Ah? Well, let me sum it up for you: he’s a great actor and a lot of fun to watch in whatever role he takes. (And thanks, Mahaloth - I had forgotten about him playing Charles Dickens).
Agreed. Thoroughly enjoyed him as the Duke.
Wow, am I the only one who watched this weekend’s episode? Claire told Jamie she’s from the future. Geillis was revealed to be from 1968!
It was a huge episode.
No, Mrs. SMV makes sure we’re around on Saturday nights to catch it. Good episode, but the history geek in me was barely restrained from shouting at the TV when the ecclesiastical examiners were happy to hear from Father Bain, didn’t object to him referring to the people of Cranesmuir as “my congregation”, and acting like they had authority over him. They would be Church of Scotland - Presbyterians and anti-Catholic - and while parts of the Highlands were Catholic in the 18th century, the Church was officially illegal, and priests acted in secret. A RC priest certainly wouldn’t have come openly before adjudicators from the Kirk. Not if he didn’t want to find himself alongside the women in the Thieves’ Hole.
But, of course, all this is irrelevant to the story. I wondered if Geillis’ question to Claire - “You’re not here to change things?” - meant that she thought that her intervention might have changed history and led to the restoration of the Stewarts, and Claire was there to prevent that. Or the opposite, that Claire was on the same errand as her, to see King James on the throne.
In the book, Ned Gowan didn’t participate in the trial. I was wondering about the distinctions between solicitors and barristers at the time. Ned is a solicitor. Given that, would it ever have occurred to him to defend someone at a trial?
Father Bain’s testimony was different, in the book, and he didn’t necessarily present it as a priest. He had been bitten on the thigh by a dog and Claire had offered to clean it for him; when he refused she yelled after him, “it’ll fester if you don’t let me see to it!” So of course, she tried to lure him into her den to fornicate, and cursed him when he refused.
Also–sad sighs–they did not do the scene in which, while on the road collecting rents, Claire sees the Loch Ness monster . . . and one of the men sees her see it. He testified against her at the trial, too.
And at the trial she isn’t introduced to the inquisitors or whatever they are, so she refers to them in her head as Mutt and Jeff, and which was a nice period touch.
IIRC, Ned DOES show up in the book at the witch trial. I remember Claire being bored out of her skull, despite her terror, while Ned droned on and on and her hands were tied in such a way she couldn’t politely cover her mouth.
Two things…I would have preferred that Claire find out that Geillis is a time traveler, but not from when, until Dougal gives her the “message.” And one little line would have better shown Claire’s conflict at leaving. When Jamie tells her “There’s nothing for you here,” in the book she quietly responds, “There’s really nothing for me here, Jamie?” That’s when he says he’s going to wait in the cottage until nightfall.
I loved the little looks and expressions as Jamie tries to fix Claire in his mind, thinking she’s leaving for good. And waking up by the fire with a tear-streaked face when she returns…I melted. I loved Sam before as Jamie, but this episode he nailed the landing. I got chills when he froze after Claire told him her birthday.
The entire second half of the episode really solidified them as great actors. They did a great job with everything they were asked to emote and the whole thing felt real.
Loved it. And I have not read the books and had no idea she was going to tell him.
Really? Huh. There are some parts of the book I skip on re-reads, and the witch trial is one of them. All I remembered were the witnesses’ testimony, and Mutt and Jeff, and Geillis’ over-the-top confession at the end to help Jamie and Claire get away.
It’s interesting to read reactions from people who are new to the story. I wonder how the internal logic of the TV series hangs together, if you’re a blank slate.
Colum doesn’t give his blessing nor does he forbid him from doing so, but ITB (in the book), Ned offers up his services to Claire. His greatest contribution to her defense is his ability to diffuse tensions with his verbosity, which also buys time for Jamie to show up. (ITB Jamie is off hunting with the Duke of Sandringham, trying to gain his favor so that the Duke can use his political influence to quash the charges against him so that he can return to Lallybroch. Once again, one of his kinsmen has to run after him to tell him what happened.)
ITB, Laoghaire doesn’t present evidence at the trial. Her only sins are indirect – putting the ill wish under her bed and forging a letter from Geillis, which puts her in the home when the crowd comes for Geillis. There’s no confrontation ITB, either between her and Laoghaire or Jamie and Laoghaire. So while we don’t like her, she’s not “evil” like she is IITV version.
ITB, the trial is conducted outdoors and Jamie rescues Claire with the aid of his devil-horse, Donas, who tries to kick or bite anyone who gets near him. I guess that was too expensive and tricky to pull off so they modified it.
