Writers can make or break a TV show, and change up the vibe of a show from season to season. Outlander has had its share of writer turnover. We look at the impact of losing Ira Steven Behr after Season 2.
While my love for Outlander knows no bounds, I must admit something felt off in Season 3. Not to say that it was bad, or that it needed an overhaul — it just felt different.
For quite a long time, I placed responsibility for the changed dynamic on elements that were added to Season 3. Was it the new writers’ room? Ron taking less of an everyday role on the show? The banana-land story of Voyager? But then it hit me — the change was not the result of an added facet. The change was the result of a facet removed: Ira Steven Behr.
For those who don’t remember him, Ira Steven Behr served as a writer and executive producer for Outlander during its development and through Season 1, as well as Season 2. Behr’s writing credits on Outlander include the following episodes: “The Garrison Commander,” “By The Pricking Of My Thumbs”, “Wentworth Prison,” “To Ransom A Man’s Soul,” “Not In Scotland Anymore,” “Prestonpans” and “The Hail Mary.”
Starting his career in 1981, Ira wrote for the television series Jessica Novak, and continued all the way to present day with his most famous work coming on Star Trek: The Next Generation (where he met Outlander showrunner Ron D. Moore) and also his showrunning duties on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Ira’s work on DS9 was largely under-appreciated during its run because it was so vastly different from the original vision of Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek. Consequently, Trek fans were hesitant to accept the kinds of conflict, humor, drama and all-out war Ira and his writing staff (which included Ron Moore) wanted to explore. In fact, you could even argue it’s a distant cousin to Ron’s own triumphant series Battlestar Galactica. In the nearly 20 years since its final episode aired, however, the fan base for Star Trek has finally started to recognize the art, originality and incredible writing acumen behind DS9’s thematic and character work.
That writing acumen and character work is what brings me to Ira’s work on Outlander, which, in my estimation, is exquisite. He is responsible for some of the most memorable moments in the entirety of Outlander’s run so far. Whether it’s the “one act play” of “The Garrison Commander,” or that incredible scene with Dougal and Lieutenant Foster in “Prestonpans,” one always knew what they were getting with Ira’s work: professionally written, expertly crafted, inventive and textured words that could be translated easily to the screen.
Why am I so confident in saying this? Well, let’s do a little exercise in what I mean by “character work.”
Put either Black Jack Randall in “The Garrison Commander,” or even Dougal in “Prestonpans” in your mind’s eye.
Now, pretend you’re having a conversation with someone who’s never seen Outlander, and describe BJR or Dougal (using examples from those episodes alone) WITHOUT saying what they look like, what they wore, what their profession is, or their role in the show.
While you come up with your own answers, I immediately think of BJR being cold and calculating by tricking Claire during their conversation. Impeccably trained and disciplined given his tutoring with his accent. Perhaps he’s slightly artistic because he draws her, and there’s a major disregard for the clean authority to which he must abide as he pours out the ever important Claret.
As for Dougal — well, he is menacing, in control and even a little wild as he charges down the hill before the battle of Prestonpans. He’s incredibly brave, if not prone to showmanship given his desire to test the marsh of the battlefield as he raised his arms to taunt the British. He’s ruthless, but also shares a bit of a soft side when he shares a heartfelt (if not conflicted) conversation before he plunges his knife into Lieutenant Foster.
These are all original ideas as proposed by Ira Steven Behr.
Of course there are PLENTY more examples I could rattle off, but the idea is that the more descriptive one can be while using the rules, the more detailed the character and the deeper understanding one could have of that character.
I know the immediate counter-argument is to say that Ron Moore is the showrunner and it’s his vision that has to be translated on screen. Moreover, other writers have contributed to the character work throughout Outlander. All true.
But the effect one screenwriter can have on a film, or even a television show, should neither be understated nor underestimated. While the Outlander world may be Ron Moore’s sandbox that is generally filled out by his staff of writers, it’s the small details each writer brings to the table, such as pouring out Claret, that defines the fabric of that world’s reality. Not only that, but it takes an unprecedented level of communication and understanding of vision to take a massive project like Outlander from vision, to paper, to film and, finally, to our screens.
