Photo: Episode 606, Starz
Here it is! Our discussion of Episode 606. Just a reminder, we have a week off for Easter – the next episode will air on April 24th. So, besides spending precious time with your families, you have lots of time to catch up on our Season 6 episode discussions!
Prior season discussions can be found in chronological order in the Featured Favorites Section, below the Season 6 and 7 posts.
We will be discussing Episode 605 this coming Monday, so look for that next week.
Did you know that you can find the Official Outlander Podcast and the Season 6 scripts on the homepage on this site? It’s true. Scroll to the very bottom, and you’ll find those under Links To More Great Outlander Stuff .
Without further ado, enjoy or discussion of Ep 606…
Speaking of Mary McNab, I did a short interview with Emma Campbell-Jones, who played her in Season 3. You can check it out here –
Be sure and catch my latest piece on Who Will Play William In Season 7?
And catch our discussion of Episode 604, Hour of the Wolf.
Happy hump day! š
Become an Outlanderbts.com Patron: Patron
Subscribe to my Youtube Channel: Outlander BTS
Join my Facebook group: Outlanderbts.com
Follow me on Twitter: @Courtilini14
Follow me on Instagram: Outlander_BTS
Many blessings to those suffering in Ukraine and Russia. 
Thank you.
Donāt like where this is going. Know this is going to get really bad for Claire and Jamie.
Afraid so!
Thanks, great discussion. I want to add that as a nurse in OR for 43 years you guys were correct in that they(surgeons) do cuss a lot which is where we nurses learned to cuss like sailors!
To borrow a line from Casablanca and bend it a bit…”Of all the actresses in all the world”…… how didn’t they find an actress worthy of the Sophie role?
I concur….they may have cut the most poignant scene with Jamie saying to Claire: “if you truly cannae hold on any longer……”
I, too, was shocked by Lizzie’s face touching! OMG…
I feel so much compassion for Sophie, as I assume she is doing her very best. It feels unfair that she’s been placed in this position among all these spectacular actors. I wish it could somehow change. She seems like a lovely person.
It took 6 episodes for a serious misstep. I’m sorry it happened, but I genuinely feel it’s the first one. Not bad for anything after Season 1 imo.
I have watched Sophie in particular since hearing the various comments about her performance throughout the discussions. Except for some aspects of Dragonfly in Amber and a couple episodes after that–which I attributed as much to what was written for her than how she delivered the lines–I always see Brianna. Not Sophie.
Even when she is at the back of a scene while principles carry the story line, she remains in character. A recent example of that is when they are testing the guns for Bird and Roger is thrilled to have hit the target. She offers an unenthusiastic remark that he’s been practicing. During the first watch I thought she was giving a Scottish compliment (like “I’ve heard worse” when Hayes comments on Wiloughby’s story in Doldrums).
However, during multiple subsequent viewings I noted her body language as leaves the practice area, puts down the gun and goes up the stairs. There’s a clear troubled heaviness to her gait. Jamie notices that she is upset and follows her to the porch and asks. Then she tells him about the trail of tears.
I’ve continued to watch Sophie looking for the elements of her performance that seem egregious to others. Sorry. I just don’t get it. The lips not moving thing is very British. Other Brits do that too. All the time.
The only miscast character that I can see is Germaine. Nothing feisty or precocious about him. Not one spark.
i agree with you about sophie and her not moving her mouth, i am not convinced at all about her acting and speaking….
Thank you Lynda – I always appreciate your POV! š
Lynda I also believe that Lizzie is miscast. Not only is she nothing like book Lizzie but they have written her as too flirtatious and in many instances dangerously naive. Caitlin O’Ryan who plays Lizzie is an inexperienced actress with no professional credits and in my opinion it shows.
Yes, she’s swimming in a sea of heavy talent and the contrast is stark, and has been since the introduction of her character. There have been ‘moments’ of credible work, but it’s inconsistent, and largely shallow. I really want to accept her.
Maybe a new acting coach would be a good first step.
I think we are all rooting for her.
Yes, yes, I agree, uh huh, yep, I didnāt notice that, really, I saw that, I have to rewatch that sceneā¦
Great perceptions, ladies!
Thank you Susan š. When I published it, I thought, āAnd itās out before Susanās Friday convo!ā
Once again you have hit all the highs and lows. Antoinette I agree completely – it was the Claire and Malva show at the expense of Jamie. I too was so very disappointed. I do not know why, but we have seen it happen time and again. ( I call it the strong woman syndrome) I too think this is the episode that will be submitted for awards.
There were two adaptive choices that I really liked and a few that I didn’t.
Liked:
As Antoinette mentioned, the scene where Claire went to visit Malva after the reveal was partly based on the visit that Roger made to Malva in the book to try to get her to take back her accusations. I thought it was a reasonable choice to build on that scene if they decided to have Claire confront Malva.
