Give me again all that was there: Starz’s OUTLANDER “The Devil’s Mark”


Warning: Spoilers Galore

Give me again all that was there,
Give me the sun that shone!
Give me the eyes, give me the soul,
Give me the lad that’s gone!

1884 lyrics to
“The Skye Boat Song”


If you’ve been watching Starz’s adaptation of Diana Gabaldon’s best-selling Outlander series of books, you know that some of the first season was divided into two parts over two years (2014-2015), with S1 P2 just recently beginning after a long, almost unbearable hiatus for those of us who have never read the books. If you’ve read any of my related blogs on the show, you know that I’m not comparing the books to the show, but am judging the show by its own merit. All adaptations should be judged that way — despite readers’ complaints about how films or series differ from the books on which they’re based — because the two are completely different art forms.

S1 P1 of Outlander was a bit slow-moving — spending far too much time on extended visual displays of historical information, like women’s clothes, hair, jewelry; men’s clan rituals; etc. that the viewers would have gotten instantly despite the fact that book readers may have needed extended descriptions — then speeding up during the last few episodes. S1 P2, however, has been more plot-driven. Ep 11, “The Devil’s Mark,” was the most powerful show the season has produced thus far: harrowing, moving, and poignant.

The Harrowing

UnknownIf you’ve been reading my blogs on S1 P1, you know that I found Geillis (Lotte Verbeek, above L) to be one of the most interesting and intriguing characters of the series. Not only did she become friends with the time-transported Claire (Caitriona Balfe, above R), but Geillis was a healer herself.

She constantly urged Claire to be happy in her life in 1740s Scotland, as Geillis herself was, but she seemed to have secrets of her own that indicated she might have come through the stones from the future herself. In “The Devil’s Mark,” my predictions about Geillis proved true, as she and Claire were arrested and put on trial for witchcraft, and Geillis, indeed, revealed that she had come from the future.

images-4Of course, neither were “witches” — for spiritual, religious, or any other purposes, though Geillis was shown in S1 P2 Ep 10 performing a ceremony in the woods that she hoped would lead to the death of her lover Dougal’s (Gavin McTavish) wife so that she and their unborn child could be with him; and then Geillis poisoned her own husband so the lovers could be together.

Unfortunately, Claire became involved in the witchcraft trial for numerous reasons:

  • because of her own stubborn personality: she ignored Jamie’s warning to stay away from Geillis after her lover Dougal was exiled to his home by his brother Colum (Gary Lewis),
  • her own temper: she slapped Laoghaire MacKenzie (Nell Hudson) over their mutual jealousy concerning Jamie (Sam Heughan),
  • and her own fruitless attempts to save a dying baby left in the woods by parents hoping it would become a “changeling” and have a better, healthy life with the fairies: the infant’s mother saw Claire and accused her, during the witch-trial, of killing the baby instead of permitting the fairies to “change” it. images-1

Laoghaire was one of the principal witnesses against Claire. The love-lorn Laoghaire not only set up the meeting with Geillis and Claire by forging a note, but she may have been responsible for calling the wardens on Geillis for murdering her husband Arthur.


Clan laird Colum certainly suspected foul-play himself during the public banquet for the Duke of Sandringham (Simon Callow, above), so Colum, as Laird, may have alerted the wardens. In any event, though Geillis may have been the original intended accused, for the murder of her husband, Laoghaire ensured that Claire was included in any witchcraft accusations with her bitter testimony about the love-potions which Laoghaire had requested to make Jamie fall in love with her, and which she claimed Claire had drunk herself to “steal” Jamie away.


Despite his best attempts to save the two women, lawyer Ned Gowan (Bill Patterson, above) could not combat religious and sexist prejudices against women during that time period, and both were found guilty of witchcraft and sentenced to death by burning.  As Claire was being flogged, husband Jamie appeared and attempted to save her from the mob. However, only Geillis’ brave and melodramatic self-sacrifice managed to save Claire from the mob’s fury.


