Sunday, September 7, 2014

MOP discusses "RENT": Episode 5 of OUTLANDER on STARZ!

42 comments:

  1. Once again, great job!! Thanks for your videos!! Although, thanks to Tracey, I am now unable to watch the steady-cam footage in “The Gathering” episode without hearing “Best of My Love” playing through my brain. But, yes Tracey, you were right on “target” with that observation! I also agree that ending the season with the sulfur springs might be a bad idea. And Carol, your teenage park experience with the police reminded me of my own “parking” experience where a policeman came up to the car and asked if we knew “where that beer can over there came from?” We weren’t drinking, it wasn’t ours, and I had to bite my tongue to keep from being a smart ass and answering “Milwaukee?” Ah, the follies of youth.

    Have you heard that “The Scot and the Sassenach” podcast gave you guys a shout-out early in their review of this episode? And btw, you are both now officially “adorable.” This episode of their podcast was the funniest yet. The “dramatic chipmunk” reference and Dougal’s “Chicken-in-a-Sack” franchise idea - among MANY other observations – had me nearly rolling on the floor!! I had posted a comment on their episode 4 podcast regarding GoT comparisons. I hated to nitpick since their podcast is so entertaining, but since they approach their critique from a learned perspective on story structure, strengths, weaknesses, etc., it was SO worth it just to hear them state for the record that Outlander is a better show than GoT :-) The S&S are definitely worth a listen – as are many of the other video/podcast options out there – but you guys are still #1 with me! Isn’t it great to see so many out there “sharing the love?” This is a Golden Age for Outlander fans!!

    When I commented last week, I forgot to mention that a brand new, non-reader, non-viewer, college-age young woman sat in on the episode with us. After seeing just that one episode, she has decided to read the book. I honestly think the mix of tension, pathos, and humor in that episode (she joined in with the rest of us laughing at all the Angus moments - and a group laugh can be even better than a group hug) really pulled her in. So, it gives me hope that the show can continue to attract new fans.

    As for this episode: Ned!!! I was so looking forward to seeing him, and have not been disappointed. I hope his later (and much longer) appearance in the book gets played out for all its worth. The only other upcoming character this season I am excited to see is the Duke of Sandringham – especially since Simon Callow is playing the part. He is such a hoot playing Julian Fellows in “Uptown Downstairs Abbey”– the spoof of Downton Abbey with the gals from AbFab. As Fellows, he monitors the taping of the show while making comments like, “Marvelous!! How DO I do it?!!” It’s all very funny.

    OK, I’m getting long-winded (again). Anyway, slainte mhath (which - I think - is pronounced “slan jah vah”), and have a wonderful week!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, wow--LOVE Scot and the Sassenach!! Totally thrilled to be mentioned in it--haven't heard it yet as I'm a little behind (still listening to the ep 4 recap). I was so glad to stumble upon their podcast--they're hilarious (obviously), but also, I work in the literacy field and find their analyses of story structure and the nuances of book-to-screen adaptation fascinating. I don't know how many people out there are familiar with Common Core (for better or worse, LOL), but they are a total homage to RL.7!

      Delete
    2. BTW, I think we mentioned them a few episode recaps back...along with Outlander Podcast and Ron Moore's podcast, they are required listening!

      Delete
    3. I've listened to them all, I think. Just recently tried Outlander Cast - it reminded me a lot of the S&S. I earned a minor in English Lit just because I love it, so I also enjoy the S&S's perspective on the show. BTW, I work in a middle school in the field of special ed. Though most of the students I work with fall under a separate assessment, I've worked with many students in gen ed classes, so I'm familiar with Common Core - and in too many different subject areas.

      Delete
  2. I love your videos and comments. I agree that you are both "adorable," especially when you get so excited about some small aspect of the show that you can't speak for a moment and simply gesture wildly until you calm down enough to describe what has you so pumped. It creates a suspense that is both entertaining and silly. Love it.

    What I have noticed lately is that the TV episodes are making me rethink some of the elements of the book that may be flaws that I didn't see before. For example, why did Doogal deliver Claire to Captain Randal in the books. I think the TV show is setting up a more plausible plot line where the English soldiers believe she is being coerced by the Scotts and that is how she gets delivered to Randal. The Scotts have all clearly grown to care about her which makes it much more probable for them to want to defend her against Randal.

