"Claire and Jamie are still being jealous fools on Outlander" - AVClub

[Krish728]

https://www.avclub.com/claire-and-jamie-are-still-being-jealous-fools-on-outla-1819952349

I was reading the reviews of the episode from various sites.. this one came close to what I feel about this episode.

[dori]

Great article and analysis!

Jamie's behavior and jealousy outbursts didn't come as forced or unnatural to me, though. Firstly, Claire doesn't know anything about his women and she doesn't have a clear image of a rival in her head, while Jamie knows a lot about Frank, who's not only Claire's husband but also has been a wonderful father to Brianna, which elevates him even more in Claire's eyes, from Jamie's perspective (yeah, I like analysing people's behaviour, bear with me.)

However, now I understand what bugged me about the episode: everybody made Claire feel guilty of her choices: Jamie was against her exercising her medical skills, and frustrated about her living and raising Brianna with Frank, Ian also made her feel like a villain, while her leaving for her time was her and Jamie's mutual decision. He should feel more gratitude to her that she's come back to him and brought news about their daughter.

[Krish728]

Jamie was against her exercising her medical skills

I don't think he was against it. He was against using them on a man who, just moments ago, tried to rape her and kill her. And he has a very good point. If Claire did save that man, she's one who's fucked.. and probably Jamie too. I didn't like what Claire said to Jamie after the exercise-man died "Well, he's dead. So you've got your wish". I wish Jamie replied to her with something like.. "Well, woman, you'd be dead if he made it out alive. STFU!"

Also, I don't know why they are trying to show Claire getting frustrated, uncomfortable and judgmental of 18th century. She wasn't like this when she first came through the stones. She was more understanding then than she is now. I mean, didn't she get the memo that she's about to be transported back in time to 18th century to meet Jamie? Also, she wasn't prepared when she first made the journey.. now she is. I felt her frustration with the time didn't make sense. She signed up for it when she decided she's going to come back. She knew what she was getting into. Why get frustrated now that she's here?

frustrated about her living and raising Brianna with Frank, Ian also made her feel like a villain, while her leaving for her time was her and Jamie's mutual decision. He should feel more gratitude to her that she's come back to him and brought news about their daughter.

I agree. But Jamie does show the gratitude. The "shadow scene" is all about that. And what else can Jamie do, other than nodding to the story she's making up to explain her disappearance?  

[cbookout1]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:30:21 AM UTC-5, Krish728 wrote:

I agree. But Jamie does show the gratitude. The "shadow scene" is all about that. And what else can Jamie do, other than nodding to the story she's making up to explain her disappearance?  

Just to add something else here. I never understood why Jamie never mentioned to Jenny about Claire being with child in Ep.2 when he was holding newborn Ian. Now, I remember seeing that clip a month or so ago where it looked like he and Ian were in conversation outside Lallybroch and he does say he sent her away, to see her safe. I sure hope he elaborates more and tells him then that she was with child. It would make her leaving more justified. 

[dori]

I don't think he was against it. He was against using them on a man who, just moments ago, tried to rape her and kill her. And he has a very good point. If Claire did save that man, she's one who's fucked.. and probably Jamie too. I didn't like what Claire said to Jamie after the exercise-man died "Well, he's dead. So you've got your wish". I wish Jamie replied to her with something like.. "Well, woman, you'd be dead if he made it out alive. STFU!"

I don't mind Jamie retorting Claire, the woman needs reality checks more often than not but not in this instance. It doesn't make any sense if the doctor could choose who to treat or not to treat. In such a case, criminals wouldn't get any treatment because they wronged somebody. In answer to this and your next point, the way I see it, Claire is still transitioning from her 20th-century ways. It takes time, she's always been a forward-thinking person and you can't give up on your beliefs and values that easily. For one, I like that they make Claire such a complex character, it makes her real and relatable.  

Also, I don't know why they are trying to show Claire getting frustrated, uncomfortable and judgmental of 18th century. 

I also disliked her judgmental line about 18th century being rigid. It felt disrespectful and conceited.

She knew what she was getting into

Ha ha, I'm not mad, because again, I can relate to her in that regard. Theorising about something and facing it are two different things. If she knew beforehand that on her second day upon her return she had to choose between her Hippocratic oath and her and Jamie's safety she could think it through better. But in the heat of the moment, she went by her professional instincts. Besides, she might not see the bigger picture and overall how dangerous the situation and Jamie's foes are. 