After realizing that her attempts to help return Scotland to independence through the Jacobite cause of returning a Scottish monarch to the throne had been in vain, Geillis whispered “1968” to Claire (which is apparently the year Geillis came through the stones at Craigh na doon).

(The writers of this episode stated in interviews that they did not have Geillis tell Claire that Geillis, too, had come through the stones during the time the two women were imprisoned in the Thieves’ Hole before the trial because they feared such a admission would have taken away from Claire’s later revelation to Jamie. Despite Claire’s reciting, “I only regret that I have but one life to give to my country” — the purported last words of American revolutionary Nathan Hale before being hanged in 1776, with which Geillis would have been familiar only if she had come from the future — and Geillis’ response of “Nice line,” I still wasn’t sure, at that point in the show, whether or not Geillis had, indeed, come through the stones from the future. Even though I’d seen some remarks on forums on Geillis’ smallpox vaccine scar, I’d tried to skip any Spoilers since I haven’t read the books and want to remain excited about the show itself.)

As the mob was flogging Claire as a prelude to burning her for being a witch, Geillis unselfishly helped save Claire. Revealing her small-pox vaccination as “the Devil’s mark” on her body, Geillis screamed to the crowd that she was, indeed, a witch and was, furthermore, carrying the devil’s child after having sexual relations with the Devil himself, ripping open her dress and revealing her rounded abdomen. Hissing at Claire to “run,” Geillis continued her over-the-top performance and melodramatic confession until she was carried out to be burnt.

My congratulations and admiration to Lotte Verbeek for her brilliantly dramatic performance as Geillis trying to save the only friend she had — the friend who did not betray her by saying that Geillis had tricked and misled her, a statement that the lawyer said might have given Claire the chance to save her own life. Realizing that the only way to take the mob’s attention off Claire was to concentrate it totally on herself, Geillis threw herself into her confession with admirable fanaticism. Lotte could have convinced me that she was a witch.

images-6I can only thank Starz for not allowing us to see Geillis’ being burnt at the stake, as it would have been even more gruesome than Jamie’s extended flogging scene from S1 P1 by Black Jack Randall (Tobias Menzies, in a dual role as BJR and as Claire’s 1945 husband Frank). The trial was harrowing enough as it was, and ended with the (implied) burning of Geillis, and the escape of Claire and Jamie.

The Moving

images-3After Jamie rescued Claire and they’d gotten a sufficient distance from the mob, he asked Claire to tell him the truth about something, promising to be completely honest with her in return. In an unintentionally humorous (from our perspective) scene for such a profoundly disturbing moment, Jamie asked Claire if she was a witch herself. His question was based on her own smallpox vaccination scar, which he claimed to have seen and wondered about many times without asking her what it was.

This brought about Claire’s complete confession about who she was and why/how she came to be in Scotland in that time period. Jamie patiently listened to it all. The audience actually heard some of it, but the rest was muted: we saw only glimpses of Jamie’s quite calm reaction to the story.

After Claire’s “confession,” Jamie surprised me by not only believing her story of having coming through the stones — without questions, mockery, or grimaces —  but by re-evaluating his own behavior in light of her tale. Asking whether she had gone to the stones earlier — endangering the others in the clan, after he’d requested she stay hidden from the British soldiers — for the express purpose of returning to her “husband” in 1945, Claire admitted that she had. Jamie then murmured, “And I beat you for it.”

What a surprise.

Jamie has not only promised, in an earlier episode, never to lay hands on Claire in violence again — though that may have been because she wouldn’t have sex with him after he beat her — but, after hearing Claire’s story, he came very quickly to what must have been a very painful and emotional conclusion for him. That Claire had been going to the stones to return to her husband, and she didn’t mean Jamie by that word.

Because S1 P2 began from Jamie’s perspective, with his Voice-over, we know that he is falling in love with Claire, despite their marriage being one of convenience, so I found it very moving that Jamie did not judge Claire and her story, he believed her “unbelievable” story without question, and he matured emotionally and morally from learning the truth about Claire.