I went back and listened to our podcast interview with Ira before writing this piece, and I was once again surprised at how close the two were on a professional level. As if he were Ron’s consigliere, Ira said that he and Ron had “an amazing short hand” and that at times, “it may have been too much so for some of the other writers” because there were “times when [he] had to veer in a way that the others [felt] like they did not.” The other writers were comprised of people who were huge fans of the book series, which Ira was not.
This fact is sneakily important. While he is the consummate professional writer who is extremely adept at creating real-life characters, I think his most beneficial trait is that, by his own account, he “was completely unaware of the Outlander phenomenon.” Since he didn’t have any loyalty to the book, Ira could hone his talent on making the best SHOW he possibly could.
This is doubly important when you think why he was asked to join the writers’ room. He joined Outlander simply because his friend Ron Moore, well aware of his talent, asked him. Sure, he had to read the book for background, but his job was to keep the room focused on adapting the beloved book into a captivating television series.
Another fascinating aspect of our podcast conversation was when we learned how much trust Ron put into Ira’s hands because, as Ira stated it, it was his job to “run the writers’ room in Ron’s absence.” Even if Ron were present, Ira still had to help smooth issues the other writers couldn’t handle. Ira says this of “The Garrison Commander”:
“I was originally going to write as my first script episode three, and episode six was broken by the staff. And I could tell and Ron could tell that there were some issues about the confidence in that script. I went to Ron and I told him, ‘Look if you want me to do it, I’ll switch episodes. I’ll do six,’ and he said, ‘Yes, yes, thank you. I know you’ll do it, and we’ll have a great script out of it.’”
Getting a great script for “The Garrison Commander” is EXACTLY what happened, and this is where I want to really dive deep into why Outlander misses Ira Behr.
Knowing there was very little description in the book except for the punch, Ira jumped into “The Garrison Commander” with the idea to create a descriptive one act play between Claire and BJR that made Black Jack a far more viable character than the book had ever imagined. Ira continued:
“And that’s when I really got into the character and started to come up with all of these little pieces that interested me… It was the small details: the pouring of the wine out the window, the line ‘the truth bears the weight that no lie can counterfeit.’ I mean there were things that I just discovered along the way that made it these little things that started to fascinate me and I realized just what a complicated…I never really thought about Black Jack much or that he was a complicated character, except for that he had a wicked dark side to him. But that wasn’t all that interesting at first for me but then as I went through it, and yes, then I became Black Jack.”
So let’s take a closer look at this one act play between BJR and Claire to see the exact impact Ira had on Outlander.
One of my favorite techniques that Ira uses is to make the whole point of the scene funnel down to the absolute last line of that scene. As John Truby states in his book, The Anatomy Of A Scene, “the beginning of the scene should frame what the whole scene is about. The scene then funnels down to a single point, with the most important word or line of dialogue stated last.” In other words, let’s think of it like an upside down triangle — starting off with a broad line that forms the framework of the scene, and it becomes more pointed as the scene goes along to allow the whole thrust of the scene to be pierced by one line.
Our first example of this tool would be right after we see the beating of Jaime via flashback and BJR discusses why he did what he did to him. The first line is:
BJR: The crowd had to look away. They were horrified. Blind fools. I think all they could see was the horror. I…I could see the beauty. I saw the truth. That boy and I…we were creating a masterpiece. An exquisite, bloody masterpiece. It’s the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.
And here is the real kicker:
BJR: But truth carries a weight that no lie can counterfeit.
(chills)
This immediately sets the tone — how much humanity is in Black Jack Randall? But more importantly, he knows that Claire is lying to him about her sad story of being lost in the woods. He is telling her right from the beginning.
So ultimately, this scene is about tricking Claire, uncovering what she knows, and that he will not give up until he sees the weight of her truth.
But like a well-written scene does, it continues to funnel down even further:
BJR: I promised that I would reveal myself to you. And I have.
Claire: Yes, I believe you have.
BJR: You think me a monster no doubt. It could be so.
Claire: The fact you care what I think gives me some hope yet for your soul.
This is where Claire becomes trapped in BJR’s game. She’s inching closer and closer with each breath, and every word that comes out of his mouth.
