Correct. In the book that's when it was mentioned that dueling was illegal, and Jamie's hair got in his face because his lace broke, and the location that was chosen for his duel over Annalise (SPOILER BELOW)
SO when Claire sees that Jamie cut off his long hair after seeing Randall, she knows what he's up to and knows where to look for him.
Said enough last night! Went on this other site - That's Normal. Their comments/reader comments are definitely direct. Thought Murtagh had the best lines of the episode! I loved it when Jamie dumped the Minister of Finance into the drink! BTW, Tracey, you were seeing Prague, a good stand in for Paris. And, I love the shorter hair! JEFSantaMonica
Thanks ladies for a great recap! Y'all are so funny together! I love the series and think they're doing an amazing job. I absolutely love Murtaugh in this episode. Prince Charlie, Master Raymond, Mary Hawkins, and King Louis were all spot on with what I imagined. I do miss book Jamie but overall very happy with the series.
Hey ladies!!! I've missed your recaps-have to go back and watch last weeks. I really liked this week's episode because it smooshed so much of the French court stuff together. This part of the book is slow for me I like to skim through it. Murtaugh was priceless;I'll sign your petition. I found Claire to be rather haughty and she kind of irked me in some scenes. I love how they crammed so much of the book favorites in there, but changing the honeypot scene was annoying. But I loved hearing him say "honeypot!!!" Can't wait for next week...FERGUS!
GREAT POINTS, Erin!! I hope Christie from MOP Chat sees this...because she will agree with you 1,000% about the French stuff. PS - I am holding my breath for wee Fergus!!! :)
Hey ladies!!! I've missed your recaps-have to go back and watch last weeks. I really liked this week's episode because it smooshed so much of the French court stuff together. This part of the book is slow for me I like to skim through it. Murtaugh was priceless;I'll sign your petition. I found Claire to be rather haughty and she kind of irked me in some scenes. I love how they crammed so much of the book favorites in there, but changing the honeypot scene was annoying. But I loved hearing him say "honeypot!!!" Can't wait for next week...FERGUS!
I so enjoy your riotous recaps! A couple of thoughts on this episode.
Paris is def bringing out the best in Murtagh! Love/have always loved him. I'd be totally down with them keeping him around as long as possible. Lafayette Murtagh! (I would buy that t-shirt and sign the petition NOW)
NO WAY the Duke of Sandringham (DoS) does NOT know what-all BJR did to Jamie. The two probably have detailed conversations about EVERYONE BJR buggers at the weekly meetings of their Perverts Club. The reason DoS dislikes Claire and fawns over Jamie is that Jamie's having sex with Claire (altho not so much at the moment) instead of the Duke.
I'm sure Claire is worried about Jamie's finding out that BJR is alive because she's concerned about J's PTSD and overall mental state. But she's ALSO worried that Jamie, man of action that he is, will go after BJR to REALLY kill him, and THAT could jeopardize the bloodline leading to boring, stuffy, infertile, cheating, child-abducting FRANK, the prick. We're back with Claire being overly concerned with Frank (gold wedding ring, much?). And if this was a big deal for Diana, it's an earth-shattering major motivation for RDM!
*SPOILER ALERT* I could never figure out why Claire didn't question the Randall lineage once she met Black Jack. There is no woman alive that would marry him and have a child with him. I thought that the entire time I read the first novel. But then, or course, it was answered in Dragonfly. Did anyone else consider the implausibility of BJR being a father and husband to anyone?
Yeah, I thought about it. But, considering some of the marriages I've observed over the years, I'm afraid I couldn't rule out the possibility. And, contrary to rumor, I've lived in the 20th-21st centuries. I'm sure some of the marriages in the 18th century covered up a WHOLE LOT more. I've always believed there are people out there who could/would marry and procreate with ANYONE.
Oooh Auntie...good point about Claire not wanting Jamie to go after BJR. Maybe they're just trying to beef up the angst between Claire and Jamie so they can better convey the situation on this visual medium we call TV. And GREAT POINT about DoS most likely knowing about BJR and Jamie. I never thought of that. :)
Yes Valerie, absolutely. Imagine Claire finding all this out about Randall...KNOWING that Frank thinks he's a way cool guy from history (for lack of a better term in my brain at this moment. LOL) I wonder so much about what would have gone through Claire's mind about Frank's lineage after her experiences with BJR.