    My critique of Episode 4 is about Murtaugh. He has never been explained in the TV show as to his presence with the MacKenzies. Is he Jamie's body guard? They have him acting like a MacKenzie, but we know he is a Fraser. If he is from another Clan and a "man of fighting age", why was he allowed to go to "The Gathering" without taking an oath, but Jamie was not?

    My biggest critique of Episode 5 is that Claire should have been doing some "healing" among the villages that they pass through. Surely people are sick or ailing, healers were few in these times and so her services would have been in high demand and Claire would hardly be able to stop herself from helping people.

    Despite my nitpicks, I think the TV show is huge success and I can't wait to see how the drama develops. Wedding night is only 2 episodes away!!! That one will be replayed more than any episode I predict.

    Thanks for reading my thoughts. I would love to read any responses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Me Me! (Jumps up like Claire when someone yells "Who wants some rhenish?") I invented "Clairifications" for voice overs.

    Some thoughts:
    1. Y'all were stellar, as always.
    2. I think the waulking shows up later in the books but totally worked here. I love it when I'm not sure if something was in the book or not because it totally could have been.
    3. Ned Gowen sure did feel like a time traveler to me.
    4. Angus (not sure why you are picking on him Tracey) will totally have some tragic story to explain his dual personality.
    5. What was the redcoat doing in the village in his shirt sleeves?
    6. I had a full on "thumbgasm" when Jamie touched Claire's thumb whilst taking the blanket. How will I survive marital relations?
    7. I looked for a clip but couldn't find one of a scene from Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. After the barn raising and the brothers are all beat to hell and Milly is walking between them doing triage of split lip, busted knuckles etc. This was almost exactly the scene with Claire and the boys after the tavern fight. Oh and it was Angus that jumped up to defend our Claire first.

    8. Tracey-spot on with the ending of the season. Did y'all notice that D in A is back on the best seller list?

    Kim
    KClarkPhotography

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with #3. When Ned started talking, my first thought was he is from the future. He is just to coy when he talks about the future to Claire.

      Delete
    2. I saw you coin "Clairification" on S&S! Brilliant!

      ValGal

      Delete
    3. Late response I know but writing from Australia and we are a week behind in the episodes.
      The lingering thumb touch was intense. Gave me a few flutters.
      Like you, not sure how will I survive viewing the wedding night and subsequent intimate moments!
      Lyn

      Delete
  4. Hi Ladies!! 'slan scha va' would be the phonics pronunciation!! How much fun do you guys have!! Thank you!
    Pam

    ReplyDelete
  5. Spoilers galore!!!! Do not read if you haven't read the book!!!! For real!!!

    Girls, I love the show verra much. Too much. But I don't get how they are getting through everything at the current pace. If the wedding is episode 7 and episode 8 is some kind of cliffhanger to bring us all bAck in January. How do we get everything in in the amount of episodes left? Is the cliffhanger Claire back with Randall? Is it Crainsmuir? How do you go from the wedding to Crainsmuir in one episode? No attack with the two rapists by the pond. No attack of the Grants. No meeting Hugh Monroe or Horrocks, or Duke of Sandringham. But if we don't end at the cliffhanger in the pit with gellie, I don't see how we go to the stones, to lallybroch, travel with Murtaugh, go to the prison visit, plan a breakout....end up in France, all in 8 1 hour shows. Llllllloooooorrrrrrddd the trying to figure it out....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just read this interview with Ron Moore. The last sentence is particularly interesting.

      http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/ronald-d-moore-outlander-chat.html

      Delete
    2. Ok. Now we know. So how do we get through everything else in 8 episodes...

      Delete
    3. Here's one reader's predictions. She's been pretty accurate so far.

      http://forums.compuserve.com/discussions/Books_and_Writers_Community/_/_/ws-books/79754.125?nav=messages

      Delete
    4. Forgot to reiterate: MAJOR SPOILAGE! Do not follow that link if you have not read the entire 1st book!

