Jump to content

S01.E12: Lallybroch 2015.04.25

Claire and Jamie are reunited and head to his family home, where old animosities between Jamie and his sister, Jenny, are rekindled.

Reminder: This is for discussion of the TV show only, no book talk allowed - including saying "but it's different in the books". Any spoiler from outside the books (i.e. next week's preview) should be in spoiler tags. Book Talk folks, there is another episode topic for you.

0

Share Post


Link to post
I'm not being all homophobic here; I mean it's disturbing to see anyone shaking his limp wiener like he's throttling a Muppet

On the one hand, I am actually all for Muppets having (consensual) sex and getting throttled (Ben Browder was awesome at it), but OTOH, this particular description is...uhm, err, how shall I say.... vivid enough to almost wish I had gotten a Kink!Muppet trigger warning or tag ahead of reading that sentence. That is not to say I have any particular bent to call it self-abuse or self-pleasure. I'm a bookreader and well past any age of consent. Just...dayum!

2

Share Post


Link to post

I don't know. I found this episode kind of boring. And the parts that I didn't find boring (all the Captain Jack parts) I found extremely uncomfortable to watch. This show has an obsession with rape that is just getting too much for me.  And it rubs me the wrong way to have two gay characters and have one be an untrustworthy mincing fop, and the other a sexual sadist and all around horrible human being.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I don't know. I found this episode kind of boring. And the parts that I didn't find boring (all the Captain Jack parts) I found extremely uncomfortable to watch. This show has an obsession with rape that is just getting too much for me.  And it rubs me the wrong way to have two gay characters and have one be an untrustworthy mincing fop, and the other a sexual sadist and all around horrible human being.

I can't say I found the Captain Jack parts boring because I fast forwarded thought most of them. Totally agree with your observation on the near constant rape scenes. It's lazy writing. I don't know if I agree with your assessment of BJR as gay. I think he does prefer men, but is an equal opportunity sexual sadist. The all round horrible human being...you nailed it!

1

Share Post


Link to post

Shrugs. He seems closeted gay to me. He can't get it up for women and he has a clear sexual obsession with Jamie in addition to the sexual sadism. That's how it comes across to me from Tobias Menzies performance. 

 

Anyways, I am beginning to dread any time Black Jack shows up fearing more torture porn.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I didn't have a problem with anything because the show has established that the world is brutal since the get go. What I did like in this episode was the framing device of Jamie telling Claire events from his pov to her, rather than E9 where the show ran entirely from his pov. 

 

Of course, BJR's sexuality is kind of irrelevant, since Frank actually exists. So he had to have fathered some offspring. I think the talk of the sexuality kind of misses the point. There's bad blood between BJR and the Frasers. I commented on the last episode when Jamie learned Claire was from the future that BJR isn't going away and they're probably going to meet him again. Well, between being mocked by the sister and not breaking Jamie, this seems almost certain. 

 

I'm on board that the sister kills BJR and all goes sixes and sevens for Claire. 

 

I really liked the sister. She's basically running things fine and Jamie comes back and just mucks it up. I'm glad they made up sooner than later because that's really hard to drag out and make watchable. I also like Claire's, "I'm talking now, and you'll listen and can respond when I'm finished." Jamie was suitably amenable.

 

I still don't like that there isn't anything about Frank. 

 

I liked the dogs! They were all like, "We're sitting by the fire! We're dogs! It's so fun for us!"

5

Share Post


Link to post

Seriously, the more attempted rape scenes they show the more uncomfortable I am with Claire's decision to stay. This is a world where women are under constant threat, have no rights and are treated worse than cattle sometimes, but Claire will sacrifice a life in a world where she is a respected professional and free to go wherever she wants because of true love. I think 13-year old me would have squeed at this, twentysomething me is just thinking HELL NO. It's a bit too much like a woman giving up her job and her social standing, but it's okay because she can marry a hunky Scot and presumably have his babies. They have great chemistry but sheesh, not an episode goes by without us being reminded what a horrible place for women 18th century Scotland is.  So, conflicting messages there IMO.

 

Also, this episode was a bit boring. When I find myself thinking "Wonder what's going on with Frank?" more often than not, you're not holding my attention.

 

And WHY is Jamie so believing of all things futuristic? I could understand it if maybe he'd seen her pass through the stones and come back, but as it is, it comes across as a bit naive. I get love, but she could as easily be nuts.

8

Share Post


Link to post

Was not expecting the penis.  I don't require full frontal in my TV shows, but I think if they're going to show it, show the hero's not the villain's!

 

I don't know. I found this episode kind of boring. And the parts that I didn't find boring (all the Captain Jack parts) I found extremely uncomfortable to watch. This show has an obsession with rape that is just getting too much for me.  And it rubs me the wrong way to have two gay characters and have one be an untrustworthy mincing fop, and the other a sexual sadist and all around horrible human being.