No one has mentioned the Jamie wink! It was super fast during the Annalise section and he totally slow winks/blinks at Claire-go back and watch. Y'all be yourselves out among the hipster girls. Just kiddin-you'll rock.
Maril said on twitter they got the dates wrong they are in 1744 not 1745.
I miss book Jamie but we are not going to ever see him in this series Ron thinks he is a fantasy and unrealistic so I am with Carol he feels he gave book lovers what they want or some of it now its his turn to do what he wants no complaints. I will continue to watch but it is losing its shiny for me. The story I feel in love with is not there.
Hi, first, you are so entertaining my 22 stopped to ask what I was listening to, I said its who, mop, c&t. Thanks for breaking it down. Maybe this return to secrets will reveal a flashback to wedding night, "secrets not lies". Could behave been in the original of epi 7, but removed once received the green light for S2. Have you great week, see you Saturday!
Ooooh Sweet Bee, GREAT point! Love the tie-together with the wedding night! I'd love to see some angst and maybe a good lovers' quarrel where Jamie brings up their wedding promises and throws them in Claire's face. (Poor Claire. I don't wish her any pain but boy that would make for some great TV!) :)
Loved the review of Episode 2 on your comment on will Claire tell him the show likes conflict Claire will not tell Jamie that is a give. I would not tell my husband under the same circumstances. What would you guys do?
Yeah that hasn't seemed to go over too well with the fans. Just a totally different mood. Jamie said it so...earnestly? in the book. Wish the TV fans would get to see that side of him more, if at all.
Question: In episode 1, Jamie is reaching for Claire to disembark from the ship and the screen shows the date as 1745. In episode 2 the scene where Claire is dallying to leave and speaking with her maid over making her bed, the screen prints, "Paris 1744". How can they go backward in time when the story progressed forward?
Hello from Spain. I love your recaps. As most of you, I read the books and watched season 1. Here we can only watch each episode after it has been shown on US, that is on Sunday nights . On Mondays, I love watching your MOP videos and then I go over the episode again.Thanks for all the hilarious moments.
Great show ladies! I love the "dukie faces" bit. TV-Jamie is more depressed (and cannot "ahem" perform in bed) than book-Jamie but TV-Jamie depicts a more realistic standard of an abused modern man. I don't think it would be the same for an abused man in the 1700's. I think DG's description of Jamie afterwards is more realistic for the time. However, I still like the TV version...almost seems like a new story but they do seem to make Claire's character more bitchy!
Oooooh Glee...you make a great point that I NEVER considered. 1700s trauma aftermath vs 2000s PTSD. I'm sure some people will balk at that thought...but I agree with you. It was such a different time. (I will stop myself here but we could go on for hours with this topic, no?!)
Great show ladies! I love the "dukie faces" bit. TV-Jamie is more depressed (and cannot "ahem" perform in bed) than book-Jamie but TV-Jamie depicts a more realistic standard of an abused modern man. I don't think it would be the same for an abused man in the 1700's. I think DG's description of Jamie afterwards is more realistic for the time. However, I still like the TV version...almost seems like a new story but they do seem to make Claire's character more bitchy!
love your youtube videos. I am disappointed in Season 2 so far. I think Jamie is way to passive and Claire much too bossy. She always speaks her mind in the books but always seems to respect Jamie. TV Claire seems to be the mastermind and Jamie almost her child. Too bad. I am not as interested in the show now that they've made Claire the Top Dog giving orders to Jamie and Murtaugh...at one point I think she actually tells them to go do something at the ball and they obey her! I do love Murtaugh as he is being portrayed in the TV show. I didn't like the red dress ... she looked ... well ... stupid with the front wide open ...I thought she'd fall out. And other than the nipple dress lady none of the other women looked so bare as Claire. I know in the book the dress was low cut but come one that looked awful ... IMHO. I find the outfits very distracting to the story. That dress and hat she wore to Raymond's shop really was terrible for her ... it really made me think that it's not Claire wearing it but Catriona modling an outfit. It was beautiful but didn't fit the story or setting...even if it was designed to be like dresses from the 18th century. I'm missing Jamie a lot and Claire is really ticking me off ... she was born in 1918 NOT 1968!
