Why no comments section on Episode 10? I have comments about that episode, but my last comment here did not show up. Is the comments section closed altogether?
1
It is unfortunate that no comments have been allowed on Episode 10, since it was such a complex and well acted one. The reviewer is like many people I have known over the years that are extremely uncomfortable with sexual violence. It is that trying to ignore the reality of how evil it is, that it colors their view of it. I just finished serving on a jury involving incest. Even with overwhelming evidence of the guilt of the accused, some jurors seemed to want to find some excuse to not have to think about it. Fortunately, for the victim and the concept of justice, the jury's deliberations eventually led to the guilty verdict. Even in this day and age women are potentially victims when no one stands up for their rights. Outlander does show that real love and affection exists as a counterbalance to the abuse of sex. They do that with amazing style and grace.
7
Yes, I'm wondering why there are no comments on Episode 10 as well. These commentaries are so interesting to me, so I hope that will be available soon. For me it's still so unbelievable that Brianna followed her mother to the 18th century. And I read the books (I'm on Fiery Cross right now). The rape scene here was horrible and haunted me for days.
2
Was wondering why it was not possible to comment on episode ten, and realized that it might have to do with the number of people who criticized the reviewer so harshly here. What happened? Episode ten was packed full! So glad to see Brianna and Claire take the upper hand and give Jamie his comeuppance papers. Eighteenth-century masculinity, meet twentieth century-femininity!
4
Our ability to comment should not be taken away because we disagree with the reviewer.
8
@JJ: I agree. That's why I'm asking for an explanation of what happened. The reviewer is entitled to her opinion, and readers are not bound to agree with all aspects of it. I appreciate that she has to grind out a review fairly quickly without having much time to reflect upon each episode. And I happen to agree with Ms. Valentiene that there is plenty to criticize about both the books and the television show. There is also, however, plenty to like about them, and their lack of artistic perfection has not stopped me from enjoying the entertainment they provide. I feel sorry for the reviewer, if she is allowing fixed expectations and standards to dictate her responses to the material, rather than being open to the possibility that there are other ways to assess the value and qualities of an artwork. On the other hand, if the reason why the comments section was shut down is more mundane (maybe the moderator called in sick?), then it would be nice to know that!
6
Allison, well said. I agree.
1
Comments have not been enable for episode 10 review, which is up. I bet that's because so many people here spend too much time insulting Ms. Valentine and not enough watching the episode.
3
@PrairieFlax Yes, I noticed that, and came here to Week 9 just to make that comment. So does that mean we get to comment on Week 10 here? I thought it was the best of the season so far. The episodes, if not the recaps (in some people's view anyway) keep getting better and better. I think just like the comments section, Ms. Valentine deserves to have her own opinion. Open it up, Ms. Valentine. We have a little community going here, and it makes your recaps even better.
6
Fair criticism, in my mind.
2
@JJ Many comments downright mean, in my mind,
1
I am not a critic, just a viewer and a reader who became enthralled with the Outlander story. After watching the TV show for three years, I read the books. I was not disappointed. I guess I was hungry for a story that wasn't about a criminal or someone seriously deranged. This season's offerings differ markedly because the story is opening up to more than the central love story. That requires an adjustment for viewers and I think it shows in the comments I've read here. For me the TV show enhances the reading experience even when the show changes the story line a bit (the best change--Murtagh). As I see it, this is 19th century storytelling at its best. If you don't like Dickens, you're not going to like Gabaldon. The people who are making the TV series are trying to stay true to the essence of the novels and so far, I think they have been successful though it feels a bit rushed compared to the novels. It must be very challenging to try to condense the action. I'm with them for as long as the series lasts. It sure beats The Game of Thrones.
9
@Rebecca You had me until your last sentence.
There is no comparison between BOTH of these excellent shows. After all, GoT doesn't even take place on Earth.
2
@PrairieFlax GoT is based on the 100 years War which took place on Earth. Yes, there are fantasy elements, just as there are in Outlander, but all fantasy novels are really about Earth. I don't believe I have insulted Ms. Valentine by criticizing her comments since she has been critical of the series. It seems to me she has taken a condescending attitude in general.
3
@Rebecca it's not based on the 100 years war, rather, mostly based on the Wars of the Roses with pitstops along the way into various other notorious moments in history. But, despite the dragons, GoT isn't really a fantasy story-- more a commentary on the bloody nature of human history... the wheel of fortune.
I might also point out that being critical of a piece of art/culture/popular culture/ entertainment/what have you is not comparable to being critical of an individual, real life person-- that's a false equivalency. You could argue that criticizing the essay is comparable, but personal critique (here, condescending) isn't that. It's just unimaginative.
3
You shouldn’t have to read the books to watch a show!!!