 

I haven't read the books, but the original was written in 1991, when historical romance was loaded with rape.  It's not as bad as it could be, the rape isn't between hero and heroine.  It used to be mocked - love at first rape.

 

Seriously, the more attempted rape scenes they show the more uncomfortable I am with Claire's decision to stay. This is a world where women are under constant threat, have no rights and are treated worse than cattle sometimes, but Claire will sacrifice a life in a world where she is a respected professional and free to go wherever she wants because of true love.

 

It's especially ridiculous considering she apparently had true love in the 1940s, too.  They've shown me nothing that doesn't make me believe Claire was in love with Frank.  I'm just not buying it yet, but I may eventually.

4

Share Post


Link to post

Interrupting is a huge pet peeve of mine so I loved that Claire told Jamie that he could talk when she was done. Wait your turn, mister! To me, it's about reciprocal courtesy. If you expect me to listen to what you have to say, then have the common courtesy to listen to what I have to say (which includes letting me finish what I have to say). So obviously the last decade or so of reality tv where people just yell at each other and talk over each other has been like my worst nightmare!

4

Share Post


Link to post

And the award for most awkward home coming goes to...Outlander!

Man, the reunion was hard to watch, but a good episode IMHO. We're not used to seeing imperfect Jamie, so his high handed behavior was uncomfortable. And Jenny was quite the mega-bitch to Claire, who didn't do anything to her. However, I liked the way the episode played out, with Ian and Claire becoming partners in dealing with the stubborn and feisty Frasers. Also, reunions in real life can be awkward,with people reverting to their old roles and behaviors. Jenny was clearly resentful of this new woman in Jamie's life, since she is evidently used to being the one to influence and teach him.

Plus, I had forgotten that Jamie has been an outlaw and soldier for long enough that he missed key laird training years, which we saw in his ineffectiveness in collecting rent and his determination to claim what was his. Learning his role will be challenging for him.

Regarding the Blackjack scenes, as usual, they are hard to watch but we needed to hear what really happened to Jenny and Jamie(as part of their reunion) and television is a visual medium. I didn't care for the device of seeing flashbacks in those colors, but I can live with it. I am a little concerned that Blackjack is the super evil villain responsible for all bad things on earth, but I guess the link between him and the Frasers is not that unrealistic given that all the action is happening in a relatively small geographic area (by our standards).

6

Share Post


Link to post

I was annoyed with Jamie jumping to conclusions with Jenny and slut shaming her for being pregnant again. Dude, you have been gone for FOUR YEARS. Did it ever occur to you that your sister might have gotten married? Because that is the first thing I thought when I saw that she was pregnant (not that she had gotten herself knocked up by some random idiot in the village).

 

Jenny's feistiness explains a lot about why Jamie likes Claire. I felt bad for Claire since Jenny decided to throw salt at her at every opportunity beginning with calling her a skank, disparaging her for being English, and basically telling her that she would be terrible at running the estate. I totally get Jenny being pissed that Jamie let her think he was dead and gone for four whole years, only to show up unannounced to move back in and displace her after all the work she had done without him. It sucks that she took a lot of that anger out on Claire, but she definitely had a right to be upset.

 

Ian is awesome though. He seems like a very sunny person so I like him.

 

If Randall can't get it up for women, was he actually going to rape Claire? Or was he going to just threaten to do it to scare her and then flog his muppet?

 

While I appreciate Jenny making an effort to distract Randall during his attempted rape, he is such a sadistic creep that I was afraid hitting her (due to her laughing at him) would arouse him enough to actually rape her.

6

Share Post


Link to post

That's actually what I was thinking too. I actually don't think he's gay, but gets off on sexual violence. We're all still rather quick to place someone in this box or that box.

One thing I really liked was when the English soldiers came to the mill, Jenny told Claire to stfu and she actually did. That's the real twist to this episode. I was picturing then both being hauled away back to Randall again.

I'd actually like a scene with Frank. Has he moved on?

I think it's rather ridiculous that Claire chose to stay in the past too, but I think part of it is that she has grown to love these people and wants to stay around and try to avoid what's coming. This episode did a good job showing just daily life and the people. They're basically all going to die.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I just wanted to list a few of the reasons the show has told us about why Claire would choose to stay in 1743, since the show made the decision solely Jamie v. Frank at the stones.  In Ep01, Claire talks about how desperately she wanted a vase, which she sees as a symbol of having a home (and I loved that she finally got one in this episode).  During Castle Leoch and Rent we see how much she enjoyed being a part of a community and loved her role as healer.  There was no indication that she would have been able to continue being a nurse once she was settled into her role as the wife of a university professor - indeed, after WW2 most married women did not continue working, but went back to being wives and mothers as that's what was expected at the time (women were very repressed and trapped in conventional roles really until the late 60's).  Finally, we often see her expressing appreciation for the beauty and freedom/wildness of the land - especially in light of her upbringing living in rough conditions with her uncle.  She seems comfortable in her surroundings while in nature.