Ya know, Anon...here's something I've been mulling over that I plan to bring up in our next video. They want to stay true to the time period...so why is Claire so much more vivid and bright than everyone else? That doesn't seem at all realistic to me. And I'm fine with it, because it's TV, and I love a good escape into fantasy-land. But why do we have to be so stringent with history in some areas...yet suspend disbelief in others? Doesn't totally add up in my mind.
I thought Prince Charles was supposed to be likeable in the books but a spoiled prince ... in the show he's just plain creepy.
Louie was as I'd expect. Mary Hawkins was a little too shy and bashful in the first scene.
The whole honeypot scene was a disappointment. I like the book version much better. And as Janie said why would he want her to look like "a wee lassie". I can't understand why they turned that whole scene around.
The high fashion clothes Claire's wearing just doesn't do anything for me except distract me from the story. Too bad.
Sigh. Not only do I miss Book Jamie and Claire ... now I'm missing Season One Jamie and Claire.
Thank you for reminding me about the sulphur spring (sex) in the book. I re-read that several times and was looking forward to seeing it recreated and how they would do it. Bummer, Ron!!
Ladies I love your videos!!! First time posting but had to chime in abut the book.....Spoiler Alert...
Claire and jaime met analise and Alexander Randall on the same day.....actually claire feels a bit insecure about how tiny and pretty analise is, especially after jaime tells her about the duel, and that prompts the famous line.."claire I can speak to you like my own soul...and your face is my heart" (or something like that)
Also want to say I miss book jamie too, but I think it's all yet to come!!!
You're right, Carol, about the "honeypot" scene in the book. Claire had her legs and armpits done, but merely told Jamie about Louise's "honeypot", and he was shocked and appalled. I haven't minded the page -to -screen changes at all throughout the series so far, but for some reason, this bugged me.
Ya know, Faith...when they change things, I sit and wonder "why?" And when I've convinced myself that it makes sense and that they really had no choice, I'm fine with it. But that is not Jamie Fraser. Jamie is fun and jovial and earnest to a glorious fault. Why can't they show the real Jamie on TV? So far, I've yet to see him.
I really enjoyed this episode some things I wish I could see more of but that's OK a lot of parts were absolutely hilarious and I'm excited for next week and you guys recap assessment and armpits cracked me up
Yes, season two is a lavish and opulent production. The settings and the costuming are breathtaking, Throwing in select vignettes of minor scenes from the book in no way makes up for the fact that major characters have been distorted and in some cases made unrecognizable. This is fundamentally the story of Jamie and Claire, a story that so resonated with the booklovers. Everything else is interesting, but peripheral. And, as someone else said, Jamie is not a modern man and shouldn't be expected to react as a person in present-day society would.
It all started going wrong at the end of season one, when an inordinate amount of time was devoted to Jamie's torture and not enough time to his healing and how his relationship with Claire saved him. This was all glossed over and left the viewer completely unsatisfied. Now we have a sad pathetic shell of a Jamie being led around by Claire and her master schemes. I want the old Jamie back. Without him restored to himself, there is no point in watching. And how long are Jamie and Claire going to be physically apart? The fact that they were completely together in the book before leaving for France contributed mightily to his healing. I really don't like this overall departure from the book about crucial aspects of the main characters. Really disappointed.
Then, there is Frank. Since when was he so overjoyed to get Clare back, and didn't care if she told him where she had been these past years. Book Frank really only took her back because he thought he would look bad if he rejected her. Yes, he wanted the child, too. But, he had not been pining for Claire in her absence and had moved on with other relationships, not that I blame him under the circumstances, but he continues to be unfaithful throughout the years that Claire is with him. Why is he being made to be some sort of plaster saint now?
Anon...I am with you. I am. I have loved watching so far...because it's Jamie and Claire. But at the end of the day, things just aren't adding up. I called a non-book reading friend yesterday...and told her to watch the episode and call me so we can discuss...because I REALLY want the opinion of someone who hasn't read the books. Is it better - or worse - from their perspective, when it comes to the story actually making sense and adding up??
Another thing that I really wanted to see was the scene in which Jamie takes the bandages off his hand, and Claire thinks he is upset over the damage. In reality, he is weeping tears of profound gratitude to Claire for saving his hand, his manhood and his life. That was a compelling scene that I don't feel should have been cut. But, I wonder if they will include it yet. I know you said in one of the videos that you thought all this was leading up to grand climax (pardon the pun). I hope so.
I will say though that Jamie had a twinkle in his eye and a little grin when he said to Claire "you're gonna need a bigger fan". I missed it the first time I watched but then noticed it the second time. Was glad to see a little of the real Jamie.
OK. So I think I spotted a glimpse of book Jamie in episode 202. When Jamie and Murtagh are having the chit chat in the brothel with Prince Charles,and Pr. Charles says, " I am by divine right, the outstretched hand of God", Jamie listens, takes a pause and makes the sign of the cross (the correct way this time, thank you!) It gave me a happy moment. Jamie's book character is so amazingly fleshed out and defined by Diana, I hardly ever questioned his reasoning or behavior. I always felt he had a deep personal relationship with God. It is a conversation he had constantly though prayer and reflection. He did not preach it, but lived and endured. How in the world could people have the strength to survive in the 18th century? I can't begin to imagine. I realize of all the layers to be peeled away and forgotten for the tv series, the spiritual side of Jamie would be the first to go...so it makes me smile to see a second of it.
Murtagh would be great in Voyager, especially TV Murtagh. What a personality he has shown us! (bamacali)
ReplyDeleteRDM can have Murtagh transported to the colonies and replace Duncan Innes in Drums.
DeleteI thought the same thing about Murtagh taking Duncan's place in the story. Except I wouldn't wish Jocasta on Murtagh.
DeleteRight, right Annette??? I may have to start that petition!! :)
DeleteOooh SNAP Marian!!! (insert "in awe" face here) WOWWWWWW what a neat idea!!!
DeleteLOL Anon. True dat. That would be a whole new dynamic, that's for sure. I'm thinking Murtagh would pretty much strangle her. LOLOL!!!
DeleteAnnalise appears in chapter 9 (Dragonfly)
ReplyDeleteCorrect. In the book that's when it was mentioned that dueling was illegal, and Jamie's hair got in his face because his lace broke, and the location that was chosen for his duel over Annalise (SPOILER BELOW)
DeleteSO when Claire sees that Jamie cut off his long hair after seeing Randall, she knows what he's up to and knows where to look for him.
TAZ and Anon: YES YES YES!!! THANKS you two...forgot all about the hair!!!
DeleteSaid enough last night! Went on this other site - That's Normal. Their comments/reader comments are definitely direct.
ReplyDeleteThought Murtagh had the best lines of the episode!
I loved it when Jamie dumped the Minister of Finance into the drink!
BTW, Tracey, you were seeing Prague, a good stand in for Paris. And, I love the shorter hair!
JEFSantaMonica
LOL JEF - Murtagh was a riot. I'm hoping his role is beefed up considerably going forward.
DeleteThanks ladies for a great recap! Y'all are so funny together! I love the series and think they're doing an amazing job. I absolutely love Murtaugh in this episode. Prince Charlie, Master Raymond, Mary Hawkins, and King Louis were all spot on with what I imagined. I do miss book Jamie but overall very happy with the series.
ReplyDeleteThanks ANON - couldn't agree more about casting!! :)
DeleteHey ladies!!! I've missed your recaps-have to go back and watch last weeks. I really liked this week's episode because it smooshed so much of the French court stuff together. This part of the book is slow for me I like to skim through it. Murtaugh was priceless;I'll sign your petition. I found Claire to be rather haughty and she kind of irked me in some scenes. I love how they crammed so much of the book favorites in there, but changing the honeypot scene was annoying. But I loved hearing him say "honeypot!!!" Can't wait for next week...FERGUS!
