Jump to content

S03.E02: Surrender 2017.09.17

Quote

Hiding in an isolated cave, Jamie leads a lonely life until Lallybroch is threatened by redcoats pursuing the elusive Jacobite traitor known as “Red Jamie.” Back in Boston, Claire and Frank struggle to coexist in a marriage haunted by the ghost of Jamie’s love.

Reminder: This is the No Book Talk topic. No discussion of the books is allowed including saying "in the books..." Book readers are discouraged from posting and liking in this thread. Posts may be removed without warning.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Oh, Fergus, you sweetly loyal dumbass! I totally understand his anger at seeing the English soldiers harassing the only real family he's ever known, but he was so reckless mouthing off at them almost every chance he got. Sometimes you have to know when to hold your tongue.

But I suppose we needed a catalyst to finally snap Jamie out of his silent caveman phase, and seeing Fergus get his hand chopped off was what finally pushed him over the edge.

Since he slept with Mary, should I assume there's another redheaded baby on the way? I did find the parallel interesting with Mary and Claire trying to find someone to satisfy their sexual needs. The difference is that Mary was honest about it with Jamie whereas Claire was just using Frank to scratch an itch. If she were having the same problem now, I'd tell her to just get a vibrator. Although to be fair, before Claire instigated sex with Frank the first time, she did say she missed her husband. She just didn't specify which one!

Poor Jenny. It obviously broke her heart to let Jamie go through with his decision to be arrested. Loved how Ian willingly got dragged off again to protect Jamie earlier.

How is Jenny going to explain the presence of a baby now that she's told the soldiers that her baby died?

Very touching to see Fergus put a brave face on losing his hand by saying he's become a man of leisure.

I can't imagine the conversation that occurred before Claire and Frank got their twin beds. "Hey, remember when we started to have sex and it all went terribly awry because you were obviously fantasizing about the other guy you love? Well, as much as I love you and as much as I enjoy having sex, it's not enough for me to be your human dildo so I won't be servicing you any longer. To that end, I have installed two tiny beds in our room. We can still hang out and parent Brianna, but we're just going to be roommates who just happened to be married for the rest of our lives."

Heh, on a practical level, I thought if you're going to have separate beds, why bother sharing a room? Just have your own bedrooms and then you won't have to worry about who is staying up later and keeping the light on while the other person tries to go to sleep. If you're going to insist on staying in one room because you think that will fool your child into thinking you have a normal relationship with each other, at least get bigger beds so you can comfortably roll over!

Edited by ElectricBoogaloo.
9

Share Post


Link to post

I liked the slowish pace of this episode, because we got to see more characterization.  However, the difference in time passing between Jamie's and Claire's segments was a little strange.  I guess I expected to see them both 1 year after separation or 6 years.

Poor Fergus!  It's not enough that they had him be raped--now he has to have his hand cut off? I really wonder if he would have been better off living in the brothel and never having met Jamie and Claire.  On the other hand, his reckless and stubborn behavior makes him truly the child of Jamie and Claire!  He is just like them! 

Also, he seemed a little nonchalant about having his hand cut off...  I wonder if they will CGI him for the rest of the series or if they will come up with a way to get around it like the Golden Hand on Game of Thrones.

I do think it's interesting that the English Redcoats were fairly decent, but it was the Scottish Redcoat who was more hostile and violent--perhaps resulting from his guilt in joining the English?  It would be interesting to explore the POV of Scots who worked with the Brits, but it's unlikely to happen on this show.

Is it just me, or has Fergus's accent changed?  Perhaps that was meant to convey the passing of 6 years since leaving France.  In that case, I wonder if it might have been better to get a new actor.  As much as I love this one, he looks too young to play a 17 year old.  

BTW, Jenny had another child.  I wish they had shown her (I think it was a girl.) in the background somewhere.

Although I think it was the right thing for Jenny to do to turn in Jamie, I felt awful that she was forced to play the bad guy.   She knows about the scourging and the rape.  She'll spend the foreseeable future terrified for her little brother's safety.  The actress is really excellent.  I think she could be lead on her own show.