The Poignant

imagesI’ll be the first to admit that I’m not big on Romances. Don’t read ’em; rarely watch ’em. But the premise of Outlander was so intriguing that I wanted to see what had made the books bestsellers. I don’t know about events in any of the books, and I’ve already said that I found S1 P1 a bit slow until the final episodes, but S1 P2 shocked me last night with the poignancy of Jamie’s love for Claire.

After hearing her story, he took her several days’ journey away from where the trial had been held. Claire thought they were going “home.” Actually, after camping one night, Jamie took Claire over some hills to show her that they were at Craigh na doon. Yes, he’d taken her to the area of the stones after hearing her story. Without even asking her, Jamie took her to Craigh na doon in case she needed to go back to them. So that she could go home. And he meant the home that was away from him and his time.

images copyJamie has said, in Voice-over, that he is falling in love with Claire. Jamie has changed his behavior from that of the other men in his clan because of his feelings for Claire. Jamie has promised repeatedly to trust her and to believe what she tells him even if he doesn’t understand why (e.g., about the Duke of Sandringham). Yet he took her to the stones — after hearing her story — for the express purpose of helping her leave him in order to return to her husband Frank.

Yes, there was a last-second moment of hesitation: Jamie grabbed Claire’s hands just as she was about to touch the stones, saying he wasn’t ready to say good-bye yet. But then he left her alone there, telling her that he would stand guard at the campsite until she’d safely made it away, i.e., back through the stones to her own time.

Now that’s love  — unselfishly caring for another person’s happiness and well-being despite any pain it may cause you — and for the first time in the series, I found myself thinking Jamie a wonderful character with great emotional and moral depth.

6565d35e2c7249b8c9a76d54808f5b0bOf course, the decision to go back through the stones wasn’t easy for Claire either. She spent the day at Craigh na doon, looking at and fingering her two wedding rings: the gold one from Frank on her left hand, and the silver-key one from Jamie on her right. It was a poignant scene, uncluttered by any unnecessary Voice-over from Claire. In short, it was film adaptation of a book at its finest.

Cut away to a scene at night, with Jamie sleeping beside his campfire. (I did wonder why he was sleeping when he was supposed to be keeping guard, and why he didn’t wake immediately when someone approached the “camp,” but perhaps grief made him sleep more deeply rather than restlessly.) Then we hear Claire’s voice saying, “On your feet, Soldier.”

Yes, she came back.

To Jamie.

To the man who was willing to give her up — for love — so she could return to her own time as well as to the husband there whom she loves.

Was Jamie happy?

You betcha.

Did Starz ruin it with a sex scene?

They did not.

(And for that, I applaud the writers, the director, the producers, and Starz itself. Love is not always expressed sexually, and, in that instance, I would have found it inappropriate and vulgar. Of course, their tears were touchingly appropriate, as was their affectionate embrace.)

For the first time in any episode, I found myself moved by Claire’s and Jamie’s growing love for each other. Of course, I believe that Jamie loves Claire far more than she presently loves him: he was willing to give her up so she would be happy.

Claire may love Jamie enough to stay with him for the moment, but I know there will be repercussions to her decision to stay in the past, which may affect her feelings for him. (And to those of you who’ve read the books, please don’t send me any more comments telling me what’s going to happen: that’s why I’m not reading the books: I’m watching the show.)

048b0f2112f84e5bcead0a9332de356bThe episode “The Devil’s Mark” was harrowing, moving, and poignant. It was the best of the series to date. I only hope that the writers doing the adaptation of Outlander from the books will continue the fine writing and storytelling — and that the actors will attain the high quality performances — of this episode.

Now Outlander has become a show that’s really worth watching.