ReplyDeleteGREAT POINTS, Erin!! I hope Christie from MOP Chat sees this...because she will agree with you 1,000% about the French stuff. PS - I am holding my breath for wee Fergus!!! :)
DeleteHey ladies!!! I've missed your recaps-have to go back and watch last weeks. I really liked this week's episode because it smooshed so much of the French court stuff together. This part of the book is slow for me I like to skim through it. Murtaugh was priceless;I'll sign your petition. I found Claire to be rather haughty and she kind of irked me in some scenes. I love how they crammed so much of the book favorites in there, but changing the honeypot scene was annoying. But I loved hearing him say "honeypot!!!" Can't wait for next week...FERGUS!
ReplyDeleteFERGUS!!!!!!!!CANT WAIT TO GET TO SCOTLAND AND NORMALACY
DeleteHi Guys, Auntie Lamb here -
ReplyDeleteI so enjoy your riotous recaps! A couple of thoughts on this episode.
Paris is def bringing out the best in Murtagh! Love/have always loved him. I'd be totally down with them keeping him around as long as possible. Lafayette Murtagh! (I would buy that t-shirt and sign the petition NOW)
NO WAY the Duke of Sandringham (DoS) does NOT know what-all BJR did to Jamie. The two probably have detailed conversations about EVERYONE BJR buggers at the weekly meetings of their Perverts Club. The reason DoS dislikes Claire and fawns over Jamie is that Jamie's having sex with Claire (altho not so much at the moment) instead of the Duke.
I'm sure Claire is worried about Jamie's finding out that BJR is alive because she's concerned about J's PTSD and overall mental state. But she's ALSO worried that Jamie, man of action that he is, will go after BJR to REALLY kill him, and THAT could jeopardize the bloodline leading to boring, stuffy, infertile, cheating, child-abducting FRANK, the prick. We're back with Claire being overly concerned with Frank (gold wedding ring, much?). And if this was a big deal for Diana, it's an earth-shattering major motivation for RDM!
Love you guys!
I definitely got the feeling Sandringham knew about the rape in the show, which will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere from there.
DeleteHowever, am I wrong? In the book...doesn't Randall think Jamie is dead?? Doesn't he go into shock when he and Claire walk into Alex's room?
*SPOILER ALERT* I could never figure out why Claire didn't question the Randall lineage once she met Black Jack. There is no woman alive that would marry him and have a child with him. I thought that the entire time I read the first novel. But then, or course, it was answered in Dragonfly. Did anyone else consider the implausibility of BJR being a father and husband to anyone?
DeleteYeah, I thought about it. But, considering some of the marriages I've observed over the years, I'm afraid I couldn't rule out the possibility. And, contrary to rumor, I've lived in the 20th-21st centuries. I'm sure some of the marriages in the 18th century covered up a WHOLE LOT more. I've always believed there are people out there who could/would marry and procreate with ANYONE.
DeleteOooh Auntie...good point about Claire not wanting Jamie to go after BJR. Maybe they're just trying to beef up the angst between Claire and Jamie so they can better convey the situation on this visual medium we call TV. And GREAT POINT about DoS most likely knowing about BJR and Jamie. I never thought of that. :)
DeleteOooh Marian - good catch. I have to go back and look that one up. So much Diana Gabaldon goodness that I've forgotten in these eps!!! :)
DeleteYes Valerie, absolutely. Imagine Claire finding all this out about Randall...KNOWING that Frank thinks he's a way cool guy from history (for lack of a better term in my brain at this moment. LOL) I wonder so much about what would have gone through Claire's mind about Frank's lineage after her experiences with BJR.
DeleteNo one has mentioned the Jamie wink! It was super fast during the Annalise section and he totally slow winks/blinks at Claire-go back and watch. Y'all be yourselves out among the hipster girls. Just kiddin-you'll rock.
ReplyDeleteOoooh K you are awesome! I have to go watch that part again! :)
DeleteMaril said on twitter they got the dates wrong they are in 1744 not 1745.
ReplyDeleteI miss book Jamie but we are not going to ever see him in this series Ron thinks he is a fantasy and unrealistic so I am with Carol he feels he gave book lovers what they want or some of it now its his turn to do what he wants no complaints. I will continue to watch but it is losing its shiny for me. The story I feel in love with is not there.
Anon, "losing its shiny" is fantastic. I may say that in our next video. :)
DeleteHi, first, you are so entertaining my 22 stopped to ask what I was listening to, I said its who, mop, c&t. Thanks for breaking it down. Maybe this return to secrets will reveal a flashback to wedding night, "secrets not lies". Could behave been in the original of epi 7, but removed once received the green light for S2.
ReplyDeleteHave you great week, see you Saturday!
Ooooh Sweet Bee, GREAT point! Love the tie-together with the wedding night! I'd love to see some angst and maybe a good lovers' quarrel where Jamie brings up their wedding promises and throws them in Claire's face. (Poor Claire. I don't wish her any pain but boy that would make for some great TV!) :)
Delete"Asses and Armpits"
ReplyDeleteBest line of the episode!
DeleteGreat line...however, I'm not so sure that Scotland smells like animals is better than France smelling like a chamber pot. lol
DeleteLOL Jui!
DeleteLoved the review of Episode 2 on your comment on will Claire tell him the show likes conflict Claire will not tell Jamie that is a give. I would not tell my husband under the same circumstances. What would you guys do?
ReplyDeleteYou lassies rock! Caught my lassie rewatching at 7am this morning without me. Is that allowed??
ReplyDeleteThe show or us? LOLOLOL!!!!! :) PS - of course it's allowed, silly!!
DeleteCount me among those that don't like how they changed the honeypot scene.
ReplyDeleteMe too.
DeleteYeah that hasn't seemed to go over too well with the fans. Just a totally different mood. Jamie said it so...earnestly? in the book. Wish the TV fans would get to see that side of him more, if at all.
DeleteQuestion: In episode 1, Jamie is reaching for Claire to disembark from the ship and the screen shows the date as 1745. In episode 2 the scene where Claire is dallying to leave and speaking with her maid over making her bed, the screen prints, "Paris 1744". How can they go backward in time when the story progressed forward?
ReplyDeleteThey made a mistake, apparently. See above - "Anonymous" said Maril said on Twitter that they got the dates wrong and it's supposed to be 1744. :(
DeleteHello from Spain. I love your recaps. As most of you, I read the books and watched season 1. Here we can only watch each episode after it has been shown on US, that is on Sunday nights . On Mondays, I love watching your MOP videos and then I go over the episode again.Thanks for all the hilarious moments.
ReplyDeleteThanks Maribel!! So glad you are watching!! Eeek - be careful of spoilers if online on Sundays! :)
DeleteGreat show ladies! I love the "dukie faces" bit. TV-Jamie is more depressed (and cannot "ahem" perform in bed) than book-Jamie but TV-Jamie depicts a more realistic standard of an abused modern man. I don't think it would be the same for an abused man in the 1700's. I think DG's description of Jamie afterwards is more realistic for the time. However, I still like the TV version...almost seems like a new story but they do seem to make Claire's character more bitchy!
ReplyDeleteOooooh Glee...you make a great point that I NEVER considered. 1700s trauma aftermath vs 2000s PTSD. I'm sure some people will balk at that thought...but I agree with you. It was such a different time. (I will stop myself here but we could go on for hours with this topic, no?!)
DeleteGreat show ladies! I love the "dukie faces" bit. TV-Jamie is more depressed (and cannot "ahem" perform in bed) than book-Jamie but TV-Jamie depicts a more realistic standard of an abused modern man. I don't think it would be the same for an abused man in the 1700's. I think DG's description of Jamie afterwards is more realistic for the time. However, I still like the TV version...almost seems like a new story but they do seem to make Claire's character more bitchy!
