For Fans of the Outlander Books and Show

I've had  somewhat of a mixed reaction to season 5. On the one had, I will be the first to admit that I think it's an incredibly strong season -- one of the best. It's right up there with season 1. Unfortunately for me, it's also mostly based on my least favourite book of the series, and includes a number of my least favourite plot lines. And because of that, I was rather "meh" about a number of the episodes. This is the first time I've really wished I wasn't a book reader!

That said, the season finale was simply magnificent. The cast had hinted to a major risk they took in the finale, and hoped it would be well received. I have to assume that the risk in question was the inclusion of the 1960s "dream' scenes used to  illustrate Claire's disassociation during her rape. The "modern" scenes were beautifully shot. The background music -- the Associations' "Never My Love", the colours, the costumes.... and the easter eggs. So many little throwbacks to past seasons -- more specifically, to moments where Clair had to make choices. The blue vase she spied in the window of the antiques show in Episode 101, where she mused about never being owning a vase because she'd never settled in one place long enough to acquire one -- surely the vase represents the ideal of "home". Jamie wrapping a tartan around her shoulders, protecting her -- something he did more than a few times in the first season. The orange -- from season 2, when she made a deal with the devil King of France to secure Jamie's release. The abstract rendition of Fraser's Ridge on her wall. Having all her family around her -- except of course for Bree and Roger because she doesn't know what's become of them.

I've seen the expected comments on social media from "fans" denouncing not only that they showed Claire's rape, but that this story line was even included in the first place, saying it was unnecessary and contributes nothing to character development. Odd opinion to hold. First of all, I think the show handled it better than the book did. In the book, Claire's abduction is a random event by a random group of thugs. At least in the show, they built a foundation for this even happening -- having Claire's "Dr. Rawlings" persona come back to bite her. In the book, Claire is raped by only one man, and he's not violent with her - he just really misses his wife -- she's not gang raped as she is in the show. But to say there's no character development or that it's a meaningless plot line is incorrect. Even in book 8, Jamie is still hunting down the man who did the actual raping. Claire is definitely still feeling the effects of that event in book 8 -- Jenny picks up on it.

(Side note -- I wonder how Roger feels knowing he's the only one in the family who's not been raped yet...)

We have the resolution to the what happened to the MacKenzies -- they are right back where they started -- home. Their will to leave was indeed not strong enough. I admit that I was initially a bit confused about the timing of events. In 511, we learned it took about 2 weeks to get from the Ridge to the stones. I was trying to figure out how Ian, Roger and Bree got back in time to join Jamie in rescuing Claire, but I guess the attack on the still and Claire's abduction happened when Ian and the MacKenzies were about 1-2 days' away from the Ridge on their way back from the stones?

It was just a great episode all around, difficult subject-matter notwithstanding. Here are some links to interesting articles about the episode, including one with the costume designer on how they decided on the 1960s looks for each character:

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/g32410782/outlander-trisha-biggar-claire-season-5-finale-interview/
https://www.glamour.com/story/outlander-season-5-finale-recap
https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a32428271/outlander-caitriona-balfe-season-5-finale-interview/
https://variety.com/2020/tv/features/outlander-season-5-finale-claire-assault-death-spoilers-interview-1234602048/

I am very much behind in posting about the episodes. It's been over a week since I last watched episode 509, and I made no notes to myself when I did watch it, and I've watched episode 510 only once thus far.

I don't have much to say about 509 -- aka the one about the snake. It was very close to the source material and the entire cast put in stellar performances. Had I written something a week ago, I'd have more to say, but right now, I just can't really.

I've watched 510 only once. Before the season actually started airing, Maril Davis made a comment during an interview that season 5 was mostly based on book 5, The Fiery Cross, but also with a bit of book 6. I wondered what that would entail, and now we know.

The showrunners decided to complete the Stephen Bonnet storyline a season early, so the episode mixed some elements of what happens with Bonnet in book 5, will pretty much everything that happens with him in book 6. Which was fine, for a couple of reasons. First, there is a lot going on in terms of the main plot going forward, and so they don't really need to keep this constant threat/distraction alive over the course of an entire other season. Second, some of the stuff that happens involving Bonnet in book 6 falls into the "Diana Gabaldon's weird stuff" category, and honestly, we don't really need that.