While I don't think it's out of character for Jenny to arrange for sex for Jamie (she seems a little bossy), wouldn't it be super awkward if Mary got pregnant?  Nowadays, out of wedlock pregnancies are a dime a dozen, but surely that would have been a huge risk.  

I am totally digging Mary McNabb.  She seems kind and she restored hot Jamie to us.  I'd be okay with Jamie marrying her.  We know that for at least 20 years (based on Briana's age) he won't see Claire again.  I  think he deserves a normalish life, even if she isn't his soulmate.  I think he would be a good father and it would be a pity if he didn't get to raise children.

I do like Claire and Frank having a fairly normal life (including sex) but I was just as annoyed as Frank that she was basically trying to use him.  I was really sorry to see it end in separate beds--even though we already knew that they were not a happy couple.

Claire's voiceover annoyed me a little--not as a device, but the content.  "I had been able to love a man and be part of something bigger than myself." Excuse me, but you've done that TWICE.  You loved Frank before going back in time AND you helped defeat the Nazis!  It pisses me off that she has forgotten that.  I get Jamie's behavior--she has been his only love.  But she should know that you can love more than once in a lifetime, even if only one of them is your soulmate.

Like @ElectricBoogaloo, the separate beds made no sense to me.  You can sleep in a bed with someone and not have sex,.  But twin beds seems to be 1) a waste of money since you already had a bed and 2) not fooling anyone.

I like that Claire started attending medical school and had a fellow outcast like Joe Abernathy.  She literally looked brighter (more luminous) in that class because she's the sort of person who thrives on learning and working.  I wonder what was considered worse by their fellow students, a black man or a woman?  I'm guessing, a woman.  I laughed when Joe walked into class and was visibly surprised that no one was staring at him because they were busy staring at Claire!  I did get an immediate reminder of Ellis Grey and Richard Webber from Grey's Anatomy, who I believe were in a similar position of being the only woman and black man in their med school.  I hope they won't have an affair, though, because it would annoy me if she could fall for another guy, but not Frank.

I do think it's cool that despite being a slower episode, I clearly had a lot to think about and express here....

Edited by nara.
4

Share Post


Link to post
6 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

How is Jenny going to explain the presence of a baby now that she's told the soldiers that her baby died?

I was wondering about this, too.  Do you think she could say that the baby suddenly started breathing as Mary was taking him away to be buried?  She did have the foresight to tell someone to dig a grave.

0

Share Post


Link to post

The soldiers were there to capture Jamie, they had no reason to go back in the house & see that there was a baby there.  And they could always say that it was Mary's baby.  She's just a housemaid, they'd have no reason to question her more about the baby, it's age or it's father. 

I'm glad they pulled back on showing a 3rd sex scene, the episode between Jamie & Mary.  Two in a single episode is enough.  I'm not looking to watch "50 Shades of Outlander".  

I thought it was a good episode overall.  But when the teacher said about his class composition "A woman and a negro", my first thought was "Claire doesn't look like a negro".   Poorly constructed line. 

3

Share Post


Link to post

Was this episode an hour long?  I didn't look at the runtime.  It seemed to go by pretty fast, despite the fact that I wasn't very interested in it.  I mean, let's face it, until the inevitable reunion (since we saw at the end of S2, Claire say she had to go back) these episodes are pretty much filler,  Some interesting filler, but filler nonetheless.

Hey, was that the buck from the opening sequence that Jamie killed?  Bad luck- that guy had survived two seasons already.  

I always heard that killing a raven was bad luck, not just seeing one.  And, as it turns out, I was right.  

I'm amazed that Brianna could move at all in that huge diaper.  I did like that pram, though.  

"I missed my husband."  I don't think Claire missed 'her' husband so much as she just missed having 'a' husband.  Seems any one will do.  In the past (Past past) she moved on from Frank pretty quickly.  At least she seems to be having a harder time moving on from Jamie.  I suppose that's to show us that she and Jamie really are Twu Luv.  

Meanwhile in the Past, Fergus probably would have actually bled out and died from having his hand cut off, even with Jamie applying a makeshift tourniquet.  Especially since "I saw Milady do it once" doesn't mean he knows how to do it properly.  

