say she left her "friends" in Boston instead of focusing on Brianna is the first time in the show where I feel they missed the mark of capturing emotional realities.
38
Whoa....very interesting point. If she had said, “I left our daughter for you”; that is a big, emotional, complicated, ticking bomb to throw down and I don’t know how the story would resolve it. But you’re right - she didn’t say it and she should have.
8
You're right - and in the book when Loaghaire bursts in on them, one of Claire's first reactions after Jamie rushes out, is to burst into tears and wonder why on earth she left Brianna. T
3
Jamie has already worried that though he's thrilled to be with her again, perhaps Claire should not have left their daughter parentless, husbandless, defenseless as he sees it. Claire answers that things are different in the 20th century, that Brianna is a grown woman with a good education and can look after herself, can choose to marry or not and whom to marry without parental consultation.
Therefore Claire wounding him by regretting that she left their daughter for him would be an unfair attack.
3
It's strange to me how vocal the show's executive producers have been about protecting Jamie's character and making him sympathetic, especially when he's at his worst, and yet Claire has been presented in an unsympathetic light all season. No qualms.
They talk about soul mates with a bird analogy. But I'm not seeing or feeling it yet.
8
We saw how important the Hogmanay scene was to restoring family life to Jamie. What about Claire? Her first husband Frank pressured her to tell a lie of omission to her daughter Brianna. Her second husband Jamie tells her to do the same to Jenny, a woman she loves like a sister. It's a sad repeat of personal history. The lies break Claire's ties to the women at the heart of her family life. Jenny is candid about the loss.
4
Males are king(s) of their castles and females are the dirty rascals, created to bring down the king.
1
Laura, I agree. In their clumsy rewrite of the plot, the writers also have created a situation where Laoghaire has set out to kill Claire twice - at the witch trial and now at Lallybroch. Yet Jamie wants Laoghaire to walk free because of the children. Not the kind of protective partner I’d want in my life, but the writers are so focussed on The King of Men.
4
Twenty years apart and Claire and Jamie don't realize they have issues to work out! Can't explain to Jenny time travel? How about Claire being the white witch and using magic? She hasn't been burned at the stake yet; could be another cliffhanger. Since it is a major crime, where did the pistol come from?
Now Ian has been Shanghaied, and off to Jamaica they go after him.
Another fine mess they have gotten into.
4
Claire never used "magic". What is magic anyway, miracles? Would any clergy be burned at the stake for performing a miracle? No, because the clergy are males.
2
In defense of JAMMF, he begins to tell Claire about his second marriage by saying he was hoping to talk to a lawyer first (plausible strategy) when Laoghaire and her lassies rush in. I also thought his initial reaction and explanation seemed cavalier in the face of Claire's pain, but we've seen him be terrible at explaining other women before. I'm reminded of the scene in Paris when Claire discovers the bite mark on his thigh. Jamie has some clueless-dude qualities because he can't be perfect. The next morning after they've both calmed down and Claire is leaving (with that gorgeous leather saddlebag that I want more than anything) Jamie sincerely apologizes for hurting Claire. Both Heughan and Balfe acted the heck out of this episode and I thought it was perfect. I wish they'd never leave Lallybroch.
9
I also hated the "justification" process Jamie seems to apply successfully. No accountability to his dishonesty. He is so different this season, understandably, and the dynamics between Jamie and Claire seem "less" somehow. Jenny's reaction to Claire bewildered me even more. And what is it with Punishing Leery by giving her outrageous alimony!! God forbid Jamie doesn't save her from her shooting him for the sake of "the girls". That would have REALLY ticked me off if I was Claire and that Would have had me walking! Not my favorite storytelling.
9
This is a good point, given that in the episode the gun was initially aimed at Claire not Jamie. Another unnecessary change that leaves the plot looking weak IMO.
1
".... punishing Leery (Laoghaire) by giving her outrageous alimony"? Who said she would get that alimony and besides, women didn't set the alimony. In that century women couldn't own property and couldn't work outside the "home", that was the law (all the lawyers and judges were male). It's the male who didn't want to be with the female anymore so got rid of her, usually she'd be killed or raped and killed, no female set the alimony, that's just sexist writing to vilify Laoghaire and make her hated by everyone.