ReplyDeletelove your youtube videos. I am disappointed in Season 2 so far. I think Jamie is way to passive and Claire much too bossy. She always speaks her mind in the books but always seems to respect Jamie. TV Claire seems to be the mastermind and Jamie almost her child. Too bad. I am not as interested in the show now that they've made Claire the Top Dog giving orders to Jamie and Murtaugh...at one point I think she actually tells them to go do something at the ball and they obey her! I do love Murtaugh as he is being portrayed in the TV show. I didn't like the red dress ... she looked ... well ... stupid with the front wide open ...I thought she'd fall out. And other than the nipple dress lady none of the other women looked so bare as Claire. I know in the book the dress was low cut but come one that looked awful ... IMHO. I find the outfits very distracting to the story. That dress and hat she wore to Raymond's shop really was terrible for her ... it really made me think that it's not Claire wearing it but Catriona modling an outfit. It was beautiful but didn't fit the story or setting...even if it was designed to be like dresses from the 18th century. I'm missing Jamie a lot and Claire is really ticking me off ... she was born in 1918 NOT 1968!
ReplyDeleteYa know, Anon...here's something I've been mulling over that I plan to bring up in our next video. They want to stay true to the time period...so why is Claire so much more vivid and bright than everyone else? That doesn't seem at all realistic to me. And I'm fine with it, because it's TV, and I love a good escape into fantasy-land. But why do we have to be so stringent with history in some areas...yet suspend disbelief in others? Doesn't totally add up in my mind.
DeleteGreat episode - I have to say I think the scene with King Louis on the "throne" went on too long. Loved your recap!
ReplyDeleteLOL Anon...LORDDDDDDD the duty!!! (or lack thereof! Ha!) :)
DeleteI thought Prince Charles was supposed to be likeable in the books but a spoiled prince ... in the show he's just plain creepy.
ReplyDeleteLouie was as I'd expect. Mary Hawkins was a little too shy and bashful in the first scene.
The whole honeypot scene was a disappointment. I like the book version much better. And as Janie said why would he want her to look like "a wee lassie". I can't understand why they turned that whole scene around.
The high fashion clothes Claire's wearing just doesn't do anything for me except distract me from the story. Too bad.
Sigh. Not only do I miss Book Jamie and Claire ... now I'm missing Season One Jamie and Claire.
Oooh Anon. I am feeling your pain as I'm reading your words. :( Let's hold out hope that things turn around.
DeleteThank you for reminding me about the sulphur spring (sex) in the book. I re-read that several times and was looking forward to seeing it recreated and how they would do it. Bummer, Ron!!
ReplyDeleteI'm holding out hope that they insert it somewhere else!!!
DeleteLadies I love your videos!!! First time posting but had to chime in abut the book.....Spoiler Alert...
ReplyDeleteClaire and jaime met analise and Alexander Randall on the same day.....actually claire feels a bit insecure about how tiny and pretty analise is, especially after jaime tells her about the duel, and that prompts the famous line.."claire I can speak to you like my own soul...and your face is my heart" (or something like that)
Also want to say I miss book jamie too, but I think it's all yet to come!!!
Oooh thanks Anon!! GREAT catch!!! The face line!! :)
DeleteYou're right, Carol, about the "honeypot" scene in the book. Claire had her legs and armpits done, but merely told Jamie about Louise's "honeypot", and he was shocked and appalled. I haven't minded the page -to -screen changes at all throughout the series so far, but for some reason, this bugged me.
ReplyDeleteYa know, Faith...when they change things, I sit and wonder "why?" And when I've convinced myself that it makes sense and that they really had no choice, I'm fine with it. But that is not Jamie Fraser. Jamie is fun and jovial and earnest to a glorious fault. Why can't they show the real Jamie on TV? So far, I've yet to see him.
Delete(Regarding the honeypot scene, that is. No clue why they did it that way but I did not like it.)
DeleteI really enjoyed this episode some things I wish I could see more of but that's OK a lot of parts were absolutely hilarious and I'm excited for next week and you guys recap assessment and armpits cracked me up
ReplyDeleteOops I meant asses and armpits my phone does not want to curse :)
DeleteLOL Emily! So true about the phone!! The non-cursing issue bugs Tracey BIG time!
Deleteas far as I am concerned you can take all the time you need.