Jenny is way too interested in Jamie's sex life.  Geez.  The man's in hiding and wanted by the law, but sure he needs to get remarried and have kids.  Put that right on his to-do list.  

Of course Joe and Claire would bond - that's not really the word I want, but for lack of a better one right now- both as outcasts.  Still, Joe seems nice.  He's got a nice smile.  

The voice over was startling.  Was there a voice over at all last episode?  I'd gotten so used to not hearing one, it was weird to have it start up again.  This episode was very much more from Claire's POV, even with the Lallybroch scenes.  There was much less focus on Frank and making him as sympathetic as the first episode, it seemed.  

1

Share Post


Link to post
7 hours ago, leighdear said:

But when the teacher said about his class composition "A woman and a negro", my first thought was "Claire doesn't look like a negro".

Ha. I actually was hoping the African-American student was someone historically important. I'm assuming the Claire and Jamie reunion isn't until the season finale, so in the meantime, it would be interesting if Claire was involved with some historical events. 

59 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 I mean, let's face it, until the inevitable reunion (since we saw at the end of S2, Claire say she had to go back) these episodes are pretty much filler,  Some interesting filler, but filler nonetheless.

I don't get the narrative direction this season. I mean, I'm not so much that Claire/Jamie are OTP because I would be interested in a character study of how a woman could be in love with two men, and how one of them is accepting of that. But its doesn't seem like that's what this show is about. In last season finale, Claire was like, "I'M GOING BACK". Ok, you have a daughter, and you've clearly lived with Frank for 20 years, and he's seemingly raised your child from another man, but that was completely wiped out in the finale. 

Frank saying, "could you at least look at me?" was tough. I don't want this season to also paint Claire in a poor light either. It's ok to love two men, and I think Frank wanted to make that work. 

I don't know what kind of monster chops off a teen boy's hand for being a teen boy, but I hope he gets his. Obviously, we're all aware that Jamie makes it to "1968" when Claire comes back, but what kind of hollowed out man is he going to be having to go through this? I'm not really seeing how 10 more hours of show of Jamie being beat down is going to be particularly entertaining. If you're in prison, you escape. So how is that different from what was going on in this episode? If you don't escape, then you're just in prison. What's he going to be doing for the next 8 episodes?

I did like how Mary was like, "let's just fuck." "It's been a while." "So?" 

4

Share Post


Link to post

Claire missed her husband alright, her husband Jamie.

Fergus is so dumb and reckless. Even if he hadn't lost his hand, his taunting was only going to escalate tensions between the English and the people he thinks he's protecting.

4

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Of course Joe and Claire would bond - that's not really the word I want, but for lack of a better one right now- both as outcasts.  Still, Joe seems nice.  He's got a nice smile.  

It was so obvious, and then I thought back to what I have read about the history of that period, and I thought it was extremely foolish. They SHOULD bond, especially if they are ostracized as the course progresses, but initially they both should have kept their distances. Joe doesn't know enough about Claire to know that she was as enlightened as she was, but he would probably know that, sadly, appearing to be "hitting on", for that period, a white woman (who happens to be married, though he couldn't know that as yet) is something that society did not look approvingly upon. I recall reminding my fellow gays, during the push for gay marriage, that it was insulting to interracial marrieds of the past to compare our "struggle" with theirs. They COULD be jailed, or worse, for intermarrying, where ours were just not recognized by the Government (which has its perks).

  Sad to see Jamie turn himself in, but it was noble, and hopefully the redcoats will lay off the 'brook now.

 Jamie, BTW, was lit beautifully in that scene with Mary.

15 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Heh, on a practical level, I thought if you're going to have separate beds, why bother sharing a room? Just have your own bedrooms and then you won't have to worry about who is staying up later and keeping the light on while the other person tries to go to sleep. If you're going to insist on staying in one room because you think that will fool your child into thinking you have a normal relationship with each other, at least get bigger beds so you can comfortably roll over!