If this show was meant for only the fans of the book it would be on YouTube. This show is supposed to be for a wider audience, one that shouldn’t have to read the books to appreciate it.
This is not the book review section.
This is a review of a TV show that in this season seems to have abandoned a lot of what made previous seasons great, and after 3 seasons of sexual assault, is reaching the zenith of the audience’s patience for it, irrespective of the “historical purity” of the narrative. (No one had clear skin or shiny hair back then but I don’t see the producers scrambling to depict that historical truth).
I appreciate Valentine’s commentary because I feel the same way she does. My patience, like hers, for gratuitous assault as a plot device is running thin, especially when you consider all the shortcomings of this season. Maybe the books are different but we’re talking about this particular show, and right now, it’s lacking.
The producers should remember that we haven’t all read, or plan to read, the books. Expecting us to stick around for lazy tv because “the story will get better, per the books”, is disingenuous and the fastest way to lose viewers. I’m finding myself less and less inclined to press play on my DVR every week and I think I’m pretty much done.
Thank you, Ms. Valentine, for providing recaps for the rest of us.
7
Who is Sandy? (LauraB mentioned him/her)
@PrairieFlax Sandy was Frank’s longterm mistress. She’s featured in several scenes, Season 3. Sandy was created by the show’s writers. I doubt she will reappear in Season 4 or beyond. Hope that helps.
3
@Laura Thx!
1
If you want to read recaps of episodes from someone who actually read the books and understands where the story is going (but avoids spoilers), go on over to Entertainment Weekly. I gave this reviewer a chance because presumably she has some qualifications, but I find her continual whining about the storyline and seeming lack of understanding about the characters and the times in which the story takes place pretty annoying. I see others have noted similar complaints. Seriously stop reading her, just because she's in the NYT doesn't mean she's worth reading.
14
This was the most beautiful episode yet. The reunion of the family and the vignettes of their daily life together matched with the sublime music of the genius composer bear mccreary was just ravishing. I have seen this episode 3 times already. And catriona balfe deserves an Emmy for her acting for when she discovers the rape.
7
This reviewer sounds like she was forced to watch the show and wants to make darn sure the readers know she doesn't like it. Which is fine, to each his/her own, but it isn't very enjoyable for those who do enjoy the show, books, or both to read her commentary. Which is why I advocate not reading her any more and finding some other sources (if any).
10
I don't understand why every review or recap of this show has to have this kind of pearl-clutching because people 200 years ago weren't "woke" the way we are today. The fact is that rape was no doubt as prevalent then as portrayed, simply because women were far less free to have agency. Going after the man they were told had hurt Brianne was what men then would have done, as far as I know. The only thing that bothered me is just how unprepared Brianna was to navigate Wilmington, NC in 1769. Even I would have known that a woman going into a pub alone then was not going to get out unscathed. As appalling as it was, I thought the rape was consistent with the time, and so was the silliness of men looking out for Brianna's "honor."
12
@Jill C. That wasn't a pub -- that was the ground floor of the inn she and Lizzie were staying at.
2
This episode was the best of the season. Sam and Sophie did an amazing job portraying Jaime and Brianna. This episode s/b proof on who is the lead actor of Outlander. Viewers come back when they see more of their favorite main character.
7
Why didn't the NYT recap Escape at Dannemora?
2
I know that violent revenge plots are hackneyed, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s any other reason for showing us Brianna’s skill with a rifle. A .50 cal. musket ball is just the thing to permanently wipe that smirk off Capt. Bonnet’s face.
10
@Fred Musante there is another reason, and it's not a violent revenge plot. But I won't say more.
3
@Fred Musante Sounds good!
1
When will this reviewer ever find something “satisfying” about the show? And when we she stop trotting our the same old, same old critiques? We really, really need a new NYT reviewer for Outlander.
38
@JJ Amen. When Jamie acts perfect, she complains of his being too much of an ideal and not a person. When he acts human - and consistent with the values of his time, such as attacking Roger without consulting the women or placing great value on bloodlines, she finds fault with that too. Of course Jamie places a strong emphasis on blood ties, having been denied any other kind of connection with his own offspring. Also, Jamie denying Brianna agency does not equal the show doing the same. No doubt we will see her express her will once she inevitably find out. Finally, in line with the less helpful side of the "Me Too" movement, the reviewer seems to lump all degrees of masculine misbehavior into one basket of unforgivable sins. Yes it does offend us to see Roger treat her as a child, and try to order her around. Unsurprisingly, as the adoptive son of a bachelor clergyman and come of age in the late 1950's, he takes a patronizing overprotective view of Brianna's risk taking (who is almost a decade his junior). Remember, he just saw horrors perpetrated against vulnerable travelers during his crossing, which Brianna, having travelled in comfort and safety thanks to her uncle's purse, cannot imagine. The man travelled 200 years and 5000 miles for her. He's had his own life threatened multiple times. So while we certainly hope that Brianna will teach him how to love and accept a modern woman, just as Claire did Jamie, perhaps we cut him a bit of slack, yes?