ReplyDeleteAwww...Thanks Christine! :)
DeleteYes, season two is a lavish and opulent production. The settings and the costuming are breathtaking, Throwing in select vignettes of minor scenes from the book in no way makes up for the fact that major characters have been distorted and in some cases made unrecognizable. This is fundamentally the story of Jamie and Claire, a story that so resonated with the booklovers. Everything else is interesting, but peripheral. And, as someone else said, Jamie is not a modern man and shouldn't be expected to react as a person in present-day society would.
ReplyDeleteIt all started going wrong at the end of season one, when an inordinate amount of time was devoted to Jamie's torture and not enough time to his healing and how his relationship with Claire saved him. This was all glossed over and left the viewer completely unsatisfied. Now we have a sad pathetic shell of a Jamie being led around by Claire and her master schemes. I want the old Jamie back. Without him restored to himself, there is no point in watching. And how long are Jamie and Claire going to be physically apart? The fact that they were completely together in the book before leaving for France contributed mightily to his healing. I really don't like this overall departure from the book about crucial aspects of the main characters. Really disappointed.
Then, there is Frank. Since when was he so overjoyed to get Clare back, and didn't care if she told him where she had been these past years. Book Frank really only took her back because he thought he would look bad if he rejected her. Yes, he wanted the child, too. But, he had not been pining for Claire in her absence and had moved on with other relationships, not that I blame him under the circumstances, but he continues to be unfaithful throughout the years that
Claire is with him. Why is he being made to be some sort of plaster saint now?
Anon...I am with you. I am. I have loved watching so far...because it's Jamie and Claire. But at the end of the day, things just aren't adding up. I called a non-book reading friend yesterday...and told her to watch the episode and call me so we can discuss...because I REALLY want the opinion of someone who hasn't read the books. Is it better - or worse - from their perspective, when it comes to the story actually making sense and adding up??
DeleteYes, Carol. I would be interested to know how the non-book viewers are reacting to this. Please post about it after you talk to your friend.
DeleteAnother thing that I really wanted to see was the scene in which Jamie takes the bandages off his hand, and Claire thinks he is upset over the damage. In reality, he is weeping tears of profound gratitude to Claire for saving his hand, his manhood and his life. That was a compelling scene that I don't feel should have been cut. But, I wonder if they will include it yet. I know you said in one of the videos that you thought all this was leading up to grand climax (pardon the pun). I hope so.
DeleteTotally agree with you. How long before they, the TV series, lose my interest. So sad.
ReplyDelete:( Crossing fingers...
DeleteLove the videos!! Take as much time as you want!! I don't care how long they are. I can watch over a few days if need be. Love MOP!!
ReplyDeleteI wish that kissyface emoji was available on Blogger, Kristin...because I'd use it right now! :) Thank you!!
DeleteI agree, you guys are hilarious and always point out something I missed or give me a different point of view. The longer the better!
DeleteAwww thanks Anon!!! :)
DeleteI will say though that Jamie had a twinkle in his eye and a little grin when he said to Claire "you're gonna need a bigger fan". I missed it the first time I watched but then noticed it the second time. Was glad to see a little of the real Jamie.
ReplyDeleteAMEN!!! :)
DeleteOK. So I think I spotted a glimpse of book Jamie in episode 202. When Jamie and Murtagh are having the chit chat in the brothel with Prince Charles,and Pr. Charles says, " I am by divine right, the outstretched hand of God", Jamie listens, takes a pause and makes the sign of the cross (the correct way this time, thank you!) It gave me a happy moment. Jamie's book character is so amazingly fleshed out and defined by Diana, I hardly ever questioned his reasoning or behavior. I always felt he had a deep personal relationship with God. It is a conversation he had constantly though prayer and reflection. He did not preach it, but lived and endured. How in the world could people have the strength to survive in the 18th century? I can't begin to imagine.
ReplyDeleteI realize of all the layers to be peeled away and forgotten for the tv series, the spiritual side of Jamie would be the first to go...so it makes me smile to see a second of it.
Oooh I forgot about the sign of the cross!! Good catch, Susan! LOVED it! You are SO right. Totally made me happy to see that, too. :)
DeleteOMg.. two years ago
ReplyDelete