BJR: I know one thing, madame, I am not the man I once was. I came to Scotland to fulfill a soldier’s responsibility and to serve my king and protect my country. Instead, I find myself the watchmen of a squatly, ignorant people, prone to the basest superstition and violence. The darkness has grown within me. The hatred of the very world itself. I find myself doing such things — garish work — until I no longer recognize the man I’ve become.
Claire pauses, tears welling at the bottom of her eyelids. She falls deeper:
Claire: You are not the first soldier to be changed by combat. The fact that you can admit to it is yet another hopeful sign.
Now he has her.
BJR: Of what?
Claire: You say that buried within you is a decent man. A man who can still choose right over wrong. I believe that part of you lives still.
BJR: It would be pretty to think so.
Claire: You cannot undo the things you have done, but it is not too late to bring back your humanity. You can choose to be the man you wish to be.
BJR: Do you think it possible that one day I may be able to gaze upon my reflection and not be filled with loathing?
From here the noose tightens around Claire’s throat, when she tells him that he is capable of anything, and he tangles her brain by pondering the rehabilitation of Black Jack Randall, and that he could begin this route by having Claire escorted to Inverness. Claire thinks she has gotten EXACTLY what she has come for.
She’s leaving.
Black jack has made her happy, and it’s an odd sensation. A new beginning.
Everything is perfect. Until finally we get to the whole point of this mental web BJR has spun to a perfect tee.
The scene comes to a head with the infamous punch to Claire’s stomach. Now she finally realizes how much trouble she really is in.
BJR: I dwell in darkness, madame, and darkness is where I belong. I need no sympathy from you and you will get none from me. One way or the other, I will get the truth out of you.
Corporal Hawkins comes by, gives her a good kick to the stomach at BJR’s insistence, Dougal bursts in for the rescue and Black Jack demands that he bring Claire back or else the will hunt them all down to death for harboring a fugitive of the King, regardless of title or where they are. Scary stuff.
But what is the final line?
BJR: I look forward to our next meeting, Mrs. Beauchamp.
END SCENE.
The truth is revealed about both our main characters and the plot of the story is forever, and irrevocably, changed.
As a result, we see the special relationship between BJR and Jamie, BJR’s depravity, Claire’s fragility, and undeserved confidence in her ability to navigate the 18th century. It sets up Claire to marry Jamie, BJR to discover Jamie’s whereabouts and, ultimately, puts our couple on the run, leading down the path to our next and inevitable meeting between them: Wentworth Prison.
Within the framework of a six-minute scene, the whole of the story to come, and the fine details that make our characters living and breathing creatures are completely laid out. And everything in that scene, except the punch, came directly from Ira Behr.
THIS is why Outlander misses Ira Steven Behr.
As evidenced by this scene, all his other works on Outlander and, especially, his time on Deep Space Nine, he’s simply an old school writer who understands what it takes to create an effective scene that makes the most out of the protagonist and antagonist characters — and all within a specific time frame.
Is Ira the only one capable of creating a scene like this? Of course not. But I don’t believe that level of writing has been matched by Outlander yet (except perhaps the confrontation between Claire and Frank in “The Battle Joined,” which, oddly enough, is written by none other than Ron Moore). Since, however, we are talking about antagonists, let’s put Season 3’s part-time antagonist to the same test we gave Ira for BJR. Can we see the same level of writing?
Using the parameters I set up earlier in this article, describe Geillis in “The Bakra.”
I LOVE THIS SCENE. It’s one of the most memorable visual cues from Outlander ever.
But, in terms of character, what are we actually looking at here?
The only thing I can come up with is that she likes bathing in blood? Wait, I can’t use that because that’s what she looks like. Hmm…she likes virgins? Okay…
Oh wait, yes, she’s obsessed with a prophecy that came out of nowhere in the final two episodes of the season. Nope, can’t use that because that’s her role in the show.
She’s…crazy? But what does that even mean? Why is she crazy? Why exactly is she wanting to kill Bree? Better yet, what the heck is the point behind her conflict with Claire again? I literally can’t think of anything to the same degree as BJR from “The Garrison Commander.”
