outlander_forum | Entries tagged with episode discussion

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/

At last! An episode that I felt inclined to rewatch at least once!

We have an interesting mix of books 5 and 6 in this episode. It opened with -- if I recall correctly as it's been ages since I've read book 6 -- the opening of book 6, Jamie and Claire coming across a burned out home. And then word of the Browns' Committee of Safety. But in between those two scenes, we have something that came at the very end of book 5 -- the realization that Jemmy can indeed travel through the stones.

Which sets in motion something else that occurs in book 6 -- but much later in book 6 -- Roger and Brianna's decision to go back to their own time. Of course book readers know that the reason they leave in book 6 follows the birth of their 2nd child, Mandy. Mandy has a heart condition that can only be corrected by surgery, which Claire is able to do, but won't do on an infant sans anesthetic (and other modern surgical aides). The only hope for Mandy is for the family to pack up and head back to the future.

In the series of course, they've not had Mandy. The decision to leave is because they'd decided to do so once they knew Jemmy could go through the stones. They don't belong in the past, had never planned to live there -- it's the right thing to do.

So the MacKenzies, witnessed by Ian, disappear through the stones, and this is the most intriguing part of the episode for me. When they wake up on the other side, we don't see where they've ended up. The look on their faces, however, suggests that maybe the trip didn't end up as planned? Jemmy seems quite pleased by... something? I've seen comments online positing that their will to leave wasn't strong enough and the stones spit them back out to where they'd left from, and Jemmy was simply seeing Young Ian. Possible.... However, Ian did see them go through, and if they'd popped out the other side, he would have noticed them? Of course, I am not certain how long the actual travel takes -- maybe there's a delay before the traveller emerges on the other side? In book 4, Roger's first attempt to go through doesn't work and the stones "eject" him -- he has to use Fiona's engagement ring to try a 2nd time. But the "ejection" seemed almost instantaneous.

In book 8, Roger goes through the stones trying to track down Jemmy, who has been kidnapped by someone and Bree and Roger mistakenly think this individual forced Jemmy to go through the stones with him. And Roger overshoots and ends up in Scotland just prior to when Claire would have arrived -- Jamie is still in France. Long story short, but Bree and the kids have to travel back that far to find him. But this can't be that -- they wouldn't have jumped ahead to book 8. Plus, they're not in Scotland so if they have travelled somewhere, they're still in the Americas. We just don't know when they are in the Americas.

The rest of the episode is more book 6 unpleasantness involving the Browns, setting up for the finale, with Jamie and men from the Ridge going off to rescue Claire. Roger was very much a part of that, so fingers crossed that Roger and Bree are still in the same time period?

Other notes:

good to see that Ulysses will be safe -- headed off to England with Lord John;
Jamie telling Bree about William was a nice, not from the book, moment;
Jame and Claire finally telling Ian about the whole time travelling thing
but we still don't know Ian's back story with the Mohawks (unless you've read the books)

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...

Wow.

I'm actually going to start with something Matt Roberts says in the "inside the episode" feature that airs after the episode, and that is, if you've watched 508 only once, watch it again before making up your mind.

Episode 508 took a couple of major creative chances, either or both could have backfired. That both succeeded makes 508 one of the very best episodes of Outlander -- not of season 5, but of the entirety of the series thus far.

In my post on 507, I noted that despite being entitled "The Ballad of Roger Mac", 507 focused more on Jamie, and that 508 would be the real ballad of Roger Mac. I wasn't wrong. But rather than a ballad, we got a silent movie, literally and metaphorically. I am not going to lie -- when the silent film treatment first started, I was not only taken aback, but initially found myself thinking that I didn't like it very much. But then understanding dawned on me, as the episode played out, and on subsequent viewings, I marvelled at it. I think the silent movie imagery was genius and worked beautifully! They could have gone with a more conventional "holding-the-audience-by-the hand" approach in the form of unnecessary dialogue and/or voiceovers. But they didn't do that. Film is a visual medium and using a visual language to convey what is going on inside Roger was genius.

And apart from using the silent movie visual approach, this episode was almost a silent movie itself in terms of lack of dialogue. Roger was silent through most of it. Young Ian was no longer the loquacious young man from season 4 -- he was remote, barely speaking. Having the two pair up for a large part of the episode was risky -- as Matt pointed out. But the story unfolded clearly nonetheless, through gestures, facial expressions, and yes, even through silence.