 

So although, there are obvious reasons why 1743 is a dangerous place to be, I wanted to explore some of the more positive aspects to living there.  I actually would love to live in the past because I know a bit about herbal remedies, how to make soap and toothpaste, and hate pollution and crowds. :-)  But this isn't about my choice, it's about Claire's.

13

Share Post


Link to post

I was annoyed with Jamie jumping to conclusions with Jenny and slut shaming her for being pregnant again. Dude, you have been gone for FOUR YEARS. Did it ever occur to you that your sister might have gotten married? Because that is the first thing I thought when I saw that she was pregnant (not that she had gotten herself knocked up by some random idiot in the village).

 

Jenny's feistiness explains a lot about why Jamie likes Claire. I felt bad for Claire since Jenny decided to throw salt at her at every opportunity beginning with calling her a skank, disparaging her for being English, and basically telling her that she would be terrible at running the estate. I totally get Jenny being pissed that Jamie let her think he was dead and gone for four whole years, only to show up unannounced to move back in and displace her after all the work she had done without him. It sucks that she took a lot of that anger out on Claire, but she definitely had a right to be upset.

 

Ian is awesome though. He seems like a very sunny person so I like him.

 

If Randall can't get it up for women, was he actually going to rape Claire? Or was he going to just threaten to do it to scare her and then flog his muppet?

 

While I appreciate Jenny making an effort to distract Randall during his attempted rape, he is such a sadistic creep that I was afraid hitting her (due to her laughing at him) would arouse him enough to actually rape her.

 

  • Re: Jamie assuming Jenny was pregnant by some random guy, he did say that Dougal told him that Jenny had gotten pregnant by Randall.  There's something fishy there.  Jenny and Ian got married after he returned from France where he and Jamie were fighting together. Then he married Jenny and they had a child (little Jamie).  Therefore, there's no way anyone could really mistake this child for Randall's child (too much time would have passed), and it makes me wonder if Dougal deliberately told Jamie a lie to drive a wedge between him and his sister. I can't think what he'd gain by that, other than keeping Jamie under his control.
  •  
  • You are right on about Jamie liking feisty women because of his close relationship with his sister

 

That's actually what I was thinking too. I actually don't think he's gay, but gets off on sexual violence. We're all still rather quick to place someone in this box or that box.

I think it's rather ridiculous that Claire chose to stay in the past too, but I think part of it is that she has grown to love these people and wants to stay around and try to avoid what's coming. This episode did a good job showing just daily life and the people. They're basically all going to die.

  • I think that Blackjack's sexuality is more based on fear and violence, rather than regular sexual attraction.  For this reason, his sex acts will always be rape/coercion, regardless of whether the target is male or female.  It also potentially gives Jamie and Claire a way to defeat him -- laugh at him and don't let him see fear.
  • I also wonder if part of the story will be the continued connection over generation.  Blackjack is drawn to Claire and so is his descendent Frank.  He's drawn to Jenny (and Jamie) so will Frank eventually meet one of Jenny's descendants?  Might be interesting.
  • The more I think about it, the more it makes sense that Claire stayed in the past.  She's not the type of person who would crave a safe life.  She volunteered to be a combat nurse and refused an opportunity to use Frank's connections to get a safer role.  If she went back to Frank, she would have a quiet life as a professor's wife.  Even if she stayed in the medical field (and that's a fairly big IF in the 1940's) it wouldn't be the same as being a nurse during the war.  In addition to her love her sense of adventure kept her there.   (ETA: Chocolatetruffle beat me to the punch on this point!) However, I do think they missed an opportunity for Claire to explain to Jamie why she stayed during their ride to Lallybroch.
Edited by nara.
3

Share Post


Link to post
There was no indication that she would have been able to continue being a nurse once she was settled into her role as the wife of a university professor - indeed, after WW2 most married women did not continue working, but went back to being wives and mothers as that's what was expected at the time (women were very repressed and trapped in conventional roles really until the late 60's).

 

From what I saw of Frank, however, I think he'd be supportive if that's what she wanted. In the 1945 scenes, I saw a relationship between Frank and Claire of equal partners. It's clearly not the case in 1743. Jamie's been quite progressive to be fair, but Claire's expected to run the house now. I'm not seeing her being intellectually fulfilled doing that. I still think she's there to try to change things though as her motivation. 