And hell hath no fury like the male ego!
1
Wow. That’s more that a bit too harsh on poor Jamie, and you will get very little support from Outlander fans for your point of view.
5
I'm a HUGE Outlander fan so realize that my POV is IMO. No one else has to agree with me. I see this episode being rather harsh on poor Claire, myself. For all Claire went through, I would have liked to have seen Jamie try to find out more about Claires' life without him. Remember, this is a tv show. We will all survive each others opinions, especially since we all love true love. Peace Out.
6
OK. Here's the conversation about how their lives went for the past 20 years.
Jamie: I survived the horror show of Colloden losing my friends, my culture, my home, my rights.
After surviving a near fatal wound doctored painfully by Jenny, I was practically catatonic, feral, banished to living alone in a cave for years.
Then I gave myself up to the English to support my family with the reward money, risking hanging but was "just" imprisoned instead for years, eating rats to survive.
Followed by years of indentured servitude.
I had a child out of wedlock whom I grew to love but had to leave for his sake.
I've been fighting for Scotland printing rebel pamphlets, risking further English punishment as well by smuggling to support my ungrateful Lallybroch crew.
And you?
Claire: Well, I had to suffer through boring university parties with stuffy academics.
I lived in beautiful homes with all modern conveniences and luxuries.
I had a second income from Frank who was a good father to the daughter I got to enjoy and raise to adulthood.
I had a rewarding career as a surgeon.
After 5 episodes showing the chasm between what they had to bear, everyone suddenly has amnesia including Claire about what a miracle it is that Jamie survived?
11
Poor Jamie? Can't criticize poor Jamie? Outlander fans believe in ultra romantic fantasy, who cares what they think.
If Jamie and Claire were unrelievedly good, the story would not have grabbed so many fans. The grand love story is so marvelous in spite of, or because, they are flawed human beings. Jamie is like Job, constantly going through travails and occasionally being less than heroic.
By the way, this episode shows Jenny as considerably less than saintly and her character is all the more interesting for it.
9
Jamie is not like Job. Jamie is the master of his fate, Jamie puts himself in harms way, Jamie is martyring himself, no one asked him to do all the things he does for others.
While I generally think the NYT Outlander reviews have been spot on, I think you missed the boat on this one somewhat. IMHO Jamie has been made out to be a real schmuck since his reunion with Claire - not hugging his shaken wife after she was assaulted and shaking... really? And the lying - both to Young Ian's parents and (by omission) to Claire? Those are not the actions of the younger, noble, open-hearted Jamie we all knew 20 years ago. He's clearly going to need to learn to get out of the sad corner of himself he's inhabited for the past 20 years if he's going to hang on to his wife. Which he will, because it's Outlander. And, as amply demonstrated, Outlander isn't afraid to beat hell out of Jamie. Otherwise, I think the writers did a masterful job in adapting the book, excising a lot of stuff that isn't necessary to the overall story while introducing a couple of lovely little motivations for his marriage to Leoghaire that weren't there at Hogmanay in DG's book. Laura Donnelly's Jenny is fantastic (jeezus, people, tell her already!) And, NYT, excellent observation re: Terry Dreisbach's design of Claire's outfit. She really nailed it.
18
Well said. Agree completely.
3
The outfit is ugly and terrible. She's been wearing it for weeks.
Perhaps the narrative is following the books, but it's lost me. Now it's an official, full-fledged bodice ripper (thank you, Jenny, for saving us from having to debate about whether there was consent), with a really stupid plot turned based on really weak premises: why didn't Jamie fetch the years treasure earlier? do they really need to go to such extremes to pay alimony (read up on 18th century marital laws, please), and WHY CAN'T THEY GET A BOAT?. I've been a loyal fan but now I am released. I'm done.
8
I totally understand your criticism ! The books of DG have so many twists and turns (and quite often rather dramatic ones) that it is unavoidable that some, if not many of them, are outright unrealistic. Like Jamie marrying the woman who tried to kill the love of his life or Jenny sending her daughter to fetch Laoghaire. to name but a few. Up to a certain point (some parts of the book I scanned, not read, because of this) I can accept that, because I also see DG's wittiness in all this and the great dialogues between J and C that are a result of it. They often make me laugh.