The acting in this episode was superb all-around, with special kudos to Richard Rankin, Sophie Skelton and John Bell. I don't have the words (no pun intended) to do this episode justice. It's eloquent silence was simply magnificent

ERRATUM: In my post on episode 507, I wrote that Diana Gabaldon penned the script for 508. She did not. She wrote the script for 511, I believe. I think I had confused her comments on some panel about the quality of Richard Rankin's performance in 508 with her comments about writing one of the episodes.

.

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...

This was another episode that beautifully blended actual book content with non-book content -- what I think I am going to call hybrid episodes.

From the book, we get the main plot of the episode, Jocasta's wedding to Duncan Innes. (Side note: I know Innes is pronounced "In-niss", but seriously, am I the only one who always hears "Ducan Heinz" in my head when I see that name?) But even that storyline wasn't completely book-true. It couldn't be, of course, because of the Murtagh factor. Other differences were the subplot of the attempt to murder Duncan, with the slave Betty ending up dead instead, which lead to Claire doing the autopsy to prove it was murder, being discovered in the process of doing said autopsy by Stephen Bonnet and friends, the shed burning down etc., and also the actual physical attack on Jocasta and Duncan in an attempt to learn of the wheareabouts of the gold, leading to Jocasta telling Jamie and others about the gold's existence...

But at least we finally have learned about the gold, thanks to the flashback that opened the episode, and then having those events being retold by Jocasta to Murtagh. So only Murtagh knows about the gold, not Jamie and co.

Also different was the presence of Gov. Tryon at the wedding (and Lord John, who, I repeat, is not physically present at all in Book 5).

What was fairly same-y was the whole Philip Wylie storyline. Somewhat tweaked, yes, but essentially the same.

What was new were the events back at the Ridge. At least, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a plague of locusts in the book. If there was, I've completely forgotten about it. I quite liked that storyline, and it was nice to see Roger finally able to do something that gained him a measure of respect.

Fun time travel speculation: Roger gets the idea for the smoke to ward off the swarm from a story he remembers the Reverend reading to him when Roger was a child. What if the story the Reverend read was actually a recounting of or based on Roger's actions on the Ridge?

As always, there were some scenes from the book that were left out, and I for one am very glad that they were. Chief among those was that really bizarro scene from when Claire is sleeping in the room with a bunch of other female wedding guests, and someone sneaks in and sexually molests her foot. It's never clear if it's Jamie or someone else, completely pointless, and yeah -- glad it was left out. Some on social media were unhappy with the scene in the stable -- the second one, where Jamie and Claire go at it, but I barely remember that scene from the book, so not sure what they're upset about -- that no one was naked?

I also liked the bit at the end, with Forbes telling Bonnet that "his son" is now the owner of River Run. Again, I think the show is doing a much better job than the book did with regards to the Bonnet storyline.

Going forward, episode 507 will be the Battle at Alamance, and quite likely will include the series of unfortunately events that befall Roger? I know Diana Gabaldon wrote the episode after that one, 508, and I think I recall her making some specific comments about Richard's acting in that one, so it's likely the aftermath of what will happen next week? Both looking forward to and dreading that one in equal measure!

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS!!

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.

Watch on YouTube

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS!!

Episode 504, like episode 503, was a pretty faithful adaptation of the source material when it came to the main plot of the episode, the events in Brownsville. Some minor tweaks and changes, of course, but for the most part, what we got was what was in the book. And as much as loads of people complained very very much last season about how the show was not following the book closely enough, I have to say that I found both 503 and 504 a wee bit... dull? Because for the most part, I knew exactly what to expect and it just felt as if I'd already seen both episodes.

Don't get me wrong -- 504 like 503, is superbly well done, great acting all around, etc. But again, as was the case last week, I found myself enjoying the scenes that weren't really based on anything specific from the book more than the scenes that were.