I actually knew people whose parents had single beds! The way I understood it, it had to do with space, and not being able to have separate bedrooms, but that every now and again the beds would be pushed together. I still don't get it, because in college we did the pushing together of the single beds, and it's dangerous, unless you somehow lash them together so that nothing separates them! Then, again, these were not particularly athletic looking people.

Edited by NorthstarATL. Reason: I cant type.
3

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NorthstarATL said:

I actually knew people whose parents had single beds! The way I understood it, it had to do with space, and not being able to have separate bedrooms, but that every now and again the beds would be pushed together.

My dad told me his parents had twin beds when he was a kid and they didn't seem to have a loveless marriage. It was just the fashion of the time. He said after he went away to military school in the early 60s they got a double and he was absolutely scandalized. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

Scotland Bits:
Nooooo. Fergus's hand! (also. okay. what? like what the hell is that thought process. this little kid insults me so i'm going to like chop his hand off and leave him to die?). Honestly though i was more thinking there was going to be another rape (which would have been just as bad). or that Jamie would snap out of his somewhat fugue state and save Fergus. 

Where was Margaret? No mention of her at all. 

so Jamie becomes basically a hermit/mountain man barely coming out to talk or anything and acting like he's dead. the Mary scene was really heart breaking because he's craving the intimacy that we all need but he's still very committed to Claire mentally. A huge part of it too  and we see it with the baby - He lost both Claire and the baby. He has nothing of his family at all that he created (and - it wouldn't surprise me there's a little Faith mourning in there too, because we didn't really see him mourn for Faith in Season 2). For Jamie  - he's basically tortured with not knowing what happened period to Claire + Baby.. at least Claire at the core of her being knows that Jamie is "dead" She just grieves that she was taken away from him too soon. 

 

Jenny is awesome. That is all. 

And still no Murtgah. (he didn't die, did he?)

 

Boston Parts:
I couldn't tell with the first scene, was Claire pleasuring herself or just giving herself mental orgasms with visions of Jamie's naked bottom dancing in her head? I do have to say when Frank walked down in a towel, and she touched him and Frank was all like "okay. don't move.. don't breathe... if I acknowledge it, it might even fly away." regarding Claire's hand - it makes me wonder at that point - how old Briana is at that point - and how often Claire actively touched Frank (though you always get the sense that she was letting Frank touch her more). 

But I wonder if the first time in bed, was the first time since basically Inverness for Frank + Claire. Frank still had this whole. "wait. What?!" reaction to Claire climbing on him. And I can't even tell a lie - both times, I legitimately thought Claire was going to end up screaming Jamie's name or something and that's when/where Frank would lose it. but the subtleness of it being Frank realising that Claire had her eyes closed and why she had her eyes closed was so much more heartbreaking and better than an "Ohh Jamie" ever could have portrayed. 

 

wasn't two beds a product of that time period?  (I mean I get they were going for the visual and it pretty much broke down that whatever Frank felt for Claire sexually - is like pretty much over after that night, even though they are clearly still respectful to one another) - but the two beds bit didn't confuse me though (probably more how/when they got to that point. it would have been nice to just have seen that conversation). 

 

3

Share Post


Link to post
6 hours ago, WInterfalls said:

My dad told me his parents had twin beds when he was a kid and they didn't seem to have a loveless marriage. It was just the fashion of the time. He said after he went away to military school in the early 60s they got a double and he was absolutely scandalized. 

Yes, the twin beds were common during this time period. The movie A Christmas Story is set during this period, and they show twin beds. If memory serves there was a depiction of that (or away from that) on the Lucy show as well.  It had to do with the burgeoning acceptance of science! See this salon article:  http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/separate_beds_are_liberating/  The 6 year leap was jarring and if Bree was born at the beginning of that stretch, than the baby's development is WAY off.  I wish that there had been more of a lead-in to the time jump. 

0

Share Post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, riverheightsnancy said:

The 6 year leap was jarring and if Bree was born at the beginning of that stretch, than the baby's development is WAY off.  I wish that there had been more of a lead-in to the time jump. 