But on the whole and considering what Jamie went through in the twenty years they were apart; the seven years living in a cave, the three years in prison, having to give up both his children, I would say "Give this guy a break" !
6
A swimmer is harder to see in the ocean than a boat. While the British AND pirates are patrolling the waters around Scotland at this time, getting out to the island in the least obtrusive way possible is a good idea.
As for the alimony for Jenny - Jamie is acting in a way that is inconsistent with what lawyer Ned McGowan advised. A guilty conscience for marrying Laoghaire in the first place? Maybe. Taking care of the girls whom he regard as his own? Probably. Given how much trouble Jamie gets into (smuggling, for instance), it is logical that he wouldn't want L to be screaming her head off about Claire's sudden return so this "alimony" is actually hush money.
2
P.S. it's alimony for Laoghaire not Jenny, but regardless, Ned is a sexist. Wonder how much Jamie pays him to be his sexist lawyer. Wouldn't a spouse have to be declared dead for the other spouse to marry someone else? Jenny thought Claire was dead but Jamie knew Claire wasn't. Why isn't Jamie troubled about fathering two children and not raising or financially supporting those children but he's so intent on taking care of these two girls, whom he didn't father?
My main problem in this episode was the capture of Ian...the 15 minutes they decide to go to the island is when the ship happens to be there (Jamie said there were 100s of islands). I remember thinking that was a clumsy plot device in the book and seeing it on screen made it more so.
6
Why did young Ian swim to the island anyway? Has none of these people heard of boats?
7
As I recall, it was imperative that the location of the treasure be kept secret, because the British were still looking for the "Frenchman's gold," i.e., the gold that Louis the French king was rumored to have sent to Charles to help him in his quest for the crown. In the book, it was explained that Jamie and the Murray boys had already made several forays out to the island. They never took more than what they could safely hide, because everyone knew that the British could come and search the house at random, so they could very well lose all of the treasure if it were discovered.
2
But only one Silkie Island !
I'm not sure that I feel the same re: the way the show makes Jamie out to be.
I'll re-watch with this in mind.
2
I think Ms. Valentine and some of those who have commented are losing sight of the fact that this is a love story above all else. Humans in love make terrible mistakes and they suffer for them. Neither Jaimie nor Claire are perfect people. They do wonderful, selfless things and awful, selfish things. That's the nature of humans in and out of love. I'm enjoying the series. It's not mean-spirited or apocalyptic. I guess my standards are low.
20
It's not romantic to stop someone from leaving and try and rape them. Would Jamie have stopped if Claire continued to fight him? I think it would have been better if he had pulled himself up short realizing what he was about to do and then deal with it. I know the author states rape was something that regularly occurred during this time - but how many times is Claire going to be attacked? And now Jamie is one of the attackers?
I only saw the two of them fighting tooth and nail because they are both furious and in love. She loves him, she literally gave up her whole previous life to find him, and then she finds out that he married her archenemy and (maybe) fathered a child - and he didn't tell her. She's angry, because she loves him. If she didn't love him so much, his behavior wouldn't have upset her so much. She would simply have gone back through the stones, disappointed perhaps, but relieved.
He never expected to see her again, and then suddenly she shows up. He doesn't want to lose her again, so he's afraid to tell her about the mistake he made in marrying Laoghaire. He's been gearing up to tell her, has sent Fergus to talk to Ned Gowan, and knows there is a reckoning coming, which has made him even more nervous.
Both are totally on edge. The way they mix physical fighting with a sexual edge is absolutely no surprise, given their history. We have seen them fight before, and we know they both like rough sex - it's more explicit in the book, but it's only implied in the TV show in subtle ways.
Of course, we women are more sensitized to the difference between rape and rough sex nowadays, and I have taken offense at other highly sexist scenes in Gabaldon's books, but this scene made complete sense to me, and I didn't perceive in Jamie the kind of aggression that comes with rape, which the reviewer and others have. He seemed as idle he were at his wit's end, not knowing what to do.