In fact, I’d argue the best clue about her character didn’t come from the script – but, rather, the soundtrack! Bear McCreary’s use of the Yialli Tanbur to create an alien, metallic sounding perversion of the stones theme to be used as Geillis’ theme tells us volumes more about the kind of sick, crazed, and perverted character she is.
In other words, the proper stones theme represents all that is magical and wondrous about Outlander. When something otherworldly is happening on Outlander, it’s almost always accompanied by the Stones theme. It’s a sound we know, love and trust. But by twisting that theme with a sound never heard on Outlander before, it’s a sonic cue for the listener that what we are watching on screen is off, foreign, and completely opposite of what we love and/or trust. It’s the anti-Outlander. And if it’s the anti-Outlander, wouldn’t that make Geillis the anti-Claire? Cool, right?
Did we get ANY of that notion from the script? My gut rings with a resounding, “no.” I don’t know, maybe it’s just me but her characterization just feels thin.
I know Ron’s staff has many talented writers — paging Toni Graphia! But there’s just something special about a guy who just writes good television for the sake of it because it interests him. Not because he LOVED the books and is the biggest fan there is, but because he was challenged by making a viable character out of Black Jack Randall who otherwise would be nothing but a mustache-twirling villain as the book would have him be.
Between structure, using simple writing tools, understanding character and having enough of a relationship with the showrunner so that he can translate Ron’s words to paper and carry them out with the other writers, it’s my belief that Ira is missed mostly because he could be leaned on to fix writing issues that appear to be too complicated for others who may be too invested in what happened in the book series.
It’s one thing to make a word-for-word faithful adaption of Outlander. I’m sure many fans would be pleased with that. It’s even one thing to include all the bit points the books have to offer (see the back half of Outlander Season 3). But it’s another to create compelling television that’s inspired by the book, and that is why Outlander isn’t the same without Ira Steven Behr.
Do you agree that the show is missing something with the departure of Ira Steven Behr?
Who are your favorite Outlander writers?
Loved this, and I so heartily agree! I still loved III, but definitely felt something missing which I couldn’t put my finger on. I think you hit the nail on the head. Wish there was a chance Ira Stephen Behr could get another shot at writing for Outlander again!
Thank you!! I may be a tad biased in my love of ISB – but he brought a level of competence and writing skill that I don’t think the new writers have quite yet. Doesn’t mean they are talented or have strengths of their own – but I just haven’t seen them stand out like ISB did.
Good article. I agree that Ira is missed. Most episodes feels like a mini-movie to me; always rich in storytelling.
Thank you! Yes he is definitely missed. But when you say that most episodes are mini-movies, are you referring to the first two seasons? Or all of the seasons?
Hi Blake.
Thanks so much for writing this article and sharing your thoughts with us.
Yes, I totally agree: Outlander Season 4 definitely felt different than the show that hooked me, and yes, I miss Ira too.
To me a good storyteller is not only the glue that holds things together, he or she is the one who captivates and weaves that magic around the viewer, so the don’t dare look away, leave the room, and are anticipating the next episode.
To me, Season 4 just didn’t have that magic (The Battle Joined being the exception)
If God in in the details for every writer, then the characters are a golden opportunity to show those details.
The previous seasons were rich in wonderful muti-layered characters: Black Jack, Dougal, at that time Galis. (season 3 Galis to me was ruined. How exactly did she get from a woman of mystery, an activist to someone who bathed in blood and raped young boys? Lottie Vanderbeek played her as high camp, Mommy Dearest like. She wasn’t the intriguing character of Season 1 or 2 she lost all of her depth. How they never explained)
But with the possible exception of Lord John, I just didn’t really care all that much about any of the minor characters this season. Most seemed to be either filler, or one note, with one boring objective.
Fergus and Ian were adorable and needed their own show, but even they couldn’t erase the others.
You could kind of tell ISB wasn’t any where around the writer’s room.
I’m so glad you mentioned the Garrison Commander, because it is one of my favorites.
It totally did remind me of a one act play.
It really cemented the characters of both Black Jack and Claire. It was an amazing catalyst for so much.
Black Jack Randall was an expert of the cat-and-mouse technique in that episode, and Ira was a master weaving such a edge of your seat episode.
