User Reviews

"your wife's foolishness will kill us all" Yes, because this show is a loop: *Claire and Jamie are having sex *They are fine until Claire do something to threaten the peace between their lives *Jamie have to sacrifice himself, and pay the price *Somebody save them *They have sex *repeat the above

Why are they trying to force me to hate Claire? I like but her and now I'm really annoyed with her behavior! She couldn't even stop one battle from happening despite all their efforts! Is she really going to try and stop slavery? Seriously? She is sitting there, judging Jamie's aunt who took them with open arms after they were robbed (and treat her slaves with dignity) because why exactly? Did she learn nothing? Why are they even there??? I really hated that Jamie said that they should stay in America to make it a better home for Brianna! Brianna is all grown up! They can't make it a better place! They can't stop slavery! They can't change the past! Jamie was such a patriot! Why is he in America? Go back home to Lallybroch! Worry about your people and your family and your country! I am so sad about the changes to the original concept of the show that I want to cry! I still love it and I think the actors are great but the writing is not as good as it used to be! I never read the books so I don't know who's fault it is. Everything changed once they created the 20 year time jump. Such a huge mistake on DG's part imho. I wanted to see them after the battle of Culloden, I wanted to see them fight to stay together! To see them become parents and grow their love. I loved everything about Scotland and now it's all different. I'm still going to watch. There are plenty of great moments but I wish they kept the original concept of the show. I don't want to see the exact same thing happening in different countries. It feels like they are just doing the same thing they tried to so in Scotland. They tried to save Scotland and now what? Are they going to do the same in America? What are they going to do? Stop slavery? Save the Indians? I'm sure it would be interesting because it's the time before the American Revolutionary War but I miss Scotland!!

I just watched the second episode. I'm also reading the book as I go along with each episode. I thought the differences in how the author and showrunners treat slavery quite fascinating. In the book, Rufus is lowered from the tree and Claire asks Jamie if he would die if he was saved. He says yes and she gives Rufus the poison there in front of everyone. The entire plot about the complexities of slavery and laws relating to freeing them and the chilling ending was all created for the show. In the book, there is more description of the slave housing and the things that transpire there.

Also, in the book, it is Myers on the table as Claire performs surgery near his testicles in front of all the dinner guests at the party. Jamie is never announced heir and he never has those discussions with his aunt.

As much as I enjoy the book, the adaptation is far more cinematic in its narrative. It also challenges the viewer on what they really could have done in Claire's place in terms of trying to right the wrongs from the past and what really could have been done to try to resolve the issue.

I honest to God cannot understand why this episode is the subject of so much hatred. On the one hand, there are people who complain that Claire is insufferable in this episode, that she should just shut her mouth and that she is foolishly risking everyone by challenging slavery. Then, on the other hand, there are people who say that the episode furthers white savior tropes and that Claire is just a selfish scum of the earth whitey who doesn't do enough to challenge the status quo. Both sides of the argument just infuriate me so much because I feel like they both miss the point of the episode and the challenge our heroes face in trying to figure out what it means to "Do No Harm".

To those who say that Claire is an insufferable idiot who should have just kept her mouth shut, isn't that part of the risk in challenging injustice? Isn't her speaking her mind consistent with her character, and that which often makes her such a compelling character? I feel as if sometimes viewers want to have it both ways. Claire is courageous when she speaks up to heal Jaime in the first episode of the series, or when she puts Dougal in his place, or when she is healing broken men at Prestonpans but is an idiot when she voices displeasure at slavery, or antagonizes Black Jack Randall, or risks herself in the final episode of Season 3. I doubt many complained when she risked herself to save Jaime at Wentworth, or the countless times Jaime takes a beating in defense of his family and his ideals, so I don't get why Claire's actions here are so worthy of condemnation. And more to the point, is there always a risk in speaking out against injustice. There is a reason why people like Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln are killed. Were these people idiots because they challenged injustice? Not to equate Claire to any of these people; she isn't an activist by any means, but the point is the same. It's never idiotic to speak out against injustice.