Filed under Actors, Authors, Books, History, Movies/Television, Music Videos, Music/Song, Outlander, Poetry, Rape, Violence

12 Responses to Give me again all that was there: Starz’s OUTLANDER “The Devil’s Mark”

  1. Laine

    I’m late to this discussion but thought I’d add an observation about the book readers vs show watching exclusively since this seems to be an issue here and elsewhere. (Full disclosure – I’ve read the first 3 books more than once, the others in the series not at all and have repeat watched some parts of the TV show, fast forwarded through some gruesome parts).

    Show watchers are like beginning daters of Jamie and Claire. They are learning about them as they act and accept everything, having no preconceived notions of how they SHOULD act based on past behavior. Repeat readers have a long term relationship with the main characters, feel they know them quite well (privy to their innermost thoughts on the page whereas TV watchers actually seem to despise the little voice over that’s used to communicate inner monologue). It’s frustrating for group A (show watchers) to be “lectured” by readers. It’s frustrating for faithful readers to see show watchers be led astray in their opinion by the show runners departing in significant ways from the books. And the significant changes most readers mind rather than plot details are altering the character of either Jamie or Claire and therefore their relationship.

    TV people (and I include the show runners because even Moore has admitted he hasn’t read the books after Outlander through, just synopses) like J and C with feet of clay, praising “realistic” bickering especially after being apart for some time of which I’ll say no more to avoid plot spoilers. Book readers enjoy the characters as aspirational. Jamie and Claire are titanic lovers, far above average in their mating of souls (and bodies) their devotion crossing even the chasm of time.

    Although from one of your earlier commentaries, you seem to have missed it, I think the show runners translated the approach of J and C to each other very well. It was sweet and lovely in both the book and on screen. Partly because the casting was spot on and the chemistry between the leads off the charts, that spark of awareness was conveyed from the get go. Claire was at her most officious nursing matron but Jamie was intrigued and grateful to her from their first meeting. Then the enforced intimacy on horseback, Jamie’s gentlemanly wrapping her in his plaid for warmth as well as shoving her off his horse and out of danger, then retrieving her and “sharing his drink”. Claire in turn fuming at him for reinjuring himself but patching him up all the same, culminating at Castle Leoch where she weeps for her “not alive” husband and Jamie comforts her. Much later he tells her that he wanted her from the first time he laid eyes on her (as his furious ministering angel) but began to love her when he first held her at Castle Leoch. And looking back at that scene, you can see it. Heughen is brilliant in the part.

    Claire despite not wanting to admit it to herself felt a pull toward her young champion who told her she need not fear him or anyone else as long as he was near. Rather than a callow, immature boy, Jamie was head and shoulders above his peers, not just in physical stature. He had started a man’s doings (cattle thieving with his Uncle Dougal) at age 14, spent 2 years in the French army i.e. was a seasoned and admiration worthy warrior. Colum Mackenzie preferred him as his successor and guardian of his young heir Hamish to the more hotheaded Dougal. Yet the show runners tampered badly with Jamie’s mature persona in the episode Lallybroch.

    Claire approached Jamie many times under the guise of changing bandages making an unnecessary “house call” to the paddock etc. While she played at helping Laoghaire with her crush, she may as well have drunk the love potion herself as she was aware of where Jamie was in the room and followed him with her eyes just as much as the younger woman with more reciprocity from the object of their affections. Jamie was a protector of Claire, reminding her of her vulnerability as a Sassenach, warning her of mis-steps and smoothing over some of them or participating to make things right (freeing the boy from the stocks). It was a slow dance of seduction, and very well done in both art forms.

    • Dear Laine,
      Of course, it’s always interesting to hear how Outlander, the show differs from the books, but dramatizations of books are usually quite different, if only because they’re different artistic media. Books are based mostly on language and on readers’ imaginations while drama is a visual art that interprets language.

      I didn’t realize that RDM had not read all Gabaldon’s books, only that he was obviously expanding Frank’s role, to the dismay and outrage of many readers, and really expanding some of the more gruesome sexual violence and rape scenes, may of which I could not watch entirely due to their graphic nature.

      Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comments.