 

And what else can Jamie do, other than nodding to the story she's making up to explain her disappearance?  

The scene with Ian bugged me because Claire was doing most of the talking. It's like she was making excuses. I'm not sure whether it would have been better, but I prefer Jamie taking the lead and telling Ian that Claire's been absent for a reason, and he's very happy about her return and doesn't have any hard feelings, something like that. I get why Ian and perhaps others would feel like scolding Claire but that's unfair to her.

[Krish728]

I don't mind Jamie retorting Claire, the woman needs reality checks more often than not but not in this instance. It doesn't make any sense if the doctor could choose who to treat or not to treat. In such a case, criminals wouldn't get any treatment because they wronged somebody. In answer to this and your next point, the way I see it, Claire is still transitioning from her 20th-century ways. It takes time, she's always been a forward-thinking person and you can't give up on your beliefs and values that easily. For one, I like that they make Claire such a complex character, it makes her real and relatable.  

I'm not saying she shouldn't treat the guy because he tried to harm her. Jamie was against it, yes. But there's more to that and Claire didn't care. Oh.. I so wished that man had survived.. got Claire arrested for attacking him.. and got Jamie arrested for smuggling.. and then they go to the hangman's noose together.. and Jamie says to Claire "Thank you, Sassenach. This is so romantic.. getting hanged together." Well, if Claire ever needed a reality check in her life, ever, it's here. And then she goes "He's dead.. So you've got your wish". 

Ha ha, I'm not mad, because again, I can relate to her in that regard. Theorising about something and facing it are two different things. If she knew beforehand that on her second day upon her return she had to choose between her Hippocratic oath and her and Jamie's safety she could think it through better. But in the heat of the moment, she went by her professional instincts. Besides, she might not see the bigger picture and overall how dangerous the situation and Jamie's foes are. 

Hence she needed the reality check. 

The scene with Ian bugged me because Claire was doing most of the talking. It's like she was making excuses. I'm not sure whether it would have been better, but I prefer Jamie taking the lead and telling Ian that Claire's been absent for a reason, and he's very happy about her return and doesn't have any hard feelings, something like that. I get why Ian and perhaps others would feel like scolding Claire but that's unfair to her.

That's how it was in the books. It was Jamie who's explaining Claire's disappearance to everyone. 

[Krish728]

I don't think Jamie ever tells Jenny or Ian about his child in the books. They were surprised to see Brianna in book #4. They didn't know Jamie had a living child. Because, if Claire and Jamie tell them about their child, that would raise the question "Where is she? Why is she not here?" That's the question Claire and Jamie could never answer. 

[dori]

I'm not saying she shouldn't treat the guy because he tried to harm her. Jamie was against it, yes. But there's more to that and Claire didn't care. Oh.. I so wished that man had survived.. got Claire arrested for attacking him.. and got Jamie arrested for smuggling.

 

They could've escaped to Lallybroch or other location before the attacker recovered. If anything he served a purpose of showing Claire that it's not that easy to treat head wounds in the 18th century. Jamie created problems by conducting illegal activities and should find a way to solve them without making Claire his accomplice.

 

Hence she needed the reality check. 

 

It was an impulsive decision to treat him but I don't see Claire acting any other way. 

That's how it was in the books. It was Jamie who's explaining Claire's disappearance to everyone. 

 

I hate it when writers change such small but significant details((( 

[Krish728]

I'm not saying she shouldn't treat the guy because he tried to harm her. Jamie was against it, yes. But there's more to that and Claire didn't care. Oh.. I so wished that man had survived.. got Claire arrested for attacking him.. and got Jamie arrested for smuggling.

 

They could've escaped to Lallybroch or other location before the attacker recovered. If anything he served a purpose of showing Claire that it's not that easy to treat head wounds in the 18th century. Jamie created problems by conducting illegal activities and should find a way to solve them without making Claire his accomplice.

Yep. They could do that. But that would put Madame Jeanne in the crossfire, and I think she knows who Jamie really is. That would send the redcoats to Lallybroch. If he's not found there.. more threat to Lallybroch. So, I don't know about Claire, but Jamie wouldn't do that to Lallybroch.. not to save himself, not even to save Claire.

[dori]

Yep. They could do that. But that would put Madame Jeanne in the crossfire, and I think she knows who Jamie really is. That would send the redcoats to Lallybroch. If he's not found there.. more threat to Lallybroch. So, I don't know about Claire, but Jamie wouldn't do that to Lallybroch.. not to save himself, not even to save Claire.