In like manner, I hate the people on the other side of the argument that dismiss this episode as a white savior trope and complain of the Frasers white privilege. Isn't that the point of the episode? Do No Harm shows you what systemic racism looks like, racism that is codified in laws and practice, that cannot be changed by a few good people. And it gives you a glimpse of how good people can still benefit from white privilege. Claire tries to save Rufus because that's her ethos, her code, her morality. Her actions are done for her own benefit as much of, if not more so than for the benefit of Rufus, and in the end, she is as much a bystander as everyone else. When it comes down to it, the Frasers choose River Run over saving Rufus, sacrificing one life to potentially save others.

I think this episode is wrongfully maligned because it's misunderstood. Jaime and Claire aren't white saviors, because they don't save anyone. Claire's actions in saving Rufus are well-intentioned but ultimately selfish, because she doesn't understand or want to understand the system that is in place. And ultimately, Jaime and Claire are privileged, because unlike the slaves, they can opt-out of the system. They can leave and decide not to own slaves. It illustrates how individuals who are not racist can nonetheless benefit from and be a part of a racist system and benefit from intrinsic racism.

Once again, Claire finds herself in a difficult position, someone with a knowledge of history that has does not have the means or ability to change it. There is a certain tragedy in that for all involved and I think the episode does well to show this.

The ending left me shivering and slack-jawed. Didn't know one couldn't even free "their own" slaves in 1700s North Carolina. One of the most traumatic and haunting episodes of the show but for a good reason.

I am grossed out at people expressing their annoyance with Claire's spoken disapproval of slavery. Theare is a review saying they hope this season isn't going to focus on the slave war. Others saying she should have just stayed quiet the whole time. I get that nothing was going to change And that this is 200 years in the past but to not even once express how evil slavery was while it was happening is cowardly. I wouldn't help but at least try to expose the hypocrisy and nonsense that The slave owners believed. As a white woman myself, I would be frustrated and know (like Claire eventually did) that the savagery of these slave owners was too strong to fight against but screw that nonsense of these reviewers acting like she was the bad guy for expressing her disapproval. Claire definitely has some moments that annoy me but this is one that is an example of when she shined.

I am more than disappointed with the negative reviews about Claire wanting to change history regarding slavery. News Flash: this is a show about TIME TRAVEL!!! Ergo a lot focused on fixing the more than brutal/unnecessary's of the past!!! So here's the deal, if I had an opportunity to go back in history to this shiz slavery era, you bet your bottom dollar I would do any and everything in my power to HELP/FIX towards any and all slaves/slavery laws etc.

But hey some of those ignorant reviews about letting history be. Well how about 911!

The End.

Outlander certainly has a lot of concepts they can cover in the first season set in America, but I hope it is simply not Claire trying to rewrite history.

She is in a unique position, which is why this show is so refreshing, but I hope we get more than a war on slavery this season.

Why does everyone have to heat on Claire? Just because she knows slavery will continue that means she's just supposed to turn a blind eye when it's happening right in front of her eyes?

I would feel the same exact way - it's horrific. Claire's character and personality would never allow her to stand there and not try to help or save someone. If Claire were to just casually let it happen this would not be Outlander. The Claire hatred is truly astonishing and ridiculous.

I think it's dumb that people love to hate on her strong-willed personality and opinions but they'll love it at other times. Take her for who she is and how she will stand up for what she believes in. Disgusting that people think otherwise.

As a book reader, the character of Claire has always annoyed me in the show. In the first season she showed absolutely no common sense or tact and just erupted with her commentary on whatever injustice was happening in the moment. YOU'RE 200 YEARS IN THE PAST. YOUR HUSBAND WAS A HISTORIAN. CHILL OUT WITH YOUR SENSE OF JUSTICE.

I've been trying to be forgiving towards her idealistic sentiments, but this episode showed, as a wise, objectively intelligent person from the future, that she's just plain stupid. Book Claire is not stupid. Show Claire is insufferably stupid.

Claire is becoming really stupid. Making horrible decisions all the time and almost getting everyone killed. She can't see to grasp the save the many instead of the few. She goes full blast Doctor Claire when anyone is injured. Claire you gave that up when you decided to go 200 years into the past again.

She does not listen to anyone. She's combative, rude, and judgemenal to Jamie's incredibly nice Aunt only because of the time period and land she lives on. And Claire chose to go to!! Claire also fails to mention to Jamie in her crusade to abolish the house slaves that a civil war was fought over this very thing that turned out to be the bloodiest war in American history. Is what she trying to do noble? Absolutely. But her blatant disregard of what's best for everyone in this episode crossed a line in my opinion and if it were anyone else they'd be dead. It's becoming all about social justice and worst of all she is starting to make Jamie stupid. The show just hasn't been good for awhile. I may not watch anymore.

I always appreciate people sharing their thoughts. But sometimes Jamie should tell Claire to shut up or keep her mouth shut. Sometimes things are what they are and nothing can be done. The show runners trying to bring social justice to a period drama shows how American the tv show is.

She is absolutely irritating. He seems to be fabulous at managing her emotions. Very irrational, and a very very difficult episode to watch. It opens the pandora box of the worst of the past, the idea of slavery is redundant, so nothibg else happens. We get the idea that she doesnt like that America but then she could come back to Europe. Almost gets anyone killed.

Now, I have always loved this show, and even through season 3 where you start noticing the general pattern of Claire not knowing when to shut up or blatantly disregarding what's best for everyone, people get killed, Jamie gets arrested and almost executed for something, but every time narrowly escapes death....it's like, enough already. How many times are we supposed to accept this same cycle as being even remotely believable.

But Claire. She's becoming more and more detestable, which really sucks because she could be (and was) such an interesting main character. This start of season 4 though, I can't take much more. Does she think she can single-handedly end slavery in the 1760s, just because she WANTS to? Is she insane? Their lives have been in turmoil basically forever, and now they find themselves in America, with an awesome aunt, being GIFTED a huge, beautiful plantation, but God forbid she shut up and be grateful and actually be able to enjoy life a little.

I mean, I get it! Seeing slavery in action would be brutal to watch. The desire to change it would be overwhelming. But when she brought her nosy butt back through the stones, she willfully stepped back in time, and has to accept the way things are in that time.

As usual, Jamie has the right attitude. Do what you can for now, affect change on a small scale, making lives better for the slaves on your property and slowly working towards justice and freedom. But no, she has to up and behave in a way that is egregiously against the current laws and way of life, plainly not giving a damn about anyone around her.

Why hadn't the Aunt said, "never mind", and told them to get the hell out of there? Why can't Jamie tell her to shut the hell up and take control of the situation. He should spank her again, in all reality.

I feel like Claire could be herself and true to her character without creating a story line that has us literally yelling WTF at the TV and hating her by the end of episode 2. I don't know how I'm going to get through it, to be honest. I can't watch her destroy more people's lives.

During the entire slave trade era from slaves shipped to the Middle East and then to the Western Hemisphere... No European (nor Arab) slave buyer ever set foot on soil of Africa. All slaves were captives in tribal war-fare and were sold to ships when they arrived at designated areas where slaves were often kept for days to months awaiting a ship to arrive. Stop the myth of European and Arab slave traders going ashore and 'capturing' the indigenous peoples. If the 'captives' from tribal war-fare had not been sold into slavery - they would have been executed as casualties of war. Claire being insistent on freedom against the established laws... IF she had been canny, she would have given the slaves on the estate freedom on the estate and paid them for their labour and then charged them for their housing and food. This is what occurred in 1865, with the same people doing the same work being paid and paying back in a zero net sum gain way of life.