Also ITB, Ned does not cajole the women to “save one of them” as he is there to represent Claire alone. Geillis surprises everyone, including Claire, when she throws herself into the fire, metaphorically speaking, and confesses. She does it on purpose and mouths to them both to run. It’s enough of a distraction to allow Jamie to scoop up Claire and ride off. It’s only when Geillis rips off her clothes that Claire sees the vaccination scar on Geillis’ arm and puts two and two together.
ITB, when Jamie hears Claire’s “confession,” the hair raises on his arms, and it’s clear that he’s afraid of her, which breaks Claire’s heart. He eventually comes around, of course. The scene at the standing stones is pretty spot on, though I’m not sure it was made clear that the stones were sucking Claire in when Jamie pulled her away, and she started to “disappear” in front of his eyes. IOW, there was no question as to the veracity of her story.
I think I’ve seen enough of those female actresses’ bare torsos to last me a lifetime. And I’m not sure if I like Sam better in pants or a kilt.
Well, it was an ecclesiastical court, rather than a criminal or civil court, so perhaps different rules applied. Or perhaps, as you suggest, the distinction between barristers and solicitors hadn’t yet arisen.
However, as Ned himself pointed out, the Scottish legal system was (and to a certain extent, still is) different from that of England. Scottish solicitors were called “writers”, and the most prestigious were named to the Society of Writers to His/Her Majesty’s Signet - this was the body that, at that time, had charge of, essentially, the seal of the King of Scotland. It was sort of the Scottish solicitors’ version of the silk. Ned, as he points out to the examiners, was a former Writer to the Signet - the prestige of this may have been what persuaded the examiners to let him speak.
So Mrs. SMV told me afterward. Diana Gabaldon played fast and loose with history, a bit, in the first book, but the way she wrote it was plausible. The TV version, with Father Bain coming before a Kirk of Scotland court in the character, and robes, of a Catholic priest, is Hollywood history at its most egregious.
However, the scene worked in terms of the story, and that’s what Ronald Moore is trying to do. Not pander to history nerds like me.
I remember her coming off like a bitchy and not very mature teenager with a crush. Which is pretty much exactly what she was.
There have certainly been boobs a-plenty, but it’s never seemed gratuitous to me. Geillis’ witchy dance around the fire was perhaps unnecessary - it brought to mind Terry Pratchett’s observation that dancin’ around without yer drawers was a perfectly witchy thing to do, so long as the witch bore in mind rocks, nettles, and errant hedgehogs - but it served to reveal her pregnancy to Claire. Same thing with her stripping at the trial - she was “pleading her belly”, which was a recognized legal strategy for women in that day and age.
I do not have a recorded episode from last night, but I thought one was supposed to air.
Was there one or not? I’m talking about May 2, 2015. It should have been episode 13. Anyone?
Yes, it aired. It was 90% not-from-the-book, too, and they slaughtered Jamie Fraser’s character, making him into an impetuous buffoon.
Check your cable for “Starz On Demand.” It allows you to watch currently airing episodes whenever you want.
Also, Starz re-ran the Saturday episode several times on Sunday and will probably do so again later in the week.
I have a mental picture of Jamie and Clare,and I can’t make myself watch these two actors… They may be great actors…
You and 25 million other readers. 
I think they’re doing a superb job, and as for the detours, eh. I’ll live with it. They may go a different way, but they will end up in the same place. However
Since Ronnie McNab is not the one who betrayed Jamie to the Watch, how do we get the later scene in the cave with Mary McNab?
Yeah. The whole episode, I was thinking of that, ivylass, and of one other thing:
[spoiler]How interesting that they have turned Horrocks into an Irish scalawag bound for America! I wonder if they are setting him up to be . . .
But then he got run through, so apparently not.[/spoiler]
It was inferred that Horrocks betrayed The Watch to the Redcoats, but it could be someone else. Just sayin.
BTW, why would a man like Horrocks meet Jamie alone? And why would he tell a clearly armed and motivated man that he was going to continue to extort money from him? I don’t mind alternate plotline as much as I mind stupid plotlines.
I’m wondering if the captain of The Watch might not turn up later. He seemed pretty developed for a minor character.
I would guess Horrocks, as a former redcoat, is feeling a bit superior to the barbarian Highlander, especially since he thinks he has Jamie over a barrel.
You make a good point about it not being explicit that Horrocks was the one who betrayed Jamie, although the way they shot the scene, Horrocks was trying to betray the Watch as a whole to the redcoats, and Jamie and Ian got caught up in it.
I’m cutting expenses as much as I can and still have some things – I only have basic cable,so no getting this show … However,son gave me his old Roku and maybe it’ll be on Netflix one of these days