      Delete
  6. You did great ladies! Got a bit mixed up with the order of scenes ( good idea Carol to watch it as you go). I thought the same about Claire being a little fresh and should mind her Ps and Qs and about how she has a light bulb moment and realizes things are really different here. I thought she was too forward with Ned trying to convince him to forget the whole Bonnie Prince Charlie bit...did she really think he was going to listen to her? The goat scene was funny as was the " Hot piss" comment. I thought that redcoat would be a great William further down the road...( maybe they can reuse him when willie is cast!). I'm very anxious that there is only 3 episodes left! Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh my stars! You two are not only hilarious, but very perceptive as well. I just love your recap videos! I'm getting the impression that the non-book readers liked this episode better than a lot of the readers did. There have been some really horrendous comments made on Twitter and FB from readers. How embarrassing! Saying Jamie is being portrayed as a wimp because he doesn't jump up and defend Claire every time she sticks her foot in it? Please! I've been waiting for 20 years to hear Jamie say, "It doesn't matter where you're from. You're here. Don't judge what you don't understand." I am THRILLED! Claire wound up with a bit o’ egg on her face a few times in this episode because of her false assumptions and rash judgments. My impression has always been that the reason Jamie & Claire's relationship works is because Jamie was the only person who didn't let her run amok and wasn't afraid to put her in her place when it would benefit her. I wouldn't respect Jamie so much if he had been portrayed as a doormat. And this portrayal of the dynamics between them is going to set us up perfectly for a certain future scene where he is forced to discipline her for her behavior. Lawd, that scene is gonna light up the Internet!

    I interpreted Angry Angus as someone who has repeated had his posterior skelped by Dougal for not being able to keep track of Claire. He pulled his knife on her in response to her calling them thieves - can't say I blame him. Like Jamie said, them's fighting words!

    I loved Claire's "Geronimo" face. For some reason it gave me a deja vu moment, like I've seen that expression somewhere before. It's driving me nuts trying to remember!

    About the goat. I saw that more as spite than valor. Did the mother of the child seem devastated or in despair that her child would starve to anyone? The community would make sure the child wouldn't starve. Rent was a contractual obligation, not a tyrant landholder robbing the poor, and it was her husband's choice as to how it would be paid. That particular village had a very bountiful year. The next village was in dire straits because they had been robbed by the British and Dougal was very generous with them. This was a great portrayal of the culture clash that Claire is dealing with.

    YES! When that baby-faced blacksmith put his redcoat on I yelled, "Lord John!"

    I LOVED this episode! Dougal’s behavior was made to appear inexcusable from Claire's perspective but my heart BLED for him. He is truly eaten up by the atrocities being committed against his beloved kinsmen and believes passionately that restoring the Stuart king will be the remedy. Like Claire finally began to see at the end of the episode, it breaks my heart knowing what the future holds for these brave Highlanders!

    Regarding Claire being in every scene and the story being told from her POV. The point for me is that Claire in IN each scene and we are getting the opportunity to see not only her perspective, but everything that is happening around her that she doesn't notice or that she doesn't consider. Seeing her at a distance is delivering a much more objective perspective than we got in the books - and I am loving that!

    ValGal

    ReplyDelete
  8. No Kate from Lost......dark haired Cate Blanchett

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you have the audio versions of your podcasts posted? I tend to listen to things while being either auto "mobile" or "mobile' around the house and would love to listen to you gals!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi all! I’ve been trying to post here the last few weeks, and I hate that my first post is going to sound harshly critical, because I really love the series. And love your podcasts. I’m going to take the points you’ve made and view the episode again tomorrow to see if I will change my mind, but I’ve got a beef with the show’s writers and/or editors.

    Okay, can I go off here for a minute?

    Where the hell is Jamie? No, I don’t mean hurry up and get to the sex. I mean… where is the character? I had such great hopes with the first episode. That “throw you over my shoulder” scene was so spot on, so terrifically “Jamie,” that I felt these writers understood the character and they would let him be who he IS. Certainly Sam understands the character and has the capacity to play him. So why aren’t they letting him?

    Since that episode, we have seen Jamie scant few times, and usually when he’s giggling or making moony-eyed faces at Claire. They’ve cut his best lines… the lines that show his intelligence, his humor, his “laddishness,” all those things that actually make him more sexy. When they cut out his line at the oath-taking (“It’s an honor to be allied with a clan whose taste in whisky is so fine!”), I suspected we were in trouble. That line was a laugh line… but it also showed the humor with which the man walked that fine line. When you compliment the whisky, you compliment the house! A fine thing to do when you’ve just told the Laird, “Yeah, no thanks, bro…” But they Cut. It. Out. WHY?