 

To Frank's credit, he did say 'whatever happened during the war, nbd.' Which is also rather progressive as well. 

 

I know this is way way out there and not probably considered for this show, but we know in 2015 that lots of people returning from war suffer from stress and have problems getting on with life. I'm wondering what Claire's mental state is. It's not unreasonable to consider she might have ptsd and this is affecting her choices. I don't know if TPTBs thought about that, since in reality, the books were written a while ago, and I assume the author probably didn't think of that. 

 

I can partially buy Claire being a risk-taker, etc., is why she stayed. I still wonder if the stones actually didn't work and that's why she stayed too. 

I know she's the hero of the show, but honestly, not going back to close it out with Frank strikes me as extremely selfish and crass. 

4

Share Post


Link to post

I thought Jenny' story might be false, until she sincerely blamed herself for Jamie's flogging. Then I finally believed it completely. I don't think Black Jack's arousal with Claire (particularly in the pilot) was much in doubt, so I don't see him as a pathologically frustrated closet case so much as a hopelessly messed up about sex, dominance, and violence. But I admit that both interpretations are viable.

 

On a lighter note. When the British mill guy was wondering how the shirt got in the mill, and his aide replies "It's Scotland, sir." I took it as a light-hearted riff on "It's Chinatown, Jake." I guess having the oppressor just think you're weird is a useful strategy for the oppressed sometimes.


I know she's the hero of the show, but honestly, not going back to close it out with Frank strikes me as extremely selfish and crass. 

 

There's no question Frank suffered terribly. But as far as Claire knows, going back is a one way trip. She can't be sure of popping back to the 20th century for a bit and then returning to Jamie again. The indication that she sees this as a one time irrevocable choice between two men is her moment pondering the two wedding rings.

Edited by Latverian Diplomat.
5

Share Post


Link to post

 

From what I saw of Frank, however, I think he'd be supportive if that's what she wanted. In the 1945 scenes, I saw a relationship between Frank and Claire of equal partners. It's clearly not the case in 1743. Jamie's been quite progressive to be fair, but Claire's expected to run the house now. I'm not seeing her being intellectually fulfilled doing that. I still think she's there to try to change things though as her motivation.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Frank would stop her from doing whatever she wanted.  What I meant was that at the time, in post-war England, if a married woman went to apply for work the answer would most likely be a polite "no thank you" as the thinking at the time was 1. a woman's place is in the home and 2. we can't have women taking jobs from our boys who have just returned home.  Of course, I got my info from a documentary about the women who worked at Bletchley, so if anyone has personal experience about this time period, I would love to hear about it.

0

Share Post


Link to post

We didn't see Claire putting her hands on the stones, so we can't be sure of anything really. We only have the song to go on. 

 

So, Claire doesn't go back because she probably wouldn't be able to get a job. She stays to be a housewife instead? If she's stuck being a housewife, I would think choosing, radio, fridges, stoves, and toilets, oh, and no raping would be the better option. 

8

Share Post


Link to post
So, Claire doesn't go back because she probably wouldn't be able to get a job. She stays to be a housewife instead? If she's stuck being a housewife, I would think choosing, radio, fridges, stoves, and toilets, oh, and no raping would be the better option.

 

 

Well, we just heard Claire admit, in this last episode, that she loves Jamie. So, I'm guessing that's a big part of why she chose to stay. We can also see that's she's becoming attached to these people and is concerned about what's going to happen to them ... a completely different motivation from Geillis' but, in a sense, similar. While Geillis was motivated by a cause, Claire appears motivated by love, affection, and concern for individuals she's met.

 

As for Claire's own ambitions and fulfillment as a person, I can see how her everyday life in the 1700's -- leaving aside the attempted rapes, floggings and witch trials -- can be fulfilling to her because she gets to be 'the healer" unencumbered by any modern day prejudices and barriers that might have kept her in a supporting role rather than as *the* person others turn to for help. For all Claire's second class status as a woman -- as a healer, she's been mostly well-respected, useful, and independent in her actions in that role for which she appears to get a lot of satisfaction.

5

Share Post


Link to post

I'm being flip. For such a huge decision, I think we should have seen Claire grappling with it just a little bit. Which leaves me to believe that either the stones didn't work, or she has other motivations. That's fair, and the show has earned its cred with me. I'm hoping that then more comes to light down the road.

 

I'm not a big believer in One True Love, and I think it's refreshing that Claire genuinely seems to love both guys. I think as such, Frank deserves better, and I'm looking forward to the show possibly addressing this. 

2

Share Post


Link to post

Ok so I've never actually seen this show so please don't eat me alive. And I usually love these historical drama type things, but it turns me off how the headlines for every recap and review of this show (and not just on this site) are all "RAPE" "WOMAN BEATEN" "THIS WEEK ON OUTLANDER: MISOGYNY" "MORE RAPE" "DOES THIS SHOW HAVE TOO MUCH SEXUAL ASSAULT?"