  2. Heather

    I love this post and I always enjoy reading non-reader perspectives of the story and the show. I’m envious that you guys don’t have the shadow of the books hanging over your shoulder sullying your viewing experience. 😉 I did wonder why they didn’t have Jamie make the connection that Geillis was also from the future as he was already making the connection of Claire’s “devil’s mark” and her being a witch like Geillis. That part wasn’t in the book at all (well other than Claire noticing the vaccination scar.) I also thought Lotte was fantastic throughout the whole episode and love that she kind of redeems herself when she saves Claire.

    I do have one thing to say about when Jamie and Claire are at the stones and hope you don’t consider it a spoiler because it’s already happened in the show, but if you want all of the book to be a surprise until you read it then stop reading right now. 🙂 You question how Jamie just believes her completely without any doubt in his mind but that isn’t how it happened in the book. He says he believes her just as he did in the show and takes her to the stones, but when she puts her hand on the stone and it starts to pull her in he pulls her back in fear and THEN he truly believes her based on what he saw. Claire is kind of half dazed from being in the stone, even if only briefly, and jokingly says something like “so you didn’t really believe me” and he tells her that he wasn’t sure until that moment. I agree that it makes him more human that way and wish they would have left it that way in the show.

    • Dear Heather,
      You’re the first person who’s ever said she “envied” those of us who haven’t read Gabaldon’s book and are only watching Starz’s adaptation of Outlander instead of insulting us for being Sassenachs. But you’re right: those of us who haven’t read the books, however few we may be, don’t have any idea whatsoever about what’s going to happen, which can make it exciting, but keeps you off most forums etc because of all the Spoilers 😀

      Re: Jamie and the “Devil’s Mark” — I’m guessing that, in only an hour, the show’s writers had to pick and choose what to put in, and Jamie’s reaction to Claire’s story was more important for that episode than his reaction to the fact that Geillis might also be from the future and have come through the stones. One of the head writers (whose name I cannot find no matter how much I’ve googled it) said she’d made a conscious choice not to reveal to Claire that Geillis had come from the future while they were in Thieves’ Hole because they didn’t want to lessen the impact of the later Claire/Jamie scene. Maybe they left out any connection Jamie might have made for the same reason: he would have had quite enough to deal with already, poor boy.

      Which part about the scar wasn’t in the book? The scar in the courtroom scene? It worked well there, didn’t it? And Lotte really stole the show when Geillis sacrificed herself, since she realized she didn’t have a chance to live anyway, and helped save Claire by letting her have a chance to get away. Lotte was fantastic.

      Re: the stones. Thanks so much for the Spoiler, and after I asked readers not to give me any 🙂
      That change is an interesting one. His pulling her back out of fear, as you say he does in the book, rather than out of love and because of not wanting to let her go in case it is the truth (he could still have had his doubts), changes the interpretation of his character. I think I prefer the character as the writers of the show chose to portray Jamie since it’s the first time I thought of him as anything other than a little boy: I taught University for 30+ years and he reminds me of my students, who were like children on the edge of adulthood, like my children, true, for I loved them, but they were more children than adults most of the time, if that makes sense.

      He may have been more human for having doubts already in the book, but that doesn’t mean they won’t come up later in the show. The Starz writers have finally made him human, in my opinion, instead of just a Boy-Toy sex-object, and I hope they’ll continue to do so.

      I’ve loved this conversation. It’s been delightful. Hope we continue to talk.


