Outlander Season 3 Episode 12: And This Is Why They Should’ve Done That One Arc!!!

Hey Everyone, Here is my Review of Outlander for this week. Pretty good episode, many deviations from the book, mostly not so huge changes though. But Let me know what you thought there, and have a good one!!!

The ‘slave’ didn’t even say thank you before taking off!!! What is up with that?!

In the books, Governor Lord John Grey is on the diseased Porpoise, where he first meets Dr. Claire as "Dr. Malcolm," if I recall correctly.  This would've been a better introduction, as she doesn't then know of his connection to Jamie, nor does he know that she is the mysterious and presumably long-dead Claire Fraser. He admires her prodigious healing skill in saving the ship's company…and also wonders how she had vanished from the ship in mid-ocean.  Meeting her again at the soiree as Jamie's wife would've been very interesting, indeed!  Also, the long arm of the law would never have forgotten that "Malcolm" had murdered one of their own, the excise man, no matter where "Malcolm" chose to hide within the British Empire. Thus, I do not recall that in the book that Leonard ever made the connection between the "Malcolm" he was seeking and anyone named "Fraser."  If I recall that correctly, then the TV script edits are odd: Jamie will need to live in peace as a "Fraser" until the American Revolution comes in later books, and being a wanted murderer of a government policeman (so to speak) would've prevented that.  (Actually, I cannot remember how Jamie beats that charge.)

Speaking of the oddly robotic Lt. Leonard (lubbardly mis-addressed as "Captain" on land): his pursuit of Jamie is beginning to look like Javert's relentless pursuit of Jean Valjean in "Les Miz." I think the first words Leonard would likely have said upon sighting Claire would have been an amazed, "Dr. Fraser, how the heck did you get off my ship in the middle of the ocean?  And how did you get to Jamaica before me?"  Assuming Claire would've made any kind of an answer, one wonders what it would be?  How about: "I asked a black-sailed smuggler sneaking past at midnight to take me away."  OR: "I swam." OR: "I am La Dame Blanche. Emulating Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings," I called an albatross to me and flew to Jamaica on her downy back." OR: 'I called to Moby Dick the White Whale and rode to the sugar island athwart his spout." (Remember, in the first book, Claire actually calls the Loch Ness Monster to attend her, to the terror of a spying English soldier.)

My opinion on the discussion regarding Joe and discrimination in 1945 was well done. Going back to that time it showed the strength of Black men to keep moving forward. Of course their families, some of the most senior members lived through the end of slavery & reconstruction. My opinion is those senior members who actually lived it, pressed forward successfully and pressed their family members into education and professions helping themselves and their communities is lost in the political correctness of today.
My opinion the seen at the slave market bares out what I've said above. Seeing it, hearing it, feeling it, touching it etc is a whole different experience.
Claire developed a real friendship/relationship with Joe. In the book Frank was merely politically correct. That is a big difference.

SLAVERY: Compressed from the books as the TV series is, an attempt IS made to sharply show 20th Century Claire's distaste of enslaved humans, who are caged and treated like animals, and who are about to have all their lives' value brutally expropriated. (Slave children were even called "foals," of all dehumanized terms!)  But bear in mind that Claire and Jamie are passing through this particular corner of hell in search of Ian. NOTHING they could have done was going to change anything.  Think they could've?  Well, try walking amidst the Daesh (ISIL) killers, sexual enslavers of women in Iraq, or the brutal prison guards in North Korea allowed to rape the prisoners at will, or the drug murderers of northern Mexico who cut off the heads of tortured female and male victims, hanging them from bridges for show….and preach at THESE thugs about their sins.  The ruling caste and slave-trading pirates of 18th Century Jamaica might've toned down retribution against J and C a bit from those extreme examples…but not much if they had ever detected a disruption to their prevailing social order.  The ruling caste made the draconian laws, and enforced them.   As for the free slave Temeraire: as usual, Gabaldon has an ongoing plot reason to introduce that character.

….and Lt. Leonard would've been embarrassed to be continually and erroneously addressed as "captain" by civilians, lest his traditionalist naval superiors hear of it, and sharply chew him out for not correcting the presumption.  Making such a bad impression on his hierarchy-cognizant and hidebound superiors is out of character for so ambitious an officer.

I note the technical error of continuing, on land, to call the ship's officer from the Porpoise, "Captain" Leonard.  Young Leonard was a junior officer on the 72-gun battleship, made Acting Captain by the death by disease of his superiors.  "Captain" is the courtesy title of the person in charge of a vessel, but at his young age his actual rank could not have exceeded "Lieutenant"–equal to an army captain–and it was likely less. The command was such a plum, that the local admiral or commodore would've immediately placed it under any number of more-senior local naval officers once in Jamaica. (A 72-gun ship-of-the-line was a command appropriate to a full captain, or even post-captain, that is, one destined inevitably to become an admiral someday, if he lived long enough.)  As originally they were landlubbers, Claire, Jamie, Fergus and Marsali might've remained oblivious of this naval punctilio…but I doubt it after all those months at sea.  So, it should be "Lt. Leonard."

Some have criticized the "mysticism" that is sometimes suggested.  Well, Geillis is a superficially charming, serial-killing psychopath, with at least 5 husbands murdered to this point, and many young boys.  Similar murderous lunacy unfortunately pops up in our modern news.  Such insanity does not require mysticism to explain it, but many people throughout the world still believe in evil witchcraft.  It only takes Geillis' minions' belief that she is demonic to frighten them into abetting her crimes.  Whatever "bakra" really means ("white woman" in an African dialect?) the frightened minions would think it means "evil, powerful witch."  As for the "truth-compelling" tea: we have scopolamine that does something like that, and the author or scriptwriters could've used the old-fashioned means of physical torture to derive Ian's confession. Anyone want that instead? (No.) Margaret's prophesy about the 200-year-old baby is meant to drive forward the plot. "Seers" have been spouting enigmatic nonsense for centuries, interpreted by willing and credulous listeners.  Margaret–or even Claire–could've cited lines similar to the Gettysburg Address and likely elicited furrowed brows, nods of interest, and close attention from the listeners.  I am sure Geillis would've interpreted such mutterings as that psychopath wished.  By the way, Geillis was never Claire's "friend," not even at Crainsmuir. She had figured out some time before that Claire was from the future, and was trying to smoke out whether or not Claire was an English spy from the future trying to disrupt Geillis' plan to reverse the Jacobite defeat at Culloden. The goat's blood bath was a bit much, but okay in that the scriptwriters needed something particularly crazy to explain why Geillis is shown smooth-skinned. (In the book, Geillis is fat and blowsy.  (Physician Claire opines at some point that Geillis' insanity and physical deterioration was likely due to late-stage syphilis contracted from her many sexual antics.) The weird timelessness of Geillis makes her more frightening as a witch than some Disneyesque warty nose and wrinkled skin.And Gabaldon's "physics" of passage through the terrifying time portal might have had some beneficial resistance-to-disease or resistance-to-physical-deterioration effect on Claire or Geillis. (It is Gabaldon's world: she makes all the rules!)

Nice review.  One comment in general: That the plot seems a bit rushed. An analogy would be to the BBC TV series version of "Pride and Prejudice" vs the Keira Knightly theatrical version. The former allowed a much better development of the characters and plot over many episodes, whereas the latter had many scenes deleted or compressed to allow it all to be crammed into a comparatively short, single presentation.  "Outlander season 3" could've had 50% more narrative in its episodes–or more episodes–to deliver a more nuanced story.  Certainly, Gabaldon has enjoyed delivering every bit of historical research about the era in her 7200-page epic, and Claire is much given to deeper contemplation in the books.  But actors, scenery and props are so costly that some common economic sense means consolidation and simplification of characters and scenes.  This can mystify viewers who have not read the books.

If I remember correctly, there is hinted in the books, that Temeraire could be Joe Abernathy's ancestor. He reminded Claire to Jon, this was maybe the main reason, why she could not just stand there and do nothing to save him.

it was a great review, thank you. The episode was great, I haven't yet read the books but am looking forward to. Gaellis is a real creep now. Ugh!

Thanks for the review. There is one thing that needs correcting however. Geilis is not pronounced Geelis it is pronounced Gaylis. Just sayin'.

John Grey reminds me of "Lestat" of "Interview of a Vampire"

Since he lives in the show and was shipped as an indentured servant when Ardsmuir was closed wIll Murtagh make a surprise appearance in the season finale?

Great review! Excellent, I’m very pleased with it! We can’t watch Outlander 3 in Indonesia. It’s not on Netflix till 2018 ?? What I can see from the reviews, Outlander remains a top production, the acting, the scenery, everything, very exciting and the love between Jamie&Claire is so beautiful to watch!

Me too! Too lazy about the book and I have the kindle version.

I hope everyone notices that Geillis’s latest husband’s last name is Abernathy!

I think the very little scene at the very beginning and the very little mention in the book of the car crash is going to blow in big proportions at the final. I think theres goes to be a very big twist. Do you think Claire really went trough the stones.

Hello again. While I enjoyed this episode I did find myself wincing at some of the changes. I am by no means a book purest, I do understand the show is an adaptation, but having said that some of this episodes changes went a bit far afield even for me.

Because I read the book in time with the show: no goats blood, no Geillis Duncan at the Governor's Ball baiting Lord John into having his fortune read so she could steal the sapphire Jamie had given him & certainly no Capt Leonard arresting Jamie and hauling him off in chains. They should subtitle Voyager "Don't get used to him/her, we're gonna haul him/her away". I was also perplexed why they would leave out the murder of Mina Alcott, the suspicion it is Mr Willoughby who killed her & who then truly turns out to be the killer (a great who-done-it).

And so, I'm looking forward with sad anticipation to "Eye of the Storm" next week to see what our team of writers have prepared for us to wrap this third season of Outlander.

I don't know what to say about this!!!! Geillis "Mrs. Robinson" Duncan is one crazy woman. Any thing that we should forewarned about for episode 13???

I'm happy you are posting so soon after the show. I don't remember the goats blood either.