...sooo what's up with all that? and why is it such a popular show if that's the content? are there redeeming factors I'm missing? or is this basically just Game of Rapes?

0

Share Post


Link to post

 

Ok so I've never actually seen this show ....<snipped>..... are there redeeming factors I'm missing?

Yes.

12

Share Post


Link to post

Claire's relationship with Frank is very 20th century. They get married on a whim as they walk by the courthouse, and spend a tiny fraction of their married life together because of the war. We know from the pilot that the Scotland trip was an attempt at reconnecting. But Claire's relationship with Jamie is life-and-death from the very first moment they meet. It's a way more intense, different kind of love. <br /><br />Funniest line? "How did that shirt get stuck in there?" "It's Scotland, sir."<br /><br />Jack Randall is the dude who assaults weak fellow inmates in prison. It's not about sexual attraction, male or female, it's about power and violence. He couldn't get it up for Jenny because she was too calm (she was preoccupied with trying to figure a way out), whereas Claire fought him every time, which aroused him.

4

Share Post


Link to post

I took notice of the fact that a lot of the Lollybroch interior scenes seemed to be awash in the color blue. Did anyone else notice that? I'm not sure what's it supposed to mean, if anything. Possibly nothing more than to distinguish itself from Castle Leoch.

 

I did enjoy the scene where Jamie stumbled into the bedroom drunk off his ass and even Claire couldn't help suppress a smile. Him being hung over the next morning was funny too.

 

Ok, I'm just going to say it: I was disappointed Jamie had his hand covering "little Jamie" when he emerged from the river without any clothes on. Don't give me that look, you were thinking it too.

5

Share Post


Link to post

I have zero issues with nudity and think these kinds of shows should be rife with it; male and female. However, Jamie's sister was right there, so I can buy him wanting to cover up. I'll give the actor credit that he was game to go starkers in what was probably a rather cold river. 

8

Share Post


Link to post

I took notice of the fact that a lot of the Lollybroch interior scenes seemed to be awash in the color blue. Did anyone else notice that? I'm not sure what's it supposed to mean, if anything. Possibly nothing more than to distinguish itself from Castle Leoch.

 

I did enjoy the scene where Jamie stumbled into the bedroom drunk off his ass and even Claire couldn't help suppress a smile. Him being hung over the next morning was funny too.

 

Ok, I'm just going to say it: I was disappointed Jamie had his hand covering "little Jamie" when he emerged from the river without any clothes on. Don't give me that look, you were thinking it too.

IIRC, blue is in the Fraser tartan as well; I believe it is essentially a "clan color."

 

As to the Water Wheel scene, don't forget that Jenny was there, otherwise Jamie wouldn't have cared as far as Claire was concerned.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I don't know. I found this episode kind of boring. And the parts that I didn't find boring (all the Captain Jack parts) I found extremely uncomfortable to watch. This show has an obsession with rape that is just getting too much for me.  And it rubs me the wrong way to have two gay characters and have one be an untrustworthy mincing fop, and the other a sexual sadist and all around horrible human being.

I feel the same way, particularly about the two gay characters. It's like the show is using a sledgehammer to pass judgement on masculinity. Uber macho highlander = good, jump his bones any time you can even if he treats you poorly. Poor old Frank, the civilized man who tries to keep his inner macho man under control = dull, dump him given the first chance. Gay or bisexual men = evil and worthy of mocking at best.

Jack Randall is about as well rounded as a Bond villain. He's there to vex, injure, or kill the heroes and not much else. He has no real motivation, just evil for the sake of being evil.

3

Share Post


Link to post

Shrugs. He seems closeted gay to me. He can't get it up for women and he has a clear sexual obsession with Jamie in addition to the sexual sadism. That's how it comes across to me from Tobias Menzies performance. 

 

Anyways, I am beginning to dread any time Black Jack shows up fearing more torture porn.

Black Jack is a sexual sadist. His mentor and protector is a powerful man who is attracted to young men. They (or the author) are telegraphing an origin story that's horrible in a couple of different ways, including some potential commentary on homosexuality.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Ok, I'm just going to say it: I was disappointed Jamie had his hand covering "little Jamie" when he emerged from the river without any clothes on. Don't give me that look, you were thinking it too.

I dunno if I was disappointed per se but since we had to be subjected to Randall rubbing his I was a little like oh come on, you show Randall and not Jamie?

That was pretty funny though, Jamie in the river.