      • Heather

        I noticed that too about the reader snobbery and I see readers telling people who haven’t read the books to hurry and read them. My response to that is always “No! Please don’t. Just enjoy watching the show and then if you want to, read the books after.” Even reading each book after the season ends would be fine but hang onto that virgin perspective during the season, because it becomes very difficult to separate the two after you read. Don’t get me wrong, I love some of the changes they’ve made but they have also done a huge disservice to Jamie’s characterization and his relationship with Claire is lacking compared to the book. That’s to be expected to some extent as a book will always have more room to expand, but there has been a lot of extra stuff added to the show that wasn’t necessary (and honestly, didn’t add much) and in the process the writers have short-changed the main reason readers fell in love with the story. This is even more evident when I see people who haven’t read the books viewing Jamie as emotionally immature or boyish. I have also gotten that impression of him from the show and the Jamie in the book is never like that. Readers have complained a lot about hair color, height, eye color, baldness, “he never said that,” “she’s supposed to say this,” etc. all superficial stuff, but my complaint about the show has always been the way they have written Jamie. Every now and then while watching I would see glimpses of the real Jamie but it has been fleeting. I do think they’re doing a better job in the second half but it almost feels like too little, too late for what has happened in the second half and for the intense stuff that’s coming down the pipeline. Hopefully not if they can keep fleshing him out. I know they want people to realize that he’s only 23 but he’s 23 in 18th century Scotland, for god’s sake! That’s a very different 23 than a modern day 23 and Diana Gabaldon knew that so why don’t the show writers know this as well? I agree that up til now he’s mostly been Claire’s lover and rescuer which isn’t a compelling enough reason for her to pick this guy over her husband and her own time.

        Which brings me to his fear at the stones. I didn’t explain it very well so I’ll expand on it. Hmmm how to do this without giving anything away? I guess it wouldn’t really be giving anything away that’s pertinent to future story. His fear in the book is for Claire’s safety. When she goes through the stones, it’s an extremely harrowing, painful experience so when she started to go through, her face was contorted in pain and Jamie pulls her back because of that. He thought she was dying and of course his love for her would compel him to save her. And he most definitely does not want her to go which becomes clear from something he says that I (and many other readers) wish they would have included. They may include it in a future episode but it won’t have the same effect later. This whole part in the books is written so beautifully and with so much emotion and after waiting 17 years to see it, it fell flat for me. But I’m happy it worked for you and that is why I say keep the books at arm’s length. 😉

        I think your analysis of why Jamie doesn’t bring up Geillis is spot on. With just finding out that his wife is from the future and digesting that, the last thing he would be contemplating is Geillis’ origins. The only time the vaccination scar comes up in the book is when Claire sees it on Geillis’ arm after she takes down her dress to show the crowd she’s pregnant. Claire notices it and has an internal realization that Geillis is also from the future but doesn’t tell Jamie, and that was the end of the that. Then when they are talking later he just asks her if she’s a witch probably due to her behavior and odd comments which is slightly humorous as you point out. I do like the way they changed that for the show because it makes sense that Geillis would use the mark to convince the villagers and therefore provide Jamie with a reason to suspect Claire is a witch too.

        • Dearest Heather,
          There are so many movies and shows made from books that people haven’t read that it always surprises me when some readers get so hostile if you say you haven’t read the book yet but you are, indeed, faithfully watching the show. They act like you’re not permitted to watch the show unless you’ve read the book, which I don’t understand at all. I mean, how many of them read Gone with the Wind or all the Wizard of Oz books before seeing the films? How many of them read the books afterward? Not many, I’ll guess.

          Thanks for the explanation on the stones at Craigh na doon. Although it was clear in the series that Claire was dazed after coming through the stones the first time, and had been unconscious, there was never any indication that there was any pain. That does change the interpretation of Jamie’s behavior. But, of course, this is just an interesting side-point that I’ll notice when I read the books.

          I am planning to maintain my “virgin perspective” by reading the boks behind where the series is because I actually don’t always like knowing everything that’s going to happen before I watch a series or film. Unless it’s a film or series that I love enough to watch multiple times, and get something new out of it every time I see it, I don’t want to know what’s going to happen. I watch each episode of Outlander multiple times, even before I write the blog posts, so that I don’t miss anything, and also because I am enjoying the show even though I haven’t read the books and even if I haven’t previously praised the series to the skies in every single blog-post. I’m trying to be honest about the show as an entity separate from the books, and sometimes, it’s been a bit slow, so that’s what I’ve said. Although anyone who’s read my posts knows that I’ve found Geillis a fascinating character from the beginning and suspected that she was from the future even in part 1 of the series: I thought that was an interesting thing about her (and I wasn’t on any boards, forums, or FB groups then, so I didn’t have to worry about Spoilers.)