Man, I don't know... both of these episodes were really good, but at the same time, I am just so not inspired to say anything much about either. Maybe it's just due to external factors -- the current weird times we're living in due to COVID-19. Maybe it's because they've both followed the source material quite closely and thus have felt far more predictable to me, making me less inclined to want to rewatch them. I may be the only person out there who kind of wishes they maybe weren't sticking to the source material quite as much...

This was a truly excellent episode, but the title did not seem to fit. It was more a prelude to the ballad of Roger Mac than the ballad of. Roger sort of book-ended this episode, but wasn't really present during most of it.

No, this episode was more about Jamie. Jamie turning 50, realizing he'd lived longer than his father. Jamie hoping there was still a chance to avoid the coming battle (and likely confrontation with Murtagh). Jamie seeking spiritual guidance from his dead uncle Dougall. Jamie being forced into wearing the uniform that had brought so much misery to his life. Jamie leading men into battle, again. Jamie losing someone very close to him. It was Jamie's episode more than Roger's.

As much as I love Duncan Lacroix and his portrayal of Murtagh, I am glad that the Murtagh storyline has ended. I had mixed feelings about the decision to keep him alive, and the plot changes that required. On the whole, I think they were handled quite well. I think the biggest plus in keeping Murtagh alive was the decision to have him lead the Regulators. The Regulators, from what I understand, are not a well-known part of American history. I am not American, so I'd never heard of them before reading Fiery Cross, and to be honest, I always found those parts of the novel somewhat dull. I just didn't really care about the Regulators at all. Putting Murtagh front and centre in that storyline made you care about -- or at least be somewhat more interested in -- the Regulators and their grievances. I remember some comments from "fans" online in season two who found the political stuff at the French Court boring. Well, they'd likely have found the Regulator stuff really boring too if Murtagh hadn't been a part of it.

It's funny how certain scenes evoke different responses or memories in different people. When Murtagh was shot, fell into Jamie's arms and the two of them stumble-danced to the ground, some were reminded of when Jamie last had to say goodbye to someone he loved -- in season 2 when he danced Claire to the stones. I didn't think of that at all. What it reminded me of was episode 301 -- when Black Jack and Jamie fought to exhaustion, and Black Jack fell into Jamie's arms as they fell to the ground. I found it ironic that both the man Jamie loved the most and the one he hated the most died in his arms.

But this was, according to title, the balled of Roger Mac. But his story will truly be sung beginning with the next episode (which unfortunately, won't air next week, but the week after). We started the episode with Roger saying goodbye to Bree and Jemmy as he headed off to meet up with the militia. Then he plays messenger to attempt to warn off Murtagh of the disaster that awaits the Regulators. And then he encounters his several times great grand-mother, Morag MacKenzie, and her husband Buck (hello Graham McTavish!). And then we see or hear nothing of Roger for the rest of the episode. Until the very end.

Very mean of them to end in a cliffhanger (albeit less of one for book readers).

Stellar episode, solid acting by all. I'd be remiss to not comment on the sliminess of the Browns, which portends well for future events involving them. Also, after the debate (online) over Claire's hypodermic needle (how did it survive the hurricane and shipwreck?!), we need no longer worry -- she no longer has a hypodermic needle. Meaning events can proceed as per the book.

As mentioned, no episode 508 next week -- Starz is doing a season 5 marathon. For people not in the US -- well, we just have to wait. Episode 508 was written by Diana Gabaldon, and in an interview, she spoke highly of Richard's performance. I think 508 will be the real ballad of Roger Mac. We shall see...

After episodes 503 and 504, which I found to be somewhat... dull? because they mirrored the book so closely, they were very predictable and I felt as if I'd already seen them while watching them for the first time, episode 505 was an absolute joy.

There was some sort-of-faithful to the the books material, and some not-at-all in the books material. Of course, Jamie's storyline with Lt. Knox was a complete invention -- yet again necessitated by the decision to keep Murtagh alive and well. But at least it was interesting. Some have found Jamie's murder of Knox to be out of character for him. Perhaps, but then again, it wasn't something he did lightly.W know Jamie will do pretty much anything to protect his family. He has said in the books that he remembers each death he has caused. He carries the weight of killing with him, maybe not said, but definitely implied.