0

Share Post


Link to post

 

Of course, BJR's sexuality is kind of irrelevant, since Frank actually exists. So he had to have fathered some offspring. I think the talk of the sexuality kind of misses the point. There's bad blood between BJR and the Frasers. I commented on the last episode when Jamie learned Claire was from the future that BJR isn't going away and they're probably going to meet him again. Well, between being mocked by the sister and not breaking Jamie, this seems almost certain.

Gay men have fathered offspring -  it's quite common.  And his sexuality is relevant because it's clear he is not going away and his obsession with Jamie goes beyond wanting to hurt him. Maybe the next time Jack has him at his mercy he will rape Jamie. That's what I am really fearing what with this shows rape obsession and tendency towards brutality. Shudders.

 

This is not what I signed on for.  I was expecting a historical romantic drama with sci-fi elements not some rape porn that would make the Marquis de Sade salivate.

1

Share Post


Link to post

For such a huge decision, I think we should have seen Claire grappling with it just a little bit. Which leaves me to believe that either the stones didn't work, or she has other motivations. 

It was daylight when Jamie left her at the stones, it was quite dark when she came to his campfire, I think that was supposed indicate that she spent hours up there. Also, the moment with the rings is visual language standing in for her thinking about her choice. Hours of her thinking about things might be truer to life, but it would be pretty boring to watch. I think we are meant to come away from that with the idea that Claire thought things through very carefully and is committed to her decision.

 

I have zero issues with nudity and think these kinds of shows should be rife with it; male and female. However, Jamie's sister was right there, so I can buy him wanting to cover up. I'll give the actor credit that he was game to go starkers in what was probably a rather cold river. 

I don't know if he'd be embarrassed in front of sister that reportedly used to grab him by the ballocks, maybe. He could also have been embarrassed in front of Claire. It's centuries before Seinfeld, but I think cold water and "shrinkage" were known concepts even then. What man wants to put the goods on display when they're not at their best? :-) 

2

Share Post


Link to post

I feel the same way, particularly about the two gay characters. It's like the show is using a sledgehammer to pass judgement on masculinity. Uber macho highlander = good, jump his bones any time you can even if he treats you poorly. Poor old Frank, the civilized man who tries to keep his inner macho man under control = dull, dump him given the first chance. Gay or bisexual men = evil and worthy of mocking at best.

Jack Randall is about as well rounded as a Bond villain. He's there to vex, injure, or kill the heroes and not much else. He has no real motivation, just evil for the sake of being evil.

  

I actually liked the Duke of Sandringham and got the impression that Jamie liked him too. (Yes, Jamie didn't want the Duke to make a pass at him, but they seemed on friendly terms at the duel and he seemed quite happy to introduce Claire to him. ) The Duke was kinda flamboyant, but he kept his cool when the McDonald men were being incredibly rude to him, and encouraged Jamie to do the same. Frankly, as a duke, I'm sure that he could have found ways to take revenge on them if he were spiteful. Not a horrible person, based on what we know so far.

It was daylight when Jamie left her at the stones, it was quite dark when she came to his campfire, I think that was supposed indicate that she spent hours up there. Also, the moment with the rings is visual language standing in for her thinking about her choice. Hours of her thinking about things might be truer to life, but it would be pretty boring to watch. I think we are meant to come away from that with the idea that Claire thought things through very carefully and is committed to her decision.

 

I don't know if he'd be embarrassed in front of sister that reportedly used to grab him by the ballocks, maybe. He could also have been embarrassed in front of Claire. It's centuries before Seinfeld, but I think cold water and "shrinkage" were known concepts even then. What man wants to put the goods on display when they're not at their best? :-)

I believe I read somewhere (maybe in a previous response above) that there was supposed to be a voice over during her deliberation at the stones. It was a poor editing choice to omit it IMHO because the passage of time was too subtle.

As for nudity in front of Jenny, yes that would have embarrassed him. Earlier he refers to her talking about his balls as humiliating him in front of his wife. Also, I can't imagine that he ever willingly let his Sister grab him!

4

Share Post


Link to post

In regards to Jamie being so accepting of Claire's story, I was thinking during the last episode that this time period, people would probably be more likely to believe a story like that as they still believed in things like changelings and witchcraft. Jamie even asked her if she was witch so I actually buy that he'd believe her. I was even thinking she's a little lucky thats she's in this time period just because of that part

4

Share Post


Link to post

^Additionally, there was an actual song that Jamie heard, as well as Claire about the legend of the stones. So it was in the 1743 public consciousness. I think they maybe could have played the scene better with maybe Jamie saying "whoa, that's *real*?! GFTO!" They did a decent job with Claire seemingly filling him in on what's going to happen. The scene was a good choice in how Claire unburdened herself, but having something more from Jamie would have been better. 

 

This is not what I signed on for.  I was expecting a historical romantic drama with sci-fi elements not some rape porn that would make the Marquis de Sade salivate.