          I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to tell me all the things you did in the comments. I find those things fascinating, and I really appreciate that you’re not mad at me for not having read all the books beforehand and are not insisting on giving me the plot info.

          A x

  3. Thank you. Thank you for being honest. I have read your previous reviews/recaps/opinions and I am truly glad that Starz has finally pleased you. I really am – AND that you can admit it even though it was obvious you were less-than-pleased with the show previously. Ep 111 was quite emotional for me for all of the reasons you state above, as well as the “knowing” what was coming from being a reader of the books. BUT – this was a stand-alone episode and yes, the best of an adaptation of the book I’ve seen yet, and you gave it the depth it deserves in your review. Thank you again. I’ll be back.

    • Dear Sheryl,
      Thank you for returning to my Starz Outlander blogs even though I wasn’t praising them to the skies. The show did keep me coming back last year: I just thought some things, which were from the books, I guess, didn’t translate well into the show and made it drag. But I was interested enough to want to know what was happening.

      And I loved “The Devil’s Mark”. It was so brilliantly adapted that while I was watching it, I didn’t even wonder (or care) what had happened in the books. For the first time, I actually liked some of the characters who’d had no impact on me before. And I loved the plot of the episode.

      I, too, got emotional when Jamie pulled her back and when I heard her say, “On your feet, Soldier.” As a non-reader of those particular books, who doesn’t wish to spoil the show by starting them now, I had no idea what Claire would do (she might have gone back to Frank for a while, for example, and then returned to Jamie, since I’m assuming part of the success of the books is that she and Jamie are together through most of the series). I got all choked up and teary-eyed, which surprised me, as you might imagine from having read my previous blogs.

      The writers of the show impressed me immensely with ep 11, and I hope they keep up the good work. Now, that was a good show, and I want to see more like that.

      I’m also glad you appreciate my honesty. There are some shows/series/films I’ve seen that I’ve really disliked, but I don’t see the point in blogging on those. What’s the point? I could just turn the show off or leave the theatre if I dislike it, and that’s what I usually do. I don’t write a blog on something I hate because it takes me a lot of time and work to write a post, and, besides, I don’t blog to be mean-spirited but to give my honest opinion of a show/series or film. Obviously I liked something in Starz Outlander from the beginning — even if it was only the premise — or I wouldn’t have continued watching, and I never would have blogged on it if I absolutely didn’t like anything about it.

      So, Ep111 is how they officially list it? Even though it’s Part 2 of Season 1? I’m never sure how to list these episodes on these series, especially not in one that split itself in half during the first season.

      I’m glad you’ll be back. I promise to keep being honest.


  4. Great review!! I agreed with a lot of it and for a critic like myself, that is damn rare. This was he first episode I really enjoyed and the acting was excellent! *save for Sam…poor kid cant act. But all in all a good enough show to make me pass over the changes from the book without mention in my own blog (another rarity) 🙂 Cheers and I look forward to your next entry….

    • Thanks, Denise. Very high praise from such a fine blogger as yourself. I don’t think many of the major actors, except for Tobias, were picked for their acting skills. Though I do think Lotte did a great job going over the top in this episode, which, I suppose, is what a witch going to a barbecue would do. Hugs,

  5. jo

    I have to say this is another brilliant post. Again unbiased. Again just bloody Thanks a lot for this.

    • Thank you, Jo. When I noticed that most blogs just relate the plot, I knew that wasn’t the kind of post I could write. All my literature background cries out for interpretation of the characters’ actions, etc. 😛

      This was the first episode that I really loved, so I hope that showed.

      Thanks for participating in the conversation, dear.

      A xxx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.