‘
The second adaptation that I liked was the scene where Jamie and Roger came back from the assembly and were naming the types of drink that the delegates had imbibed. In the book I believe that was just Roger, but in this episode it served as a great bridge between the two couples catching up with how the trip had gone to have both Jamie and Roger listing types of drinks. It provided some levity in a heavy episode. However that scene was also problematic for me in that Jamie asked Claire how things had been. Her response was a wan, “I’ve managed.” And that was the end of the scene. No response from Jamie at all. It left the feeling that poor Claire has been struggling with the situation at the Ridge while Jamie and Roger have been living it up at the assembly and seeing history being made. Again it was like their relationships disappeared. A hug, an I’m so sorry that it’s been rough, would have taken only seconds. Something was needed in response.
What didn’t work:
The ether scene with Malva in the dream – it was just too much. And the dream with the snakes.
I thought that the episode had a major flaw in the presentation of Claire’s illness. No one around her seemed concerned. But worst of all, it was never revealed that it was seeing Malva touch Jamie in his distress over Claire that caused Claire to say, “That won’t do.” She was so ill at that point in the book that she was actually near death. She chose to come back- to fight – and it was for Jamie for she knew “she loved him”. We got none of that, and it is one of those key moments in the books. A short voice over would have been easy to add and would have actually increased the stakes in this episode. It would have made the slap of Malva make more sense.
I found the choice to have them standing in the barn for their conversation after the reveal an interesting one. In the book, they sit side by side in the grass through that conversation. As I read it I never thought Claire was agitated until she was asking about who Jamie slept with. “Who was it, dammit! ” It’s hard to be agitated when you are sitting side by side with someone. So I never read that scene the way it was acted,I read it as Claire was sad, concerned and confused. so I was a little surprised. We had heard some of it in previews so I was worried about how that scene would play out. I understand that the show runners saw it as an opportunity to give Claire another opportunity to show hurt, upset and anger. Played that way it was definitely a dramatic opportunity for Caitriona. But for me it sent me back to Season 3 in First Wife when Claire told Jamie that she thought she had made a mistake in coming back. It seemed rather melodramatic. And it was another example in this episode of an uneven portrayal of the two characters. I felt that Sam’s portrayal throughout the episode was actually very true to book Jamie except that we saw none of his angst over Claire.
The scene drinking tea and talking to Malva was totally out of character when Claire was upstairs so gravely ill.
It probably sounds like I didn’t like this episode. That is not the case. I thought it was very good. So much of it was spot on. The acting was excellent throughout. When Tom got in Jamie’s face and said you can take the bastard for your wife to raise, I believe Jamie’s look and “Get out” probably singed Tom’s facial hair. Clair and Tom’s conversation post illness was terrific. And as all you mentioned, Jessica was great. Rick Rankin is very believable as a minister.
This could have been one of the top few episodes in the six seasons with just a few tweaks. I wish we could have seen Jamie as an equal character in this episode. It’s the Jamie and Claire story and connection that sets Outlander apart from other series. When it’s written and portrayed it is truly excellent TV.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughtful reviews with us. I know it is quite a commitment of time for all of you. I truly appreciate it. Your review adds so much to my Outlander viewing experience.
I dont like to say it at all, but I think Sam’s performance was one of the biggest problems of this episode. At one point it crossed my mind, that perhaps his ridiculously severe ponytail is preventing him from moving his facial muscles, as other than smirking and half-smirking he hardly had any facial expressions. I don’t agree his portrayal was true to book Jamie – book Jamie often appears stoical, but he is also a passionate man with a short fuse and not the emotionless machine, which he appears in this episode IMO. For a man, who in the book was supposed to look like a walking death and argue wih God over his wife’s illness, he looked perfectly put together, not one hair out of the place (also, I laughed a bit at show!Jamie stating “I have hands of stonemason” while looking at his perfectly manicured palms). That aspect was not the actor’s fault though, but he remained weirdly expressionless through the entire thing. I recently reread the chapter in ABOSAA featuring Jamie’s confrontation with the Christies, and he was running the gamut of emotions there: from shocked disbelief, irritation, sense of absurd, moments of panic, to monstrous anger and sense of irony. I know that the writers and director didn’t give this scene enough room to breathe, but it’s also partialy actor’s fault, for Jamie appeared to be as agitated as someone falsely accused of throwing his garbages into his neighbour’s garden.
Two Jamie&Claire scenes that semi – worked for me was their discussion about female virtues and the “sun going up and down” confession. The former is one of my favorite conversations between the two of them ever, and even though the abbreviated version in the show wasn’t as witty and poignant, it still made me smile as Cait and Sam seemed to enjoy having this bit of maritial banter instead of “Claire, sometimes I think ye are an angel” variety. The latter finally carried some bit of emotions, otherwise missing from Jamie.
Thank you for these insights. I agree with you. However, I’ve made other lengthy comments and thought I should probably quit. So glad you have given words to some of my thoughts.
Thank you Ruth Ann – some great points here. Yes, while great, this episode fell prey to some choices from the past, for all the reasons you mentioned. I wish they had stuck with their Season 6 approach , vs indulging in the temptations to show boat Cait, give Jamieās air time to Bree, over emphasize the Malva storyline & sacrifice storyline & character for drama. Must be hard to resist those temptations, because weāve seen it over and over again, but as you say, with a few tweaks, we could have it all. xo
Bree and Roger had not left yet when Claire got sick. And it was Roger who was at her bedside when she woke up.
āRoger?ā I said, groping for his name. My own voice was hoarse from disuse; speaking was an intolerable effort. His eyes were closed in prayer; they sprang open, unbelieving, and I thought how vivid they were, the green of wet serpentine and summer leaves. āClaire?ā His voice cracked like a teenaged boyās, and he dropped the book. āI donāt know,ā I said, feeling the dreamlike sense of submergence threatening to engulf me again. āAm I?ā
In the book, Roger and Bree had not left at the time of Claireās illness. Roger was at her bedside when she woke up.
Page 825, ABOSAA:
āRoger?ā I said, groping for his name. My own voice was hoarse from disuse; speaking was an intolerable effort. His eyes were closed in prayer; they sprang open, unbelieving, and I thought how vivid they were, the green of wet serpentine and summer leaves. āClaire?ā His voice cracked like a teenaged boyās, and he dropped the book. āI donāt know,ā I said, feeling the dreamlike sense of submergence threatening to engulf me again. āAm I?ā
You are right! I stand corrected! I was thinking they had left by the time the showdown happens, but you are absolutely right. My mistake.
Itās so hard to remember What happens in which book. I had to look it up because I wasnāt sure either. My only clue was that I had some remembrance of Roger being the one who was there when she woke up.
I really enjoy and learn from your episode discussions! Thankyou so much for all your work! I listened to your discussion on 606 even though in Uruguay starplus has not downloaded it! suppose they like to do whatever the heck they want and not follow civilized customs….
Thank you Carina!
i am from uruguay by the way….
Like many I loved ep 606, there were some great acting performances, and the dialogue follows the book. I don’t understand why Jamie’s emotional arc was so poor. I know that the show and the books are different. Why wasn’t Jamie’s character given more depth, because in the book he is desperate and won’t leave Claire, he is devastated because he thinks she is going to die. When you know Sam Heughan’s performance as an actor, I’m a little frustrated that he wasn’t able to express it unlike the other actors in this ep.
One of the most moving scenes in the book was Jamie on the floor next to dying Clare. When she was barely awake, he helped her get on the chamber pot and wasnāt allowed to empty the pot out the window before Clare checked the contents for blood. Jamie was devastated and never left her side, cried, prayed, etc. this was all missing, but I guess they have to move things along in the tv show. Iāve become such a book fan that itās better to treat the book and the show as two separate entities, then you feel like nothing is missing!!
An absolute necessity to “treat the book and the show as two separate entities”, otherwise, we’d be beside ourselves!
I agree that we must consider the book/show entities separately. However, I don’t think that making comparisons between the two and share opinions as to what does or does not work in the adaptation is in any way conducive to being “beside ourselves.” It’s a pleasurable intellectual exercise to do it and a joy to hear arguments other than my own with others who respond as passionately to the story as I do.
I agree. It wouldnāt have taken much to get the point across. When Claire wakes up, one line from Roger could have said it all. Something like, āOf courohe has seen you hair, he didnt leave your bedside the whole week.ā
I believe the part you are speaking of was in Beesā¦not this book.
It’s from “Written in My Own’s Heart Blood” (book 8), after the battle of Monmouth.
Sorry I am wrongā¦ it wasnāt in Bees, but it was in another bookā¦ Written in my Own Hearts Blood .. where Claire gets shot at Monmouth. pages 676-678. This part made me cryā¦
I believe the scene you are referring to is in book 8 after Claire is shot.
How many doors go into the surgery? Arenāt there three but she only locked two?
Thanks for the great discussion. I noticed that the camera went quickly to Tom after Claire slapped Malva and he smirked, as if he felt she deserved it.
I agree with Cathy about how the community turning against Jamie and Claire didn’t make sense. Malva was sleeping around and it’s likely those men bragged about it. Word would get out. I would think Malva’s word would have been highly suspect and not trusted. On the other hand, Jamie and Claire have built up an incredible amount of good will in the community. It just felt unlikely that all the people would turn their backs on the Frasers.
I also agreed with Karmen about Sophie’s acting. Interesting about her head tilting up at the sky. This season (in the past as well) I noticed she often plays Brianna as if the character is downcast or depressed (to me). There’s a flatness in her portrayal. When she told Claire she couldn’t die and leave her, it didn’t feel genuine.
The scene with Roger when she talked about meeting Frank’s lover I felt could have been left out. If we’re meant to be concerned about Brianna because she always thought Frank loved Claire only to find out he didn’t, didn’t Brianna come to grips with that long ago? Is she really disillusioned about what seems real but is not, and if so, I wasn’t sure why it was important to the story. In other words it seemed like a throwaway conversation and could have been left out.
I liked this episode very much. I also felt more emphasis should have been made on Jamie’s reaction to Claire’s illness. I noticed that after Jamie finished talking to Malva, his face fell, showing his heart was with Claire. I felt Jamie was sort of trapped by Malva in that conversation and was trying to make the best of it.
I loved the scene between Tom and Claire, and Claire’s face when Tom said, “put on your hat.” Great. And those last few moments, as Malva rushed to Claire and couldn’t get in the house while Claire passed out, very good sequence.
I believe the writers included Bree telling Roger about Frank’s infidelity as it is from the book and not really about what Brianna has come to terms with long ago. It’s about thinking that a beloved person is honorable and would never consider infidelity but learning that he did, in fact, hide that indiscretion (as well as the truth of her true parentage) all the time that she knew him.
Now, when Jamie is accused by Malva, those memories and the triggers rise up again. She and Roger think it can’t be true, but Roger is more confident that the accusation is false because he’s seen Malva making out with another man. However, her previous experience undermines whatever confidence Brianna may have had in Jamie somewhat–even if only for a moment. Once betrayed, it is harder to fully trust again. Based on her past experience of one false father, she wonders whether she can she trust her real father to be true.
Therefore, if his own family members wrestle with the question, it makes sense that the deeply superstitious, hostile and intolerant Protestants turn their backs on Jamie and Claire. It’s called shunning and I’ve had personal experience of that phenomenon–based on suspicion without evidence in the supposedly more enlightened 20th century. So I would suggest that it does make sense in the context of the time and the mind-set of the fisher-folk.
Rather than throw-away dialogue, it’s subtle character development of a community which turns against its benefactor on divisive religious grounds. A community of destitute Scots that Jamie and Claire have supported in the most egalitarian–and frankly, more Christian–manner.
“Throw-away” was perhaps not the best term. What I mean is that I feel it was an unnecessary scene, though I liked Roger’s reaction to Brianna when he said Claire was in love with someone else for 20 years. Brianna’s reaction–feeling for a moment that Jamie could be unfaithful and perhaps not trusted–was her personal reaction. That feeling is specific to her. I don’t see that her feelings gives more weight to the community being distrustful of Jamie and Claire. The fisherfolk are superstitious but there are many other community members that have been with the Frasers much longer. I’m referring to what we see in the show only (not the book).
It has bothered me, even in the books, that Jamie and Claire did not see through Malva, at least far enough to be cautious. They are both supreme readers of human emotions/motivations and Malva was not trustworthy. Ever. It was in her from the beginning that she was figuring the angles, lying to her family for her benefit. Now I would have lied to that family, too, but the lack of veracity shows through the cracks when someone is using that kind of sly manipulation in order to live.
Why didnāt they think of her as a bit too crafty to be trustworthy?
Are there only the fisher folk living on the ridge now? Where are the men from Ardsmuir?
No, the Catholic Scots and Ardsmuir men are still present and remain so right through Go Tell the Bees. However, Diana hasn’t developed the division on the Ridge as being between the two religious factions or any overt support from those men. In Seasons 6 the conflict is focused on Claire and Jamie against Tom, his folk and the (coming next) Browns/Committee of Safety.
In Bees that conflict continues with the Cunninghams/Loyalists. In Bees some attention is given to Jamie’s supporters among the men, but it’s more behind the scenes stuff like guarding entrances or scouting in the woods for intruders. His main support comes from Ian and Roger, but when they are absent from the Ridge for any reason, Jamie is highly vulnerable.
Ladies once again I enjoyed your discussion on 606. You always catch things I miss as well as bring your points of view forward in both an entertaining and informative way. Courtney just a bit of information. All women, married or no, were supposed to wear head coverings in the 1700’s and beyond. This was particulary true of when attending church. But it was also very important as a safety/hygiene issue when working around open fires and outside in the elements.
Interesting discussion. I remain more pro-Sophie than you all.
I keep looking at the watercolor ( I think) behind Courtney- is it a local artist? Reminds me of colorado artist I knowā¦