 

Literally in the first scene when Claire is transported back to 1743, in the first episode of the show, Randall tries to rape her. That established what type of show this would be. There's been plenty of romance, but TPTB have played fair with the audience from the start wrt their vision of the show. After 11 episodes, the content of the show has been consistent and well established. If anything, the fact that Claire and Jenny weren't harassed by the English at the mill was an actual twist considering the prior episodes ended with Claire being arrested and fatally threatened. Which makes the show so interesting. Given all that, Claire (presumably, and I'm not sure she did) chooses to stay in 1743 with Jamie? Even though we had a big gap in between the episodes, this is meant to be taken in holistically. That's the show, and it has been rather straightforward in that regard. 

Edited by ganesh.
5

Share Post


Link to post

With respect, saying Jamie had reason to believe Claire because he heard a song about it is as absurd as saying that I should believe my lover's claims that they are a time traveler simply because I watched 12 Monkeys.  

Edited by bluebonnet.
1

Share Post


Link to post

Well, I was elaborating on the prior comment where witchcraft was talked about as a real thing in the show.

 

 

In regards to Jamie being so accepting of Claire's story, I was thinking during the last episode that this time period, people would probably be more likely to believe a story like that as they still believed in things like changelings and witchcraft. Jamie even asked her if she was witch so I actually buy that he'd believe her. I was even thinking she's a little lucky thats she's in this time period just because of that part

 

Again, this is something that's been a theme of the show from the start. So, in the context of the show, I can suspend my disbelief that Jamie bought her story since the show canonically established that the stones were a thing and the prior episode was about a trial of witchcraft. If you can't suspend your disbelief that far, then the show fails and unravels. There's always a buy-in for shows like these. You have to accept on your own how much you're willing to buy in. Maybe the scene where Claire discloses her origin could have been more explicit, but Jamie, while a smart person, isn't as technically literate as our own population now, so his questions would be different than ours. I think it's better for the show that he does know. We know from our pov that time-travel is actually real on this show. So the question is, could we sell that to someone in 1743. They've done a good job establishing Claire's and Jamie's relationship. He should be doubtful but from what's been established on the show so far, I didn't find it jarring that he accepted it. Today? No way. 

Edited by ganesh.
2

Share Post


Link to post

Well, I was elaborating on the prior comment where witchcraft was talked about as a real thing in the show.

 

Again, this is something that's been a theme of the show from the start. So, in the context of the show, I can suspend my disbelief that Jamie bought her story since the show canonically established that the stones were a thing and the prior episode was about a trial of witchcraft. If you can't suspend your disbelief that far, then the show fails and unravels. There's always a buy-in for shows like these. You have to accept on your own how much you're willing to buy in. Maybe the scene where Claire discloses her origin could have been more explicit, but Jamie, while a smart person, isn't as technically literate as our own population now, so his questions would be different than ours. I think it's better for the show that he does know. We know from our pov that time-travel is actually real on this show. So the question is, could we sell that to someone in 1743. They've done a good job establishing Claire's and Jamie's relationship. He should be doubtful but from what's been established on the show so far, I didn't find it jarring that he accepted it. Today? No way. 

 

I agree. I wish they had made explicit that Jamie saw evidence that the stones are magic, but I agree that the show has made an effort to present his trust in Claire as plausible. We've seen that belief in time travel has filtered through to the twentieth century. Jamie has been presented as someone who has am ambivalent relationship to magic -- he's an educated man who doesn't believe in mocking Satan in his own kirk (paraphrasing), he describes the changeling incident to Claire as though it exists only to comfort the parents, but if he really thought that was entirely the case, you'd think a protective guy like Jamie would be running around the woods rescuing babies in his spare time. When he asked Claire if she was a witch, I wasn't sure if he believes in witches or simply that some people practice witchcraft, which isn't necessarily the same thing. Did he think the ill wish had efficacy or was he just upset that someone wished Claire and him harm? I'm willing to accept that within the contours of the show, Jamie's ambivalence about folk beliefs inclines him to trust Claire. He loves her, knows she has a mysterious past, and is invested in trusting her. Those are potent reasons.

 

I think that Jamie believes Claire did choose to stay, as opposed to being forced to because the stones didn't work. He's seen some evidence that she is terrible at dissembling, and he knows she is at least fond of him. I doubt he considers that she is lying, even if only in a passive (I'll let him make of this what he will.) way.

Edited by AD55.
4

Share Post


Link to post

After 11 episodes, the content of the show has been consistent and well established. If anything, the fact that Claire and Jenny weren't harassed by the English at the mill was an actual twist considering the prior episodes ended with Claire being arrested and fatally threatened. 