For example: I love how the show is keeping the threat/ghost of Stephen Bonnet omnipresent. In the book, while Bonnet is referenced, he doesn't turn up until near the end. And that was always a wee bit odd to me because how did he know Bree and Jemmy would be where he encountered them? Was it just coincidence? But the show has established that Bonnet is -- if not actively trying to find Bree and the baby, at least very interested in the idea that he has a son. The show is also doing a great job at showing us the trauma that Bree is still dealing with, or trying to deal with. Really wish she'd open up to people about what she's going through.

Another great addition was the scene between Marsali and Brianna. There's minimal interaction between two characters in the books, you don't get any real sense of any sort of relationship that might have developed between the two. Consequently, it is lovely to see a blossoming friendship and respect between them, and I hope we see more of that going forward.

We did find out this week what where the notes scrawled on the back of the sheet of paper Fergus grabbed to write out Jamie's militia ad. Turns out it was a copy of Claire's "Dr. Rawlings Recommends", and it did indeed get published, much to Claire's dismay. And speaking of Dr. Rawlings... In the books, in the medical chest that used to belong to the good doctor, Claire finds a journal in which Rawlings kept notes on all the patients he treated. This is not referenced, or hasn't been, in the show. We do see Claire at one point in one of the episodes writing notes in a journal, but there's been no specific reference to the Rawlings journal. This matters, of course, because of the Frenchman's gold subplot. This plotline has been 100% absent from the story thus far. There's been no sign or mention of a mausoleum at River Run, where of course, the gold is hidden. Rawlings made cryptic notes in his journal after having treated Jocasta, that provide another clue about the existence of the gold. I keep wondering if/when the show's going to bring this forward. They can't leave it out. It's critical to the plot going forward -- the Mrs Bug storyline, Bree and Roger back in the 1980s, etc.

Another plot deviation in 504 involved Jamie ordering Roger to accompany Claire and the Beardsley twins back to the Ridge. That certainly wasn't in the book. They both need to be with the militia when the battle (more of a squirmish) with the Regulators happens otherwise when does Roger end up almost hanged to death? Surely that is one plot point they aren't going to leave out? It's such a major event in Roger's life. At one point in the show, Claire tells Roger that they will likely make it back in time to rejoin the militia -- I think. To be honest, I couldn't quite make out exactly what she said, even though I watched the episode twice. It just seems odd to send them back to do the surgery on the twins, then have them go back out? I get why some changes to the storyline are made, but not others.

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS!!

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.

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS!!!

This was one of those transition/exposition episodes that can be a bit hit and miss. Given some of the comments I've read online, that's pretty much the fan reaction -- equal parts loved it and hated it. I thought it was very well done and enjoyed the episode.

The title of the episode, "Between Two Fires" comes from a line Murtagh says, explaining Jamie's predicament to fellow regulators -- Jamie is caught between his oath to Governor Tryon, and his knowledge of what is coming, having to walk a delicate balance between his duty and the future. But it also is the dominant theme of the episode, with most of the main characters finding themselves caught between proverbial rocks and hard places, namely:

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.

Speaking of Bree and Marsali, the showrunners decided to swap out their book roles. While not a fan of blood and gore, book Bree does assist her mother with some of her doctoring. The showrunners openly explained that they wanted to give Lauren Lyle's Marsali a larger role in the show, and hence she's now Claire's apprentice. This initially made me wonder about the future plot line involving Malva Christie, but the showrunners explicitly stated that Marsali would be helping Claire "for a portion of this season". The Christies arrive on the Ridge only late in The Fiery Cross, so I don't know if that means that story line will be moved up, or if it is simply a reference to the fact that we learned in episode 501 that Marsali is pregnant again, which will eventually limit her ability to aid Claire.

Other slight deviations from the source material -- the autopsy on Mr. Farrish. In The Fiery Cross, there is an autopsy, but Claire performs it on one of Jocasta's slaves she believes was murdered. Matt Roberts explained that they couldn't incorporate that later in the series, when it occurs in the book because of how they were developing the story, but did want to include a scene of Claire doing an autopsy, so brought it forward. Which is fine, except the reason for the autopsy made much less sense? In the book, Claire is trying to prove that the slave's death was murder -- in the episode, she was fairly certain that Mr. Farrish died from peritonitis from a burst appendix (and not helped by folk medicine treatments). The autopsy confirmed that, but hardly the same impact of confirming that someone was murdered.

I also wonder why they changed the diagnosis of Roger's eyesight issue? In the novel, he lacks binocular vision, which is why he can't shoot well. In the episode, Claire says he's slightly nearsighted in one eye. Odd thing to change.

I've read plenty of comments critical of some of the more graphic violence depicted in this episode -- namely the tar and feathering in Hillsborough, and the Bonnet duel (as well as the fight between the two women). Both of these scenes are not explicitly in the book (although there is a tar and feathering in A book -- maybe book 6?), but both are important, in my view, in establishing some context going forward.

With regards to the tar and feathering of two officials at the hands of the Regulators -- led by Murtagh -- I think it was important to show that both sides in this growing crisis were not exactly above reprimand. Yes, maybe the taxes were too high, but does that justify tar and feathering someone? Both the government and the Regulators had justifiable causes to defend, and used unjustifiable means to defend them. As a Canadian, I also wonder if the showrunners wanted to play against the likely natural tendency of an American audience to see everything from a pro-American POV, if that makes sense? I also think the impact this had on Jamie -- especially when he learned that Murtagh had been present, overseeing events in Hillsborough -- was significant. He maybe didn't think his godfather would go to such extremes? Maybe even knocked Murtagh down a few pegs in Jamie's eyes?

ETA: Matt Roberts explains the tar and feathering scene (and the women's fight club).

The scenes with Bonnet at the end established a couple of important points: 1) Bonnet's future business relationship with Forbes, an important plot point, and 2) that he hasn't forgotten Brianna's news that she might have been carrying his child and that this idea intrigues him. This too will likely make future events (I think episode 510) make more sense.

One thing I really liked about this episode was Claire's realization that she can't just go forward with her 20th century medical skills and knowledge. In the books, when Claire would tell people to wash their hands, boil implements, take this instead of that, people would sometimes look at her funny, but largely, everyone just accepts what she says. In the show, they clearly demonstrate that people won't easily listen to her advice, not just because of long-ingrained folk medicine approaches, but BECAUSE CLAIRE IS A WOMAN, and as such, no way can she know more than a male "physician". Having Claire start a "newsletter" of sorts under the name of Dr. Rawlings was a nice touch, since book Claire does, way down the road, write a book under a man's name.

One thing I liked less -- Claire baking tons of loaves of bread. Mrs. Bug was rightly critical of that. Would Claire really be THAT wasteful? Yes, she does use bread to try to grow penicillin, but scraps -- bread that was already going off. She doesn't use up what looked like a crop's worth of flour to bake a couple dozen loaves. She can't possibly have room to stash all of those samples anyway. It was just really daft.

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.

There are a couple of bloggers I highly recommend to fans of the books/shows. Their episodes analyses are lyrical -- they are so much better at that sort of thing than I will ever be. Even if you're not current with the show, they've written about the previous seasons as well, so you can go back and check out their archives. They are both long-time fans of the books, so there are potential spoilers for the books if you've not read them, but they do manage to focus mostly on the episode being discussed.

Beth Wesson's Outlander Blog

Connie's TV Kills Time blog (I don't know her full name)

***WARNING: This post and discussion may contain spoilers for anyone who is not current with the Starz series Outlander
(including seasons 1-3) or who has not read the first four books in the series.***

Episode 401 (November 4, 2018) -- "America the Beautiful" written by Matt B. Roberts and Toni Graphia, and directed by Julian Holmes.

Synopsis: Claire and Jamie cross paths with Stephen Bonnet, a pirate and smuggler who enlists their help. Claire illuminates Jamie on some of America's history, leading him to wonder if it's possible for them to lay down roots.

Did you like the episode? Thoughts, impressions, quibbles, highlights and lowlights?

***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.***

Episode 313 (December 10, 2017) -- "Eye of the Storm" written and directed by Matthew B. Roberts (Matt's directorial debut!).

Synopsis: Claire is forced to play a game of cat and mouse with an old adversary as she searches for Young Ian. The Frasers race through the jungles of Jamaica to prevent the unthinkable.

Feel free to discuss the season 3 finale as well as your thoughts/feelings about season 3 as a whole. Also -- how do you plan on filling the void until Season 4 starts (likely fall 2018)?

Bonus: Interview with Exec Producer Ron D. Moore about season 3, season 4 and more...