    This week, they removed him from the bar fight scene. WHY? It’s not like it would have been difficult to leave him there and fight for Claire’s honor as well, would it? Even with the scene differing from the book, it would have worked. The whole point of the fight scene in the book was that Jamie was venting his rage at Dougal…rage that he could not act on. But he could sure pound that guy in the bar into a pulp, and he did. But no… Starz Jamie leaves to go “feed the horses.” DG’s Jamie was a man of action! To be incommunicado when a bar brawl is going on? Inconceivable! And then in another important scene when Jamie is telling Dougal off, I couldn’t hear half the dialogue! Is it asking too much to at least put a mic on them?

    And then, they axed another great Jamie line in the hallway: “They’d just think I was waiting my turn.” Come. ON. Why would it be so hard to add that here? Could they not have edited out one of the FOUR beats of Ned Gowan collecting coins and let Jamie have a line? Criminy, that pissed me off! Instead, we get another lingering, sappy stare in the hallway and a view of their hands for about 1.25 seconds too long. Sorry writers, showing a couple’s hands touching is not foreplay. Clever banter IS. Did they not ever see “Moonlighting?” We know Sam has the talent to play Jamie, but at this point, the writers haven’t really let him do much more than pose like Fabio and cast smoldering looks at Claire. In other words, they’ve reduced him to a stock Harlequin Romance character.

    I am getting the strong suspicion that the writer/s who created this Angus character are so enamored that they can’t seem to take the camera off him. We know more about the complexities of Angus at this point than we do about Jamie. And instead of a budding relationship between Claire and Jamie, we get Claire as Snow White with the Seven Scottish Dwarves telling gross tales of their sexual adventures. Did anyone else cheer when Officer Foster showed up? I did! I thought, “Thank God! Claire finally has a champion! And he’s cute, too! Yes… run off with him, dammit, and leave Dougal, his pouting nephew, and crew of dingy miscreants behind.”

    I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Claire does leave with the redcoats. I sure would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been spending a lot of time reading non-book reader reviews and they seem a lot more enthused about this episode than the book readers. I'm kind of glad they left Jamie out of the bar scene episode because it was starting to become a joke in the reviews and recaps on the Internet about how often he kept getting beaten up and Claire having to patch him up later - typically with his shirt off. I think one of the things that we as book readers have to get used to is that when a book is adapted to the screen, each episode has to have a definitive beginning and end, and a concept. It also has to be written to reach out to a wider demographic. There are production values that they have to hit. The concept of this episode was conflict, so it was more focused on Claire's culture clash and the Jacobite rebellion.

      For me, I saw Jamie, as a man in hiding with a price on his head, trying to keep a low profile because he was outside of the sanctuary of Leoch, exposed to the Watch and the British soldiers. He always kept an eye out for Claire, casting furtive glances to check on her welfare, offering good advice and stepping in to protect her when things got hot. I found that extremely credible and it was very well received by non-book readers, men and women alike. In theory, I don't expect to see him much if at all next week. They have to focus on the difficult choice Claire has to make and her confrontation with the British soldiers and Randall. But then the wedding episode comes in and Jamie will be front and center sharing the limelight with Claire from that point on.

      Outlander, from it's inception, has been fighting to avoid being classified as a romance story. That would doom this show. It is so much more than The Jamie and Claire story. I am very happy that they are taking the time for solid world-building and for developing ALL of the major characters and the dynamics between them. They have to cram an awful lot into one episode - huge chunks of text into one hour.

      My favorite lines from the book are different from yours. It would be an impossibly thankless job for them to satisfy every book reader. I'm a happy camper.

      ValGal

      Delete
    2. Correction: I forgot the flashbacks of Jamie's beatings will be featured next week!

      ValGal

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the thoughtful response ValGal.

      I’ve been thinking about this some more this week, and it still bothers me. It’s not a dealbreaker by any means. I will still pay for Starz, watch the series, and totally love it. But I still feel that while plot is of utmost importance, character development comes first. Without characters, there is no action, and without action, there are no characters. You can’t separate the two.

      So I am not talking about plot advancement. I am talking about Jamie’s character development. The cut line from the oath-taking is the perfect example. That line has nothing to do with Claire & Jamie’s relationship. It has nothing to do with romance. It has to do with Jamie’s character. That line illustrates Jamie’s potential: his political adeptness, his survivability, his wittiness, his strength and his flair for showmanship. It is the perfect example of why MEN would follow him, and why Dougal finds him so threatening. (And does that not come hugely into play later? What is it about this guy that men find so attractive? Not just Randall or Gray—what about MacRannoch or Ian? Or later on, Roger?) And it would have taken the editors 4 seconds of dialogue to keep the line in there. I just think it was a huge missed opportunity to describe Jamie’s character in more detail. And it didn’t have to be forced or overthought… Diana GAVE them the line. They just had to keep it.

      Apparently, I am the only one who missed that line, as I have not seen a single other comment on it. ::shrug::

      As for the fight scene…okay, I see your point. Claire IS always patching him up, usually with his shirt off, but he didn’t have to remove his shirt in that case. And didn’t he have his shirt off every time Dougal ripped it off anyway? So six in one, half dozen the other with the eyeroll factor… I think that fight scene was supposed to be about Jamie and his futile rage. They could have made Claire the catalyst and made the point about the clan’s claim on her and still shown how angry & frustrated Jamie was with Dougal, but they didn’t. Again, another missed opportunity to reveal Jamie and show how Dougal has this kid under his thumb right now, but is becoming very aware that he’s got a tiger by the tail. They’re not going to be successful illustrating that by leaving Jamie in the background, spinning his dirk.

      Delete
    4. I think the oath-taking scene is a perfect example of where the visual impact that is possible with film can communicate what books rely on words to do. Diana is an awesome wordsmith that can create pictures in your head. On screen we can actually see what she describes without hearing the words. I can only speak for myself, but the action on the screen in that scene - the expressions, posture, glances between characters, the reaction of the people witnessing the oath as the scene unfolds expressed Jamie's political adeptness, survivability, wittiness, strength and flair for showmanship. But it was expressed in a visual form rather than through the words that originally painted that picture in our imaginations. I have really been enjoying learning about the process of adaptation.

      ValGal

      Delete
    5. Dear Sophie - and everyone who's interested in this discussion,
      I hope, you're reading this since so many time has passed since your last response.
      (By the way: I hope, I write everything understandable. My mother tongue is German but I try to write English as correctly as possible.)

      SPOILER warning for the ones who haven't read the first book yet!!!!



      First: I did miss the line in the hall too. As you were I was so happy during the first episode, seeing and hearing Jamie act very similar to the way I imagined it. - I know that it's impossible for the series to fulfill every reader's expectations. But still I have my wishes how I would like the series to be. - Concerning the first episode Jamie's part was perfect for me. I loved the scene where Claire wants to escape near the Cocknammon Rock and he suggests he could throw her over his shoulder. I loved this scene in the book and I love it in the episode. Sam's face expressions are so perfect there, you can see the humour, not only hear it.

      I was wondering about the same things as you were. I really like the series including some changes they’ve made. But not the line cut out in the hall. ValGal is right, they showed what Diana had described but I think a bit of the humour was left out nonetheless.

      In the book Claire gets the more appreciated by the clansmen the more she's spent time with them. I don't remember Claire being excluded by the clansmen. They do speak Gaelic of course and they don't want her to know they're collecting money for the rebellion. But they like her and speaking Gaelic has nothing to do with their sympathies for her. In the series it seems as if they don't like her or at least some of them and this is why they speak Gaelic.
      So if they wouldn't have changed that and the insults then they wouldn't have had the need to create a scene afterwards to show that the clansmen care for Claire. Thus there wouldn't have been the need to change the fighting scene. Jamie could have had his fight. I know about the jokes in the internet about Jamie getting hurt all the time and Claire fixing him. But actually this scene was different and he wasn't badly injured. You could have left the healing part out perfectly. And – no matter what people in the internet say – it is what it is: Jamie IS healed by Claire very often.
      By the way: Why did they change the hurting-trees-scene? Originally it was Claire's idea for him to hit something, e.g. a tree to get rid of his anger. Such changes are changes I totally don't understand. Maybe one of you and I'm always willing to hear/read another person's opinion.

      But since I'm already in critisizing mood: Maybe it's just me but I'm missing quite a few of the laughing parts, not only concerning Jamie. In the book it's Claire telling us her story and no matter how confusing, depressing or threatening a situation is, she never looses her humour. This is one part of her which makes the books so interesting. I love Caitriona playing Claire but I don't understand why there aren't more jokes she's making. This doesn't only refer to the things she's saying but to the ones she's doing, too. Remember the scene in Black Jack Randall's office after she tried to get to the Craigh na Dun and fell into the water. She decorates his office with wet seaweed and blemishes Black Jack's wig. I miss this behaviour in the series.