 

 

The scene at the mill was refreshing.  Up to this point, we've only seen one English soldier behave decently to the locals (that young officer in the village who tried to make sure that Claire was ok with Dougal and the men when they were collecting rents).   You have to have a few decent guys who are doing the best they can to keep this interesting.

7

Share Post


Link to post

 

I don't know if he'd be embarrassed in front of sister that reportedly used to grab him by the ballocks, maybe.

He was a child then.

Things are quite different now that he is a man and she a grown woman.

 

I seriously did a double take at the phrase "the two gay characters."

I remembered Sandringham but for the life of me couldn't recall a second. Then, of course, someone mention Randall and I understood but am still confused. I do not think of him as a gay character in any way shape or form- he is a predator who takes his victims where he finds them and draws no lines between who is fair game and who is not.

 

Calling him simply "gay" seems to me insulting to gays.

I don't think he discriminates at all.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I seriously did a double take at the phrase "the two gay characters."

I remembered Sandringham but for the life of me couldn't recall a second. Then, of course, someone mention Randall and I understood but am still confused. I do not think of him as a gay character in any way shape or form- he is a predator who takes his victims where he finds them and draws no lines between who is fair game and who is not.

 

Calling him simply "gay" seems to me insulting to gays.

I don't think he discriminates at all.

 

There is evidence that Randall is coded gay -- he can't get it up with Jenny, he asks her repeatedly to turn around, he is attracted to Jamie. Rape isn't about sex but about power. He should get off on her fear. It's only when he is unable to perform that she laughs at him. Notably, he tries to blackmail Jamie into being a willing participant, though obviously consent is impossible under such a threat. I think the show is flirting dangerously with the stereotype of the predatory gay man. Just my opinion, but I believe that's what is insulting to gays. Sandringham, though in a much milder way, is also portrayed as predatory -- in the context of the show there is the implication that he uses his status and power to manipulate; Murtagh and others suggest that the only way to avoid his attentions is to stay away from him. While it's possible that in subsequent episodes we'll discover that Randall isn't gay, thus far, I do think this is more than implied. 

3

Share Post


Link to post

I didn't get any evidence that Randall was having performance issues with Claire at either encounter. So I don't think one can definitively assign sexuality yet. 

 

We're looking at things from a 2015 paradigm and we still have problems with sexuality in general and tend to want to put people in boxes. Unless, we see Randall in the company of men, or say, "I like men more than women," I'm not inclined to assign him a label. I don't think that's the intent of the scenes. 

1

Share Post


Link to post
Unless, we see Randall in the company of men, or say, "I like men more than women," I'm not inclined to assign him a label. I don't think that's the intent of the scenes.

 

 

In The Reckoning, when Jamie was rescuing Claire, didn't Randall say something to Jamie about wondering why he was interested in her sexually? I can't remember the exact phrase and I can't check it now, but one could imply that Randall had certain leanings ... or he was just baiting Jamie.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Yeah he said something like "I'll never understand why a man would pledge himself to a woman" as he was holding the knife to Claire's throat.

0

Share Post


Link to post

To be fair, that might just mean he just doesn't want to get married. My point is that the show does seem to be definitive on this, so I'm not going to be either. People do like both. We know he obviously fathers children, so I hope they're going to show whether he does decide to start a family or just has children.

 

Would it be too far out there to speculate that Claire has a baby by Randall? 

0

Share Post


Link to post

I think Black Jack's antenna is bent when it comes to sexuality.   Men, women, whatever, as long as it involves pain, degradation, and so forth.  As I said earlier, I really think this is telegraphing something back to his relationship with the Duke of Sandringham and it's not going to be good.

 

(edited because I put Cambridge rather than Sandringham by mistake)

Edited by terrymct.
0

Share Post


Link to post

 

Calling him simply "gay" seems to me insulting to gays.

I wasn't calling him "simply gay". Judging by how he is portrayed on this show I am calling him a homo-sexual sadist. And being homo-sexual isn't the problem, but being a sadistic torturer and attempted rapist is. I don't know why people get so defensive about the gay Jack thing. I am not insulting gay people.  If anything the show is insulting to gay people because the only two gay characters are both negative stereotypes. One being a sexual predator and the other a mincing fop.

Edited by magdalene.
0

Share Post


Link to post

The scene at the mill was refreshing. Up to this point, we've only seen one English soldier behave decently to the locals (that young officer in the village who tried to make sure that Claire was ok with Dougal and the men when they were collecting rents). You have to have a few decent guys who are doing the best they can to keep this interesting.

Yes, those guys were pretty nice - until they stole Jamie's shirt. What was that about? It seemed so random.

2

Share Post


Link to post

Like the guy said, it was a perfectly good shirt. No sense in it going to waste I guess, was their thought.

3

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now