33
@CGR The reviewer also does not place the episode in the context of the Outlander TV series. She does not seem to understand how the characters' actions/dialogue fit into the whole, otherwise she would have realized why Jamie mentioned Brianna being his own blood, and how important men raising children not of their own blood have been to the story. She may not especially like the series, but if she watched the 3 previous seasons, she should understand this.
15
@CGR "perhaps we cut him a bit of slack, yes?"
No, born in 1938 or not, he is still a sexist hypocrite.
5
In your article you fail miserably at the point. The story is a period piece and the treatment of women is quite accurate. The recovery from brutality upon women is non existent during this time. Women had to plow forward to survive or drown. Remember where you are in your criticism. Read more history on the subject. It also gives women hope as to how far we have come and that we have miles to go in the treatment of women even today. As women are the backbone of society now and have always been. It’s still a tough road to hoe, but we will make it.
39
With all due respect here, Outlander came out of the prolific mind of Diana Gabaldon. If there is too much violence in these books, blame the novelist. That's what readers, including myself, are expecting to be translated on screen after having read them. Clearly, Ms. Valentine needs to read the books or re-read them before writing her opinions on these episodes and stick to the facts of Gabaldon's plot points. This is the second time she's done that commenting on too much violence, again.. Enough already! Mahalo.
39
@JA Agreed! And the violence in the books always impacts the characters deeply and affects the plot across books. I think the actors have shown in many small moments the impact of the assaults they have endured. The reviewer seems to see the show strictly through a 2018 lens which ignores the fact that it is also based on a book that is in part historical fiction written 20 years ago. Focusing the review solely on the sexual assault and not on the development of the relationship between Brianna and Jamie, Claire and Jamie as parents, and the wonderful acting, misses the essence of the Drums of Autumn story.
21
@JA - Again - why should I have to read the books to watch a TV show? I have no intention of doing so. If you want a book review, go to the books section and not the TV section. This is not Shakespeare by any means, and it seems to have taken on a cult persona. It's entertainment - a historical romance, sort of - not history.
9
@Murphy Whether one reads the books or not , it is still meticulously-researched historical fiction, and should be reviewed as such. This reviewer doesn't seem to know how to do that.
7
To me this was the best episode of this season so far. The screenwriters did a great job of turning the all ridiculous actions and misunderstandings from the Drums of Autumn book into a coherent plot. I thought Sam Heughan was especially good in this episode. I loved the first meeting between Jamie and Brianna. Beyond that, the story is turning into soap opera and I am getting tired of the use of rape as a plot device.
23
@AlennaM
Agreed. Sam’s gentlemanly annoyance at being interrupted changes moment by moment with the realization that he is meeting his daughter for the first time. It was perfect and sweet.
18
@AlennaM This was the episode that the fans wanted to see. For Jamie Fraser to meet the daughter for whose safety he had sacrificed everything was life-altering to both of them. It was heartrending. The acting superb. This reviewer failed to even mention it.
I thought this episode was excellently done, especially compared with the similar section of the book. I tend to skip that part because the miscommunication that leads to Roger’s beating is so aggravating. I would also like to comment on the reviewer’s stance on this and most episodes. I don’t expect a glowing or gushing review, but Ms. Valentine seems to have a disdain for the show in every episode, that I question why she was chosen to review it. Again, critics don’t have to be, and probably shouldn’t be, superfans, but I think a certain underlying affection or regard for a show that they are reviewing is necessary. I can't help but sense an almost sneering quality here.
43
Oh, she is definitely sneering.
7
Her smugness is nearly insufferable.
4
Who is dressing Roger? His pants look like capris and his jacket looks like it is has shoulder pads. Please dress him better! Mom of the other men are dressed this way.
19
I meant, none (not mom!) of the other men are dressed as Roger is. In capris and shoulder pads.
5
@JJ I said something like this last week. Roger's jacket looks straight out of a Beatles album cover.
7
@JJ I agree with your thoughts about Roger’s clothing. It does not make Brianna’s attraction to him believable. Also, who is in charge of the wigs for the program! Sorry but I cannot recommend them and they become a distraction on the character.
4
Genevieve Valentine: You really need to read the books.
14
@Femapples I was just coming in to say this. I really don't think you can review this television show and have anything worth saying unless you've also read the books. The only thing she regularly succeeds in doing is mis-predicting future plots. If anyone wanted to know whether the show was predictable, they could come and read the NYT review and like, "Guess not."