6
Are you very young? There are ways to approach a lover whose body and soul you know as well as your own that do not consist of a chaste kiss on the cheek or a signed letter of permission. Jamie knew Claire well enough to be confident that he could overwhelm her objections by initiating the language of sex if she was not responding to his arguments. When your partner is immediately into it, it's not rape, not even close to it.
5
I thought the long awaited Jamie & Claire fight scene was really done well -- we could feel both Jamie's desperation over his cowardice and deceit and Claire's hurt and fury. But once again, it is apparent to me that the shortcomings of the episode and its logic result from the decision to try to squeeze the book into 13 episodes. Every scene is truncated in adaptation, and in streamlining scenes for TV, you lose a lot of the underlying logic for why the characters behave as they do. I thought that showed particularly in the scenes between Jenny, Ian and Jamie about Young Ian. I've come to appreciate how well the Outlander writing team actually does with rather severe time limitations.
29
“He even knows the most effective way to punish young Ian without corporal violence!” The scene is a departure from the book where both Ian and Jamie are “thrashed.” Perhaps the writers are trying to show that 18th century Jamie has learned a lesson from 20th century Claire about the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment. Recall in season 1, Jamie was made to physically punish Claire for the Fort William escapade. That did not end well for Jamie.
I liked the episode. The scene with his step daughter was very tender. Young Ian can do no wrong. Glad there will be more from him in future episodes.
16
It's clear that young Ian thinks Uncle Jamie and Auntie Claire are the most rock-and-roll aunt and uncle in all of Scotland. "Auntie Claire killed him! Killed him good!"
5
This episode brought me to the edge of my couch and gave me regular goosebumps. Literally ! The pain and frustration of twenty years apart came pouring out and was clearly felt, thanks to both actors. Quite some changes compared to the book, but very well written and I was surprised to see Sam Heughan actually swimming in freezing water. I said it before but I can't say it enough; the supporting actors in Outlander are absolutely great with special attention to the three amazing children so far: the boy that got his ear nailed to a pole (season 1) and wee Willy and Joanie both in this season. There is just one thing that keeps bothering me though. In my opinion Jamie didn't actually lie to Claire about Laoghaire, did he? He didn't tell her, but is that the same, or have I missed or forgotten something ?
10
Lies of omission are still lies. :-)
9
Claire sees it as a “lie of omission”.
7
A lie of omission. And a pretty big one.
2
Seasons 1 and 2 were about Jamie, Claire, their love story, and their fight against history. Remember their efforts to prevent the slaughter of the clans at Culloden?
This season thought, it seems to have withdrawn into some sort of domestic drama. Next week they go chasing after young Ian, captured by someone due to him trying to make things right for Jamie.
It seems to have lost its depth.
12
Good points from Genevieve Valentine about Jamie's lack of nobility and honesty, and his less than heroic behavior. Can this be the "king of men" crowned by faithful fans of Diana Gabaldon's books, and brought to swoon-worthy life by Sam Heughan? Or maybe something better. I think Jamie's foibles make him more realistic, more human, more interesting. Jamie, in this episode especially, is a man who sometimes behaves badly, who lies when he should tell the truth, who is forgiven too easily because... well, because he's Jamie. He gets punished. He gets punished plenty. He feels remorse. And Claire still loves him. She'll always love him. Who wouldn't? Because that's the way it has to be in Outlander land. Which is more than good enough for me.
59
Ms. Valentine is trying to make great art out of scribbles! Diana Gabaldon might have a lot of readers, but she is not a great writer! Her books are 200 pages of plot stretched out into 800! Don't over examine Claire or Jaimie, just go with it! Who cares if the characters don't make any sense, I just blame it on the books and enjoy the biceps !
5
I didn't like the way this reviewer wants us to hate Jaimie. Strange. If anything, I'm more frustrated with Claire than I am with Jaimie. He will do everything in his power to protect her. She seems to do a lot to get him into trouble. I like them both though and wish them the best.
1
@Zlati Mochkin: Amen. Her books are in desperate need of a good editor who has a firm command of the review function in Word. They are full of nonsensical plot twists, meandering tangents, and poorly motivated actions, but you are right: enjoy the show for what it is.
4