I adored the flashbacks to the Voyager-era events surrounding Claire's decision to take a leave of absence and go to the UK with Bree. We didn't get those scenes in Season 3, so it was a lovely surprise to see them incorporated into this season -- including the reappearance of Joe Abernathy. But again, with regards to the Graham Menzies storyline, we see another random thing that the showrunners changed from the novel for unclear reasons. In Voyager, Menzies didn't die of an allergic reaction to penicillin -- his was an assisted suicide. He had a terminal illness and Claire helped him on his final journey, which was of course illegal to do. She was found out and her leave of absence was bit more forced upon her than voluntarily taken. Why the need to change that detail? I suppose the producers wanted to drive home how dangerous Claire's dabbling with homebrew penicillin might be, but at the same time, having her "kill" a patient deliberately through assisted suicide would parallel Jamie killing Knox to a degree?

I also appreciated the Roger-Brianna scenes, and I really wish that couple would get better at communicating with each other. They have improved on that front. And at least everything's out in the open now.

We also had the twins' tonsillectomy (even if we saw only Kezzie get his done). Online is all abuzz wondering WHERE DID THE SYRINGE COME FROM?? Some posit it's one Claire brought with her from the 1960s in Voyager, but surely they were all lost at sea in the hurricane? The lack of syringe is a fairly significant plot point in the book. Again, one of those things that get changed and have me wondering why it was thought necessary?

And last but not least, ADSO! Adorable ball of fluff that he is!

Loved this episode.

From SYFY. First on episode 502:


And on ep. 503:

As I stated at the end of the post about episode 502, I was rather dreading this episode. I hate this part of the book. I imagined it all very graphically when reading it, and while I wasn't bothered by the tar and feathering in 502, I really did not want to see some of what unfolds in this part of the story.

I needn't have worried. The episode follows the book very closely, with only minor changes and omissions. But it wasn't at all as creepy or unpleasant as I was dreading -- probably because I knew what was coming, and there is no way the show could have matched what I'd imagined when reading. So while I'm certain some of the more sensitive viewers out there would be cringing with their eyes shut during some parts, I was left rather unmoved by the episode.

Maybe because I dislike this part of the book so much, my favourite parts of the episode were all the other parts. Jamie and Roger leading the men away from the Ridge to round up a larger militia; meeting Kezzie Beardsley and learning about the twins' past. It was our first opportunity to see the twins -- played by the same actor, Paul Gorman. I thought it was done very well -- never really felt that the scenes with both Jo and Kezzie present were in part CGI/special effects. I appreciated that they included the small scene between Mrs. Findlay and Roger, as she lets him sign up her two sons.

The one thing that did intrigue me about this episode occurred when Fergus went looking for a piece of paper on which to write down the wording of the notice Jamie wanted to publish in the local (?) paper about his militia recruitment drive. Fergus grabs a piece that clearly has writing on one side, the other side is blank. Likely notes Claire has made about something... and the camera pans to focus on Claire's penicillin experiments in the background. I have to assume this means something that Claire has written down will either be published and cause problems going forward, or will be read by someone in town at the printer's --- either way, it will be important, otherwise why include that scene with the final shot on the mold jars? This entire scene is not in the book -- Jamie does not place an ad in the paper -- so it's difficult to know why this was included and what will come of it.

ETA: I've been thinking about this and this idea occurred to me. What if because of this, Claire contributes to the official discovery of penicillin? Her notes fall into the hands of the ancestors of Alexander Fleming? Of course, not sure how they'd work that into the overall plot -- wouldn't really make any sense. More likely it's something that will just cause Claire a lot of grief...

I don't have much else to say about the episode, at least, not at the moment. Maybe once I've seen some reactions online, I will comment further, but for now, I will leave it at that.

• Claire -- who faces two different fires: first, the issue of how much of her medical knowledge and skills can she use without being accused of being a witch, and second, loving having her family (Bree, Roger and Jemmy) in the past with her, but also wanting them to go back to the safety of the future;
•  Bree -- who would be happy to stay in the past, but knows Roger doesn't want to;
• Marsali -- who may be fighting some conflicting feelings between her love and loyalty for her mother, Laoghaire, and her growing love and respect for Claire.

I am slightly dreading next week's episode -- the one about the Beardsleys...

THERE ARE LOADS OF SPOILERS HERE --FOR THE EPISODE, THE BOOK, OTHER BOOKS/SEASONS


I've been looking forward to posting about this episode, and also dreading it, out of fear of not being able to adequately express my thoughts about this episode. There are a great many excellent bloggers who write about Outlander -- I am not one of them, alas. But the longer I procrastinate, the less likely anything substantial will be written at all. So here we go.