The two stories -- Claire's and Jamie's -- seem to have independent timeframes. Last week, Jamie's narrative took place almost entirely within 24 hours of the battle, while Claire's took place over about half a year, judging by her state of pregnancy. In this episode, Jamie's story started six years later -- six years he and his family lived on a tapeloop -- while Claire's story picked up shortly after Brianna's birth. We don't know how long the gap was between then, Claire's decision to go to medical school, and her then applying for/acceptance into Harvard Med. 

1

Share Post


Link to post
21 hours ago, nara said:

Is it just me, or has Fergus's accent changed?  Perhaps that was meant to convey the passing of 6 years since leaving France.  In that case, I wonder if it might have been better to get a new actor.  As much as I love this one, he looks too young to play a 17 year old.  

I thought it had changed as well - gotten a little more Scottish, although I could still hear the French strongly at times also.  That makes sense to me, since as a young boy, he would have been more likely to pick up the Scots pronunciations and colloquialisms being fully immersed in the culture the way he's been.  I didn't realize he was supposed to be 17 in this episode though.  I guess I didn't really think about his age.  

21 hours ago, nara said:

I do like Claire and Frank having a fairly normal life (including sex) but I was just as annoyed as Frank that she was basically trying to use him.  I was really sorry to see it end in separate beds--even though we already knew that they were not a happy couple.

Something that I hadn't thought about too much until after this episode: when Claire first came back to her Present, she was only, what?  3-4 months pregnant?  At which time she agreed to try to make the marriage with Frank work.  So she spent 5-6 months pregnant (with crazy libido pregnancy hormones) 'married' to Frank, but they haven't had sex, not once, until several months after Brianna was born?  Damn - Frank really is practically a martyr here.  Add on top, that he apparently didn't get involved with anyone during her three year absence - and it makes me wonder if he actually was unfaithful during the war as was speculated during S1.   Maybe that line back in the first or second ep, about forgiving Claire if she'd been unfaithful was because he knows how she is.  

That is, from what I've seen of Claire and Frank's relationship, it seems like Claire is pretty much in charge of their sex life.  That could be for many reasons: maybe she has a stronger libido than he does or he's just happy to let her take the reigns.  But in S1, in the hotel, Claire initiates sex.  When they are touring the ruins and Claire sits on the table, she initiates sex.  And now in this episode, both times, it's Claire who initiates sex.  

21 hours ago, nara said:

Claire's voiceover annoyed me a little--not as a device, but the content.  "I had been able to love a man and be part of something bigger than myself." Excuse me, but you've done that TWICE.  You loved Frank before going back in time AND you helped defeat the Nazis!  It pisses me off that she has forgotten that.

Thank you for pointing this out!  I knew there was something else about that voice over that bothered me, but couldn't figure out what it was.  This is it.  That, 'being a part of something bigger than myself' completely ignores her time as a combat nurse in WWII, I think, since it seems like it was made to remind us of her time with Jamie and Culloden and that be the reason for her to go to Med school at the end.  

Also, given the times, and the patriarchy/misogyny the show has already demonstrated - as a married woman, would Claire have had to get her husband's permission to enroll in Med school?  I think Frank deserves some credit for going along with it - especially back then when women of her station (professor's wife!) were expected to all be stay at home mothers/wives.  

21 hours ago, nara said:

Like @ElectricBoogaloo, the separate beds made no sense to me.  You can sleep in a bed with someone and not have sex,.  But twin beds seems to be 1) a waste of money since you already had a bed and 2) not fooling anyone.

I think they were Frank's idea.  Maybe he just couldn't stand sleeping next to her anymore, knowing she kept thinking of Jamie.  And to that end: it was pretty inconsiderate of Claire to masturbate to Jamie's memory while lying right next to Frank in bed - when they haven't had sex since she got back.  Geez.  She's home alone all day - could she have not satisfied her urges when he wasn't in the house?

As for not fooling anyone - well, I don't guess most people would see their bed room.  As for Brianna - well, she'll still be young enough for several years to be fool.  And from watching I Love Lucy reruns, Lucy and Ricky had separate twin beds, so maybe she would think that was just normal?