I'm trying to picture this scene:

Jamie "If you save the assailant that would potentially put Madame Jeanne in the crossfire.."

Claire "Um, got it"

It might be easier for Jamie to let the man die, but not for Claire, who's been treating patients for the last 14years. In one episode she's saving lives, in the next she lets a man die.  It would be inconsistent with her character.

Frankly, madame Jeanne and Jamie put themselves in this predicament and should have thought through the consequences.

Also, there could be a chance that the attacker would be grateful to Claire for saving his life and wouldn't press charges against her.

So, not to endanger Lallybroch, Claire and Jamie would go elsewhere. When not finding Jamie there, who hasn't appeared in Lallybroch for so many years, the redcoats would hardly do anything without the hard evidence as we've been shown in ep 2.

[Laura1-07]

Just to add something else here. I never understood why Jamie never mentioned to Jenny about Claire being with child in Ep.2 when he was holding newborn Ian.

Yes, like he did in the book.  Jenny never asked Claire about the child though.  I assume she just thought it had died like their first child. 

[Laura1-07]

Second of all, he didn’t even have confirmation that Brianna existed until very recently, so it’s not like he spent these past 20 years thinking about his daughter who he’d never met.

That is not entirely true.  He spent a lot of time thinking about his child. 

[Bunny]

Sorry if I'm repeating some else's points but if I don't say it now, I'll forget what I want to say... When Jamie says you're not in Boston...reminds me of it doesn't matter where you're from, you're here now...only said a little more gently. The anger about young Ian...yes, Claire's appalled at Jamie lying to Ian, but uppermost, I think is a parent's worry about what's happening to their child...her child...Brianna. And for her to then throw up at him that young Ian isn't his to raise...well none of Jamie's children were his to raise...not Faith, who died, not William, whom he couldn't clai, and not Brianna, who is 200 years away. The jealousy bit, asking in if each loved someone else while they were apart, I think is an insecurity over possible unfavorable comparisons to that other person...oh he's not like how I remember and not even like Frank, why did I come back? Oh she's nothing like how I remember and not even like...whomever, why did she come back. I think that's why Jamie is constantly asking Claire to come with him or to make sure she'll come back. If she regrets her choice, she may leave. Just like Claire was asking Jamie in the previous Ep, do you want me to leave? They're still in unsure territory.

Ok...I think I remembered everything, and sorry if I repeated.

[Krish728]

I'm trying to picture this scene:

Jamie "If you save the assailant that would potentially put Madame Jeanne in the crossfire.."

Claire "Um, got it"

No, but he did say that would get her arrested. But she still went on with it. And she does know that that man would pose problems to Jamie. Lets create a scenario in which Claire is in the 20th century. She has a patient to save.. but if she tried to do that, then that means her family is in serious danger. Would Claire still try to save the patient? Same case here.. she's not only putting herself in danger.. she's putting Jamie, Fergus, Young Ian, and possibly Lallybroch in danger. 

So, not to endanger Lallybroch, Claire and Jamie would go elsewhere. When not finding Jamie there, who hasn't appeared in Lallybroch for so many years, the redcoats would hardly do anything without the hard evidence as we've been shown in ep 2.

 The point is not if Lallybroch would be endangered or not. It's about the possibility that it could be in danger. Isn't that the reason why Jamie agreed to sleep with Geneva? Just the possibility that Lallybroch could be in danger. 

It might be easier for Jamie to let the man die, but not for Claire, who's been treating patients for the last 14years. In one episode she's saving lives, in the next she lets a man die.  It would be inconsistent with her character.

I think that would show the sacrifices she had to make to survive in the 18th century. And I wouldn't call it character inconsistency if she did let him die. Claire did plot to assassinate BPC. Co-killed Dougal. She's not new to the territory. 

Anyway, that whole plot is a mistake. They shouldn't have changed it from the books. And all that is to show that Claire takes her Hippocratic oath seriously. Well, they could think of some other plot to make that point.. the plot in which saving the person won't result in a threat to them. 

[dori]

Would Claire still try to save the patient? Same case here.. she's not only putting herself in danger.. 

 

There's no way of knowing that she wouldn't. 

 The point is not if Lallybroch would be endangered or not. It's about the possibility that it could be in danger. Isn't that the reason why Jamie agreed to sleep with Geneva? Just the possibility that Lallybroch could be in danger. 

IIRC, Geneva directly threatened him with endangering Lallybroch? Not the case here. 