Last fall, I did a reread of The Fiery Cross, the novel this season is largely based on (apparently there will be some aspects of book 6 as well). I had some comments on the early part of that novel -- more specifically about the infamous Gathering. You can read the main post here. I was dreading that we'd be treated to an entire episode based at the Gathering, and we were, but in a different way. There was a gathering -- at Fraser's Ridge, specifically for Bree and Roger's wedding. So instead of a huge, week-long (I think?) Gathering of all Scottish settlers in and about North Carolina, we were treated to a much smaller gathering of the Frasers, their tenants, and a few select guests -- some invited, e.g. Aunt Jocasta and Lord John Grey, and one uninvited -- Governor Tryon.

In my reread, I identified a few key events that I thought the show would have to include (because most of what happens at the Gathering in the novel most certainly did not have to be included in the show as they were incidents unrelated to the overall plot of the story). These were:
a) the calling of the clans (which actually happens at the end of DofA);
b) Jamie being ordered to muster up a militia
c) the weddings

Episode 501 gave us all three, in a way. The writers linked a and b in a wonderful way -- Jamie is ordered by the Governor to get serious about finding Murtagh, and a small company of soldiers is left at the ridge to assist him in that task. This prompts Jamie to burn the cross while everyone is still at the Ridge following the wedding, and call out to the various men assembled to join him in battle "when the time comes".

Of course, the main point of the entire episode is a wedding, Roger and Bree's. Given that season 4 had given us a romance between Jocasta and Murtagh, and there was no Duncan Innes character, I didn't see how there could be two weddings at the gathering. However, we did learn that there is a Duncan Innes after all, and he has proposed to Jocasta. They've even cast the character, as he was listed in the acting credits at the end of the episode. I've rewatched the episode several times now, and I've not been able to identify one character as definitively Duncan Innes. There was one brief shot of a older man talking to the priest, and the man seemed to have one hand inside his vest -- sort of like Napoleon -- but I couldn't tell if he was missing that hand, or that entire arm (since book Duncan has only one arm). Suffice it to say that it seems as if the later plot point surrounding Jocasta's wedding to Duncan will likely take place after all.

Another set of characters who were listed in the credits but not formally identified during the episode were the Bugs. I tried and failed to identify them in crowd shots as well, but they've been cast, which means we'll see them going forward.

There was one new character we definitely did meet -- even though he wasn't at the Gathering in the novel -- was one half of the Beardsley twins, Josiah. And they've set up the future relationship with Lizzie.

And now that the administrative stuff is out of the way... the episode itself was lovely. The Outlander writers like to do callbacks to previous events and episodes, and there were many in this one. There was the obvious one while Bree and Roger recited their vows -- we got a flashback to Claire and Jamie's wedding in season1. But there were other, more subtle ones. For example, after she overheard Lord John telling Jamie that Stephen Bonnet is alive and well and kicking about the Carolinas, Bree has a PTSD episode. When she and Roger retire for the night after the wedding, Roger can sense that something isn't quite right. He pours them a glass of whisky, which Bree gulps down -- the scene is very reminiscent of Jamie and Claire's first night together. And just as Jamie tried to relax Claire by telling her stories, Roger sits Bree down and sings to her. Jamie had three conditions for marrying Claire: a dress, a ring and a priest -- each of those is featured in this episode as well.

Oaths featured prominently in this episode. We began with Murtagh's oath to little Jamie after Ellen died. There are the wedding oaths, of course. Then the oaths of loyalty the men of the Ridge swear to Jamie. The episode ends with Jamie releasing Murtagh of his oath.

I've read a few reviews of the episode and one thing that has bugged me somewhat is that all of them reference Jamie's lingering issue re: Roger as being his delay in coming back to Bree and attributing this to Roger being either uncertain of his love for Bree, or uncertain that he could love the baby, which might not be his. But, having recently (yesterday) rewatched the final episode of season 4, Roger's "issue" wasn't his love for Bree, but the fact that they would be stuck in the past. It's when Claire tells them that Bree can't go back through the stones because of the baby that Roger hesitates. He had never planned to spend any time in the past at all, he knows he's got nothing that would pass for useful skills in the 1700s -- of course that would give one pause.

Anyway, this was an excellent episode, and sets up a very good vibe for the rest of the season.

kind of fun. The cast plays "who said it --Jamie Fraser or a Disney character?

Sam Heughan, Caitriona Balfe, Richard Rankin and Sophie Skelton on season 5: