![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jo posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
outlander_forum***WARNING: This post and discussion may contain spoilers for anyone who is not current with the Starz series Outlander (including seasons 1 and 2) or who has not read the first three books in the series.***
This thread is for discussing episode 302 of Outlander. Please limit your comments to what happened in the episode. If you wish to explore how the episode differed from the book, please do so on the show-book deviation thread.
Episode 302 (September 17, 2017) – “Surrender” written by Anne Kenney, directed by Jennifer Getzinger
Synopsis: Hiding in a cave, Jamie leads a lonely life until Lallybroch is threatened by redcoats pursing the elusive Jacobite traitor. In Boston, Claire and Frank struggle to coexist in a marriage haunted by the ghost of Jamie.
Have at it, people! Did you like the episode? Thoughts, impressions, quibbles, highlights and lowlights?
no subject
Date: 2017-09-18 01:05 pm (UTC)The episdoe titles -- 301 was The Battle Joined, and 302 Surrender. So in 301, we had Jamie and Claire metaphorically battling to survive -- joining the fight to simply live/stay alive (Jamie) and to build a new life (Claire and also Frank). In 302, they've surrendered in many ways. Jamie lives, but he isn't truly alive. He's lost his culture and his family -- Claire, obviously, but also in many ways his immediate family because his presence endangers them. Claire and Frank meanwhile have surrendered to the realization that they can't make things work between them. Frank surrenders to the realization that he's lost her -- he still wants her, but not the way she is now; Claire was willing to pretend with him for her own needs, but gives up on that as well. So everyone has surrendered to their situation and finds a way to move forward.
I hope we see way more of Joe Abernathy in the next few episodes. Also, was I the only one sort of surprised by how he pronounced his last name? I've always read it as A-bernathy -- with the emphasis on the first syllable. In the show it was pronounced Aber-NAthy -- with the emphasis on the 3rd syllable. Not that it matters much -- I'm sure there will be bigger debate over how to pronounce Marsali's name...
I thought this episode did brilliantly at driving home the impact/effect both Claire's and Jamie's pining for each other was having on those around them.
Romann Berrux as Fergus was really, really good in this episode. He echoed Murtagh at times, you could feel his pain at having been abandoned by the only real parents he'd known -- Claire and Jamie. Especially the loss of Jamie -- who while still physically present, was completely absent. Yet it is Fergus who brings Jamie back.
And kudos have to go to Steven Cree and Laura Donnelly (Ian and Jenny Murray). Donnelly is always so strong in her portrayal of Jenny, but in this episode, she really shines. It was her hurt and tears at the very end of the episode, when she's turned Jamie in to the British, that had me tearing up.
I've seen a fair number of comments on social media (Twitter) from "fans" bitching about how "no one" cares about this stuff -- just get Claire and Jamie back together, and that baffles me. You can't expect two people to be apart for 20 years and then get back together and be just like they were. Look how Claire is for Frank after only 3 years away! I figure most of the people who make these sorts of comments are not book readers, but man, I just want to slap them. Honestly -- the 20 years apart could have been a standalone season given how much happens to both during those years. But undoubtedly, a significant portion of the fanbase would not have tolerated that at all.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 03:45 pm (UTC)That said, I do understand the importance of the between-time. It's important. I'm sure I'd be pissed if they were skipping things, too, and I'll probably appreciate all of it when I do a full-season look over in the end. I'm just impatient now.
(And also really unimpressed with Caitriona Balfe at the moment, but that's not really the writers' fault.)
I agree that Sam Heughan is making me care about Jamie's story, when in the book, I just wanted to punch him in his depressed little face. Not right away, but eventually.
Oh, Fergus. I love Fergus. The actor is adorable, and does such an excellent job.
I also may have stared at the screen with the thought, "Wait. They have more children than this, right? Am I forgetting the timeline of their kids? No. Ian's one of the youngest? Are they just not writing the others? Because they're not unimportant. I mean, they're not all integral, but hey!" It's a personal pet peeve when shows either A) forget kids exist in order to have their parents go off and do cool things, or B) completely write out the kids when they existed in a different canon. (I liked how the writers for Wynonna Earp dealt with the baby, since it wasn't meant to be a thing, it just, well, oops?)
In spite of all my "oh my god put them in the same place!" I think I'd be incredibly pissed if the awkwardness and not-working between Jamie and Claire at the start wasn't there. If it isn't there. There's a tense there, I'm sure. That was one of the lovelier parts of the book.
Then again, "Voyager" just has so much happen that I have no idea how all of it's going to fit. "Dragonfly in Amber" did a decent job of cutting (though not certain things, fuck them) because while there were a lot of details, they weren't all necessary to the plot or future plots. "Voyager" has an insane number of details, and almost all of them are necessary. I'm worried that other things will be cut in order for the build up to be well-done.
HMMMMM. Oh, man.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-09-21 11:48 pm (UTC)