Just realized several other people have already posted about the twin beds, so sorry for any redundancy!

9 hours ago, ganesh said:

Obviously, we're all aware that Jamie makes it to "1968" when Claire comes back, but what kind of hollowed out man is he going to be having to go through this? I'm not really seeing how 10 more hours of show of Jamie being beat down is going to be particularly entertaining. If you're in prison, you escape. So how is that different from what was going on in this episode? If you don't escape, then you're just in prison. What's he going to be doing for the next 8 episodes?

I don't think they're going to wait until the season finale for the reunion.  I don't think they can.   Surely, there's not enough filler there.  But maybe they will.  It just seems like an odd choice to me after last season's ending to make the viewer wait all season for the spoilered reunion.  And to be honest, it will tick me off if they do that.  

8 hours ago, NorthstarATL said:

It was so obvious, and then I thought back to what I have read about the history of that period, and I thought it was extremely foolish. They SHOULD bond, especially if they are ostracized as the course progresses, but initially they both should have kept their distances. Joe doesn't know enough about Claire to know that she was as enlightened as she was, but he would probably know that, sadly, appearing to be "hitting on", for that period, a white woman (who happens to be married, though he couldn't know that as yet) is something that society did not look approvingly upon.

This is a very good point about a black man befriending an upper class white woman - especially a married woman - during that time period.  Even Claire should have probably been more distant.  I mean, yes, England outlawed slavery before the US, but it's not like there weren't racial tensions and divides over there either.  

3

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't think they're going to wait until the season finale for the reunion.  I don't think they can.

No, in hindsight, I don't think they will either. However, Jamie will still have lived what kind of life up until then? 

0

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

for not fooling anyone - well, I don't guess most people would see their bed room.  As for Brianna - well, she'll still be young enough for several years to be fool.  And from watching I Love Lucy reruns, Lucy and Ricky had separate twin beds, so maybe she would think that was just normal?

Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds as a result of the Hays Code bleeding into television's morality police. Until that conservative bullshit was finally ditched, there were very strict rules in the production code about things like married couples having separate beds onscreen. Kisses could last only three seconds and a couple had to keep at least two (of the four total) feet on the ground. 

For the record, what people do in their bedrooms is their business so if separate beds work for some people, more power to them. My bigger issue is that even if I decided to have my own bed, it would be bigger than a twin! Ha, the hilarious thing is that even though I say I want a huge bed, Mr. EB said I always end up taking up the same tiny amount of space no matter what size bed we're in when we travel. 

10 hours ago, NorthstarATL said:

every now and again the beds would be pushed together. I still don't get it, because in college we did the pushing together of the single beds, and it's dangerous, unless you somehow lash them together so that nothing separates them!

I would be afraid that I'd roll over into the crack and my body weight would push the two beds apart and I'd end up falling through the crack and hitting the floor!

0

Share Post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds as a result of the Hays Code bleeding into television's morality police. Until that conservative bullshit was finally ditched, there were very strict rules in the production code about things like married couples having separate beds onscreen. Kisses could last only three seconds and a couple had to keep at least two (of the four total) feet on the ground.

My point was that Brianna likely wouldn't know about any television codes or standards growing up.  I certainly didn't.  And if this is what she watched on television as 'normal' then likely she would not think anything odd about there being twin beds in her parents' bedroom either.  

9 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I would be afraid that I'd roll over into the crack and my body weight would push the two beds apart and I'd end up falling through the crack and hitting the floor!

This!  Lol.  Especially if they were on casters.  (I seem to remember having a twin bed frame growing up that had casters.  It wasn't easy to roll, but then I had it pushed up against a corner wall too.)

31 minutes ago, ganesh said:

No, in hindsight, I don't think they will either. However, Jamie will still have lived what kind of life up until then? 

True.  I guess we get to see a lot of his life in prison since that's where he's headed.  Yay!  That should be fun and entertaining television! //snark.  

0

Share Post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds as a result of the Hays Code bleeding into television's morality police. Until that conservative bullshit was finally ditched, there were very strict rules in the production code about things like married couples having separate beds onscreen. Kisses could last only three seconds and a couple had to keep at least two (of the four total) feet on the ground. 