Yes, it expertly unfolded BJR as a sadist. He gave off a lethal combination of clinical sadism and artistry. It gave me the chills. Additionally in watching BJR, it made me afraid for Frank being involved in Intelligence and interrogations in WW2 as Claire mentioned.
It wasn’t a stretch to see Claire’s cerebral husband possibly snap with such toxic DNA as Black Jack’s.
The Garrison Commander also let us see what I consider Claire’s flaws as well.
The audience as well as Claire knew that in their first meeting BJR tried to rape her. Instead of being clever and cautious, Claire instead, goads BJR by bringing up Jamie’s beating by him.
Now, considering BRJ’s erotic delight with Jamie, I’d consider Claire threw poor Jamie (a wanted man) under the bus.
Claire’s basically telling BRJ where Jamie was, basically sealed his fate right then and there.
Also with Hail Mary.
With that episode it was the first time I saw Mary as somebody who could fight for what she wanted and react in a assertive, aggressive even cold manner (shades of Frank)
To Ransom A Man’s Soul– do I even have to say the words on this one?
As such the characters were multi-layered. No matter what, they were characters you understood and cared about.
Season 3’s “treasure and Galis being cookoo for Coca Puffs doesn’t jibe
Blake, Just a quick question, remember in Dragonfly in Amber when Bree was telling Roger how she got into Frank’s lockbox where his letters to the Rev were? How she said Frank lost his temper? That it made an impact on her?
Did you want to see that scene as much as I did?
I would have loved if they included that, especially since they killed off Frank. to have seen that scene before they killed off Frank.
To me, it seemed like a golden opportunity wasted: They could have shown so much in that scene.
It would have been just perfect for Ira
Hi Blake!
I just have to disagree with you on this. I couldn’t be happier that Ira is gone. To me, he brought a level of perversion to the show that didn’t need to be added. I’m pretty sure he was the one responsible for the end prison scene in “To Ransom” which made it look like Jamie was enjoying being raped again. It is the one scene I can never watch again. I also believe he wanted to add a scene in which BJR proposed the idea to Jamie of running off together because they were “in love”.
He also was so pleased with the dildo scene in season 2.
Diana created BJR’s cold calculation of Claire. Not Ira. Diana created Dougal’s menace. Not Ira. Ira added the perversion.
So glad he’s gone. Hope he never returns.
Hi Whitney! I actually appreciate that you disagree with me. In terms of some of the things you said, I think you are completely entitled to your opinion but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a couple of things –
As far as Jamie enjoying being raped – I don’t recall that ever happening. But you are right, Ira did write To Ransom A Man’s Soul, so he is responsible for the script.
IN terms of adding a scene where they would run off together because they were in love – well, I’m pretty sure that didn’t happen. In fact, in our interview, Ira says quite the opposite by referring to BJR as a sociopath. And as you know, sociopaths are incapable of loving anything except themselves. But, I looked it up on the interwebs and couldn’t find anything like you said. Would you mind telling me where that came from? I’d love to read it.
I cannot make an excuse for the dildo scene in “Not In Scotland Anymore.” That episode was garbage. Sometimes, as a writer, you just run into one.
Diana may have created BJR and Dougal. Totally agree. But, she did not write the bits that were on the television screen that I highlighted. Those were details that were fleshed out by Ira. And that was the point of this article – Diana may have created the characters, but they were given more life and texture by the screenwriters because that’s what television demands.
Thanks for your reply, Blake. I appreciate your cordial discussion, and appreciate your opinions as well. Maybe it’s his purple goatee that makes my stomach churn… 😉
I did find what I was looking for…a Facebook friend referred it to me. It was actually posted by DG in a Compuserve thread. She mentions Ron, not Ira, so (my mistake) maybe Ira had nothing to do with it. Is there a way to post a screenshot?
hmm…probably not here. But, if you posted in the Clan Gathering on Facebook, I would definitely be able to see it there. Just make sure you tag me in the post 🙂
I was shocked by the brothel scene as well, but I saw it as a way to show what an imbecile Prince Charles was.
Plus, Ira gave us the honeypot and even my husband laughed out loud for that one.
Well, to begin with I loved the analysis of “Garrison” of Claire and BJR. I do not keep track of writers. I must say however, that I so enjoyed Season 3. Probably Ep. 4 is my favorite, Ep 6 had a lot of the hesitation and unknowing of their rejoined relationship = a lot of questions and answers to come. The “soap subs” episode between Claire and Jamie was very sensual. Finally a lot of action, moving right along. The young players were wonderful. A criticism that is ongoing and mentioned by many is the lack of the sense of humor between Jamie and Claire. The writers have captured some, but reading the books had me in stitches over and over. In the last analysis for me……Outlander now lives in the fabric of my life = over and over. I enjoy the writers interpretations and it is giving many the opportunities of writing for a Great Show. Thanks to Diana, always.
Hi Diane! Thank you for reading! Yes, I liked season three too. Actually, The Battle Joined is probably my favorite episode to date! The first half of season 3 (which really was phenomenal) were written by the original team of writers for Outlander – Matt Roberts, Toni Graphia, Anne Kenney, and Ron Moore. And you can tell. It’s fantastic.
The back half were primarily written by the new, less experienced writers. And you can tell. It’s jumpy, muddled, and lacks real cohesion. ALTHOUGH, I will admit Claire’s romp through the jungle in Uncharted was terrific.
That being said, did you enjoy the back half as much as the first half?
I will have to say that I agree about the first half and second half. The second half did follow the themes of the book and I thought – it a little crazy. I especially went “wow” when I saw Jamie and Claire in the water. His rescuing her and how their saving grace was that they were in the “eye” of the hurricane which took them to shore – and the picture went up and up showing the whole hurricane.- just loved that. I love others views on the characters, story and appreciate your writing, too.
Blake, I agree with you that the first half of season 3 was great but the last half (with the exception of First Wife) really was off for me. I thought spending 2 full episodes on the boat was too much….did we really need a whole hour of Claire healing the sick on the boat? We already know she is a healer. I thought Doldrums and Heavan and Earth could have been condensed to one episode, Uncharted could have been a half episode, and the events of The Bakra and Eye of the Storm could have been expanded. Those last two episodes felt rushed and choppy. The scenes in the finale jumped from one to another with very little transitioning. A good example was the jump from Jamie and Claire in the shaving scene to being completely in the middle of a huge hurricane. I love the show and will watch no matter what but I do miss the original writers who are gone.
Thank you for this article. I thought that I might be the only person whom missed the contributions of ISB to Outlander. I enjoyed S3, but I thought a couple episodes to be slow and lacking the style that made the episodes of S1 and S2 exceptional. I read that S4E1 will be the first season premiere not written by Ron D Moore. We can only hope that Matt and Toni will continue to write and contribute throughout the run of the series. I miss the excellent directors from S1 and S2, although Matt’s directing debut S3E13 was phenomenal! Outlander has established itself as quality programming. As those responsible for establishing that quality move on, may the writing, directing, costuming, etc. remain award worthy.
Yes, I read that RDM will not be writing 4.01 too. I admit that it’s a little disheartening. Which episodes of season 3 did you find slow? And yes! Style! I LOVE that descriptor. ISB had a style, or panache if you will, to him that stands out pretty clearly.
I enjoyed Ira’s episodes. I feel like when OL is not at it’s best it’s because the writers are sticking TOO close to the books. Some of the plot lines and tangents in Diana’s books are not great and when the show follows the weaker links, it suffers. We also lost Anne Kenney as a fine writer in S3 and I think that contributes.
Yes, Anne wrote one episode for season three, but you’re right about the show missing her too. I can’t speak too well to Diana’s writing as I have only read the first book. But, my experience with that book (between the water horse, the search, and the stupid wolves) has shown me that Diana loves her tangents. Sticking too close to the book is a major problem for me. Not because the books are bad – but because books don’t always translate well to screen. It has to adapted properly, and in my opinion, the show should be INSPIRED by the book.
Blake, you are spot on here. Deep Space 9 was the most character driven Star Trek series, and I have no doubt Ira was instrumental in that. His contributions to Outlander were equally impressive and his episodes, particularly The Garrison Commander and Prestonpans, are among the best. His exit, as well as that of Anne Kenney, have left us with a much more “lightweight” Outlander. Many people sing the praises of Toni Graphia, but she was responsible for Freedom and Whisky, which gave us the warm fuzzies, but was a storytelling mess (how many days are there between Christmas Eve and Christmas, again?), and while talented, she just can’t make up for the loss of Behr and Kenney.