I think that would show the sacrifices she had to make to survive in the 18th century. And I wouldn't call it character inconsistency if she did let him die. Claire did plot to assassinate BPC. Co-killed Dougal. She's not new to the territory. 

 

Apparently, we have new Claire this season. She's always been wee hypocritical.

 

Anyway, that whole plot is a mistake. They shouldn't have changed it from the books.

 

Agree on that. Don't know what happened in the books with this man, but to allocate so much time and drama to him seems hardly necessary.

 

And all that is to show that Claire takes her Hippocratic oath seriously. Well, they could think of some other plot to make that point.. the plot in which saving the person won't result in a threat to them. 

 

Writing-wise, the man died so we're discussing a moot point. I for one liked that the writers presented Claire with a moral dilemma.

[Laura1-07]

 He’s still mad about the dang bikini, and sure, that’s just indicative of the fact that he’s from a different time, but it still seems so silly! Especially because what he’s really trying to say is that he’s jealous of Frank.

It's about more than the bikini.  Also it is about not being able to raise Bree, not just Frank.

[Krish728]

 The point is not if Lallybroch would be endangered or not. It's about the possibility that it could be in danger. Isn't that the reason why Jamie agreed to sleep with Geneva? Just the possibility that Lallybroch could be in danger. 

IIRC, Geneva directly threatened him with endangering Lallybroch? Not the case here. 

She threatened that the redcoats will be upon Lallybroch if Jamie tried to escape. And that is a shallow threat.. and Jamie knows it. But still, there is a possibility that the threat might me real. This is somewhat similar case. There is a possible threat to Lallybroch.. and he wouldn't risk it.  

Would Claire still try to save the patient? Same case here.. she's not only putting herself in danger.. 

 

There's no way of knowing that she wouldn't. 

I don't think Claire would let her family suffer so that she can fulfill her duties as a doctor. Even Jamie, who takes his oaths seriously and rarely ever breaks them, breaks his oaths without a moment's thought if it means that his family would be safe. 

[broughps]

It's also setting up season 4 with Jamie not telling her about someone who was ill so she wouldn't try to save them.

[broughps]

 

Agree on that. Don't know what happened in the books with this man, but to allocate so much time and drama to him seems hardly necessary.

He was still dead just by other means.

This ridiculous change was basically a means of getting Claire to the Campbells.

[dori]

I don't think Claire would let her family suffer so that she can fulfill her duties as a doctor. Even Jamie, who takes his oaths seriously and rarely ever breaks them, breaks his oaths without a moment's thought if it means that his family would be safe. 

I think it boils down to the degree of the threat. Claire didn't see that saving this man would lead to drastic consequences. If the danger was more obvious and imminent, she probably would have killed him herself) 

[Laura1-07]

It's also setting up season 4 with Jamie not telling her about someone who was ill so she wouldn't try to save them.

Who was that again?

[dori]

This ridiculous change was basically a means of getting Claire to the Campbells.

Stupid question, but how did she meet them in the book? Is there any reasonable explanation for this change? 

 

It's also setting up season 4 with Jamie not telling her about someone who was ill so she wouldn't try to save them. 

 

Intriguing) 

 

[broughps]

She meets Rev Campbell (now changed to a con artist Mr Campbell) in the apothecary shop, but she's just going there to pick up supplies that she thinks she'll need down the road. She's not there for medicine for a specific person.

Since they've ramped up the Sir Percival story and need to get them out of Edinburgh faster, but still apparently are going to us the Campbells down the road so they all need to meet, they couldn't have Claire taking her own sweet time buying supplies. It had to move quicker.

[Krish728]

Well, the writer probably didn't read the books.. I don't suppose she knows about this instance in Season 4.

[broughps]

Think about what happens on Jocasta's plantation.

[Krish728]

A no one. It's at Jocasta's. Jocasta throws a party in the name of Claire and Jamie. Claire and Jamie escape the party and go rowing in the creek.. that is where they have this conversation.

[broughps]

I'm guessing she didn't even read them when getting which eps she's going to write, but it does still set up that bit in season 4.

So according to Terry, Ron still has imput on every script. And she's claiming that bits we all like the best are actually/probably bits he's made sure are there/wrote. Not sure I buy that.

[dori]

Oh, I see.

they couldn't have Claire taking her own sweet time buying supplies. It had to move quicker.

The show really moves quickly. It's only Claire's second day in the past and so much has happened already.