Of course it changed when it was picked up and aired, but the opening shot of the original pilot of I Love Lucy is Lucy and Ricky sleeping in the same bed.

0

Share Post


Link to post
On 9/17/2017 at 4:04 PM, leighdear said:

I thought it was a good episode overall.  But when the teacher said about his class composition "A woman and a negro", my first thought was "Claire doesn't look like a negro".   Poorly constructed line. 

There wasn't anything wrong with the way the sentence was constructed. I understood he was talking about two different people. 

3

Share Post


Link to post
12 hours ago, ganesh said:

No, in hindsight, I don't think they will either. However, Jamie will still have lived what kind of life up until then? 

That's assuming of course the same amount of time passes for Jamie as has passed for Claire.   (Boy, it's hard to pick the right tenses to use when you're talking about time passing in separate time lines!)  

0

Share Post


Link to post

I'm starting to really dislike Claire.  Maybe it's because I'm not a hopeless romantic?  I just don't get the "one true love" and all other loves will never compare.  As someone stated, when we first meet Frank & Claire, they seemed very much in love & attracted to each other.  OK, she goes back in time, meets Jamie & falls in love.  But she seems to hate Frank for not being Jamie.  Not his fault!  And if the theory is that Claire can't look at Frank without thinking of his cruel ancestor, Black Jack, then that is too small minded (IMO).  When she got back to Frank she should have told him she couldn't be with him anymore and gone their separate ways.

4

Share Post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

I'm starting to really dislike Claire.  Maybe it's because I'm not a hopeless romantic?  I just don't get the "one true love" and all other loves will never compare.  As someone stated, when we first meet Frank & Claire, they seemed very much in love & attracted to each other.  OK, she goes back in time, meets Jamie & falls in love.  But she seems to hate Frank for not being Jamie.  Not his fault!  And if the theory is that Claire can't look at Frank without thinking of his cruel ancestor, Black Jack, then that is too small minded (IMO).  When she got back to Frank she should have told him she couldn't be with him anymore and gone their separate ways.

As far as as the two of them going their separate ways I can understand why Clarie did not do that.  My understanding is that divorce was somewhat scandalous back then, and perhaps she wanted to avoid that for Brianna's sake.  She also knew that Jamie was sending her back with the understanding that Frank would look after her and the child.  So by staying with Frank she was respecting Jamie's wishes.  imho of course.

4

Share Post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

I'm starting to really dislike Claire.  Maybe it's because I'm not a hopeless romantic?  I just don't get the "one true love" and all other loves will never compare.  As someone stated, when we first meet Frank & Claire, they seemed very much in love & attracted to each other.  OK, she goes back in time, meets Jamie & falls in love.  But she seems to hate Frank for not being Jamie.  Not his fault!  And if the theory is that Claire can't look at Frank without thinking of his cruel ancestor, Black Jack, then that is too small minded (IMO).  When she got back to Frank she should have told him she couldn't be with him anymore and gone their separate ways.

I'm all for 'one true love'.  It's just that, after Season 2, Jamie and Claire don't embody that for me anymore.  After Season 1, yes.  But not now.  They didn't seem particularly close most of last season so....  

I have to wonder how much Claire ever really loved Frank.  She didn't seem to think about him much after she married Jamie - except for wanting to make sure he was born.  But that doesn't say "I really loved Frank" to me.  It's more that Frank isn't a hot, buff, kinda wild, young highlander with a libido to match her own that she seems to hold against her first husband.  

I don't know if it was really so scandalous to divorce back in those times or not.  To an extent, yes, I think it was.  But I think it also depended upon one's social status and how one comported themselves after the divorce.  As long as Claire wasn't out swinging all the time, she would have been perfectly fine.  I know I've watched old movies from the 30's and 40's where the socialites were divorced and no one particularly thought less of them.  Promise to Jamie or not, Claire could have hired a nanny for the baby and gone back to work as a nurse and made a fine living.  

1

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BusyOctober said:

Maybe it's because I'm not a hopeless romantic?  I just don't get the "one true love" and all other loves will never compare.

I'm not either. I think it's far more interesting if Claire were genuinely in love with both of them. It's not Frank's fault that he looks like BJR, but he also doesn't know that either. It's not really Claire's fault either, but I think she does bear somewhat of the burden to get over that. If she never does, that's not her fault either, but using your current husband as a human dildo isn't going to be helping anyone either. 

My concern is that the show is going to make Frank "bad" at the expense of promoting Jamie so that by the time he dies, we're all rooting for Claire to reunite. 

To Claire's credit, she doesn't think about going back to the stones until after Frank died, so there is that. On the other hand, she was completely gleeful at the end of S2 about going back. I would think it might be a harder decision than that.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I guess I meant by "going their separate ways" I was thinking Frank could move on with his career (prof @ Harvard) and Claire could have raised the child on her own in the England or France or wherever. She could have moped along the moors, pining for Jamie in Scotland.   If divorce was too shameful/scandalous, she could have easily said she was a war widow, and her husband died...just update the story she created for herself as Claire Beecham in the 1740's.

  In any case, I am still vested enough in the scenery and the other characters to keep watching.  I just am not a Claire fan so far this season.

2

Share Post


Link to post

To be fair, at the time of her return, Claire was way messed up, and Frank was offering to remain married and raise a child not his own. That security is a big draw. 

At this point though, she is taking advantage of his feelings for her, and that's not fair. 

4

Share Post


Link to post
9 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

I'm starting to really dislike Claire.  Maybe it's because I'm not a hopeless romantic?  I just don't get the "one true love" and all other loves will never compare.  As someone stated, when we first meet Frank & Claire, they seemed very much in love & attracted to each other.  OK, she goes back in time, meets Jamie & falls in love.  But she seems to hate Frank for not being Jamie.  Not his fault!  And if the theory is that Claire can't look at Frank without thinking of his cruel ancestor, Black Jack, then that is too small minded (IMO).  When she got back to Frank she should have told him she couldn't be with him anymore and gone their separate ways.

 

Keep in mind that she isn't simply recovering from leaving someone she loves.  She left that someone to die in a war! A war that she had participated in and had probably cost the lives of a lot of other people that she cared for.  Then boom! she's back in the 20th century.  It's natural that she would have a certain amount of whiplash and PTSD.  

That said, she is nastier to Frank than she needs to be.

4

Share Post


Link to post
On 9/17/2017 at 8:43 PM, ganesh said:

Frank saying, "could you at least look at me?" was tough. I don't want this season to also paint Claire in a poor light either. It's ok to love two men, and I think Frank wanted to make that work. 

I felt bad for Frank, also.  But since he's a dead ringer for John Randolph, I kind of get why Claire may have a hard time looking at him during sex.  

0

Share Post


Link to post

To jump is a little late on this, I note that upthread someone said the actor for Young Fergus was too young to play 16/17, but actually the actor, Romann Berrux, turned 16 this year (according to IMBD)!

0

Share Post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

To jump is a little late on this, I note that upthread someone said the actor for Young Fergus was too young to play 16/17, but actually the actor, Romann Berrux, turned 16 this year (according to IMBD)!

Yes, but I believe he was 14 when they were filming those sequences. 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Rewatched season three last night. I hate to nitpick, but, it is obvious the writers have never been pregnant, nor has Catriona.... Claire's pregnancy is portrayed over the top. Real pregnant woman do not walk around holding their back and wiping their brow.... 

i did enjoy the season so far as a whole. Love the sixties fashion, makeup, decor, etc...

1

Share Post


Link to post

Look, show, I'm going to need horrible things to stop happening to Fergus. Although, I was happy to see the same actor, even if he doesn't look six years older. With the time jump, I thought they would recast.

0

Share Post


Link to post

And, I have to ask, what where is Jenny's SECOND child, young Maggie? The one Claire helped her birth? No girl around anywhere? Easier to have a bunch of boys running around? Though Jenny said SHE used to follow Willie and Jamie everywhere.

0

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