      I can imagine that many people love Angus and his jokes. There are some jokes, especially when he's with Rupert, I wouldn't want to miss either. But I don't really understand why they've invented all these jokes when there were so many good jokes in the book they're not using. I'd say in the books the humorous part is Claire's and Jamie's one but in the series it seems they're kind of replaced by Angus and Rupert concerning the humour. I'd like to have more of the book here.

      What do you – anyone – think?

      apple blossom

      Delete
  11. My biggest complaint? The white fichu Claire wore stayed pristine even after the hot piss wool slapping scene!
    And yes they could have easily included Jamie's hallway line.

    ReplyDelete
  12. re: Gaelic - is there a list somewhere of all the words with phonetics and definitions?
    Wish someone would make a bookmark. And maybe on the reverse it could have place names with pronunciations and photos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. found one: includes a link to 'je suis preste'
      http://outlander.wikia.com/wiki/Gaelic

      Delete
    2. correction: 'je suis prest' (pardon my French - Jamie always does that to me!!)

      Delete
  13. Dougal can not marry Claire because she is English and that means he could never become head of the clan.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What was the redcoat doing in the village? I understand why he's there at the end. I like that story line better than the book's as I did not understand why Dougal took Claire to Fort Augustus with Jamie to boot, unless he wanted to get rid of both of them. But then why not leave Claire there? I guess so that Jamie and Claire would get married and J's claims to the MacKenzie lairdship would be gone. But that English dragoon working in a Scottish village...does it make any sense? Could he live there in peace? And if he was, would the Scots even dare not respect his authority, considering the retaliations would certainly not be pleasant? I'm surprised it didn't bother many viewers. It sure didn't make sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Diana answered the question about the redcoat in the village on CompuServ:

    "His horse had thrown a shoe and he'd stopped to make repairs; he's borrowed the apron he's wearing from the local farrier. In the scene as shot, he introduces himself immediately as Lt. Jeremy Foster, and asks Claire if she's all right, whereupon the Highlanders menace him away.

    They cut the first part of the scene when they edited the episode, and then added that quick visual of him putting on his hat and coat, so we'd know he was a soldier, and recognize him when he shows up with his buds at the end. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh THANKS Anon. I think someone should make a site that consolidates all of DG's answers to questions about filming. I love this info!!

      Delete
    2. Carol, I swing by CompuServ once a day to read all of Diana's posts. If I see any juicy tidbits, I'll bring them on over here.

      ValGal

      Delete
    3. Oooh ValGal...that would be MUCH appreciated!!!

      Delete
  16. Fantastic video and right on "target" as usual. That cracked me up. I was picturing what that commercial might look like. Who needs a DG event for a Gathering? We just need a Target and then a good pub to hit up later. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So glad I stopped by to see how you both reacted to ep. 5. I've been kind of mixed about it, but have really enjoyed your perspectives. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the show and am excited to see it every Saturday. There were just a few things that threw me this week. Not the red coat thing, hey there's going to be minor plot changes here and there, I like that b/c it offers something new to those of us who read the books (multiple times over). I just thought Jamie seemed different-- hitting the tree rather than Claire telling him to--he's always been one who can hide his emotions and deal with stress, but in that scene it didn't seem so, and he seemed to stay back a lot when Claire was being threatened. Now I am thinking though that us readers tend to live in the mature and well developed Jamie world, but this is only book 1, and he is young here! Same with Claire, people have felt she was stronger than being portrayed, but again this is not the Claire who fully knows what has happened to her and has a grasp of the situation--its only book one!

    That being said I fully appreciate your thoughts on Jamie's giving Claire a reality check! I do agree with Tracy though--Angus seemed a wee bit crankit this episode, which in the previous episodes was not shown. And Carol I keep having the same worries about the non-readers audience!! I keep asking myself are they getting it, do they like it?? Love all the perspectives!! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steph!! We'll keep our fingers crossed for the non-fans!! :)

      Delete
  19. Carol and Tracey: My name is Elizabeth and I'm an addict.. I discovered the books and the Starz show in August. Keep up the great work. The two of yous are quite amusing.

    ReplyDelete