8
@JH It's a failure as a tv show if it can't stand on it's own without reading the books.
Just saying that objectively.
I've read the books, have mixed opinions, loved the first season of the tv show, it's gone downhill since. Also this reviewer confuses character analysis with critique of the storytelling and adaptation choices (which are poor this year, but perhaps better than next). (everything can be a mixed opinion)
Good to see Eutrocles again.
6
Wow, finally Brianna meets her dad. I’m emotionally exhausted after this episode
9
Has the reviewer read the books? There was really no way to change this particular event because it IS one of the — not the only — defining moments for Brianna and later Roger and for other characters. Try reading the books before you write another review.
19
@Bookworm8571: Absolutely!! About to make that point.
Also, great acting all around here. really touched at the Jamie/Brianna meeting.
4
Sometimes I think this reviewer writes contrary recaps just to spark the commentary. She's saying so much of this series revolves around sexual assault, then writes a recap which speaks of nothing else. I'm not trying to denigrate what happened to Claire and Brianna. (Or Jamie for that matter.) But we tend to forget that 'Outlander' dotes on the female's gaze, and sexual assault was a sad fact of the times. Women were only worth as much as the menial work they could do, the family line they could extend, and the money they could bring into a marriage. The difference is that although Jamie is very much a man of the era, he is also affected by his own personal Enlightenment, brought about by his alliance with Claire. She has changed him and he's open to that, but he is also fiercely defensive of those he loves. Was he rash when he attacked Roger? Absolutely. But that wasn't Jamie the Enlightened. That was Jamie the Enraged Father. It's why the boyfriend of any teenage daughter sneaking in after midnight speeds off after he drops her in the driveway. Hell hath no fury.
28
@Gwen
I agree and want to point out that Brianna is a child of the fifties, and as the story accurately describes it, would probably not talk about it, and even blame herself, as society could have/would have. We have come a long way since then.
12
@Linda Lum Brianna was born in 1948. She came of age in the 60s (just two years older than me). She, as an urban college student in a progressive city would have have had some consciousness raising. The first iteration of Our Bodies, Ourselves (under another title) has been published in the very area in which she grew up. However, the "roi de seigneur" as far as everyday men did still exist - we see it in the character of Berger 1966, when "Hair" was being workshopped.
5
I think this comes back to Season 3 choices. We could have seen Brianna’s character growth from childhood to a young woman. So much of what happened to Brianna and Claire, over a 20 year span in Boston, was abbreviated. Brianna will be a major character in Seasons 4 - 6. I agree with the reviewer that we haven’t seen enough of Brianna prior to the assault. In fairness, Sophie Skelton and Sam Heughan merit praise for their work in episode 4 x 9.
14
@Laura if we had spent all that time seeing Brianna growing up, the show's writers would have had to sacrifice many far more essential plot elements -- and they already had to leave a lot out as it was. If they'd chosen to showcase more of Brianna's childhood, they would have had to make most of it up, because there's even less of 'child-Bree' in the book than we saw in Season 3.
4
@Anna B.
They also would have had to sacrifice the focus on Jamie and Claire's story. We didn't need to see more Bree.
9
@Anna B. Thanks for the reply. The show has departed from the book to advance plot elements, showcasing supporting characters in new lights. I’d like the show to be more driven by character development than plot points. We needed to see more Bree, and less Sandy, for example, since the focus in Seasons 4 - 6 will be on Jamie, Claire, Bree and Roger.
2
Jamie's comment about a child of his blood is relevant to the prior history of the books: Laoghaire's girls were treated by him as his daughters when he was married to her and he could never acknowledge Willie as his son when he was in England. Thus, having an actual child "of his blood" whom he could publicly recognize as his own was actually pretty extraordinary for him - especially since he is now in his 40s, at least in the books. (Somehow Sam Heughan does not seem to age on tv, while Catriona Balfe does. Odd choice by the producers.)
27
@Lenore: Yes, and the theme of children without parents and parents without children is consistent throughout the books: Claire is an orphan raised by her uncle. Roger learns to call Rev. Wakefield "Daddy" after he loses his parents. Even Black Jack Randall is persuaded to do right by his dying brother's child. Frank insists that Brianna not be told that she has another father. Fergus is an orphan without family, until Jamie bestows his name upon him and he becomes a Fraser. Laoghaire is motherly to Brianna, until she discovers Brianna's parentage; contrast that with Claire's treatment of Marsali. Marsali disdains Claire at first, but Claire persistently chooses to treat her with kindness, regardless of her parentage, and Marsali comes to depend upon her as a mother. Obviously, the parent-child bond is a central theme in the books. And another thing that is important about parents and children here: the ability to time-travel is a genetic trait, passed down from parent to child.
34
@Allison
What a great synopsis of the book allison!
5