I agree that Outlander has probably become a little more “lightweight” than normal. (BTW – I love that descriptor. Never would have thought to refer to the quality as lightweight but that’s exactly the right term.)
As far as Toni Graphia is concerned – she is 100% capable in my opinion. Her work on the show is good (you’re right about the amount of days between christmas and christmas eve – but that’s more of a technical error that I can overlook).
But her work on BSG has made her untouchable IMO – she knows how to tell a great story and I find myself having a sigh of relief when she writes an episode.
Hi Blake.
Thanks so much for writing this article and sharing your thoughts with us.
Yes, I totally agree: Outlander Season 4 definitely felt different than the show that hooked me, and yes, I miss Ira too.
To me a good storyteller is not only the glue that holds things together, he or she is the one who captivates and weaves that magic around the viewer, so the don’t dare look away, leave the room, and are anticipating the next episode.
To me, Season 4 just didn’t have that magic (The Battle Joined being the exception)
If God in in the details for every writer, then the characters are a golden opportunity to show those details.
The previous seasons were rich in wonderful muti-layered characters: Black Jack, Dougal, at that time Galis. (season 3 Galis to me was ruined. How exactly did she get from a woman of mystery, an activist to someone who bathed in blood and raped young boys? Lottie Vanderbeek played her as high camp, Mommy Dearest like. She wasn’t the intriguing character of Season 1 or 2 she lost all of her depth. How they never explained)
But with the possible exception of Lord John, I just didn’t really care all that much about any of the minor characters this season. Most seemed to be either filler, or one note, with one boring objective.
Fergus and Ian were adorable and needed their own show, but even they couldn’t erase the others.
You could kind of tell ISB wasn’t any where around the writer’s room.
I’m so glad you mentioned the Garrison Commander, because it is one of my favorites.
It totally did remind me of a one act play.
It really cemented the characters of both Black Jack and Claire. It was an amazing catalyst for so much.
Black Jack Randall was an expert of the cat-and-mouse technique in that episode, and Ira was a master weaving such a edge of your seat episode.
Yes, it expertly unfolded BJR as a sadist. He gave off a lethal combination of clinical sadism and artistry. It gave me the chills. Additionally in watching BJR, it made me afraid for Frank being involved in Intelligence and interrogations in WW2 as Claire mentioned.
It wasn’t a stretch to see Claire’s cerebral husband possibly snap with such toxic DNA as Black Jack’s.
The Garrison Commander also let us see what I consider Claire’s flaws as well.
The audience as well as Claire knew that in their first meeting BJR tried to rape her. Instead of being clever and cautious, Claire instead, goads BJR by bringing up Jamie’s beating by him.
Now, considering BRJ’s erotic delight with Jamie, I’d consider Claire threw poor Jamie (a wanted man) under the bus.
Claire’s basically telling BRJ where Jamie was, basically sealed his fate right then and there.
Also with Hail Mary.
With that episode it was the first time I saw Mary as somebody who could fight for what she wanted and react in a assertive, aggressive even cold manner (shades of Frank)
To Ransom A Man’s Soul– do I even have to say the words on this one?
As such the characters were multi-layered. No matter what, they were characters you understood and cared about.
Season 3’s “treasure and Galis being cookoo for Coca Puffs doesn’t jibe
Blake, Just a quick question, remember in Dragonfly in Amber when Bree was telling Roger how she got into Frank’s lockbox where his letters to the Rev were? How she said Frank lost his temper? That it made an impact on her?
Did you want to see that scene as much as I did?
I would have loved if they included that, especially since they killed off Frank. to have seen that scene before they killed off Frank.
To me, it seemed like a golden opportunity wasted: They could have shown so much in that scene.
It would have been just perfect for Ira
I would love to see Tobias come back for flashbacks–Perhaps as Frank for Bree, or even as BJR.
But I am quite biased here.
I totally agree that I would have loved to have seen it. Not necessarily for Tobias’ acting (although that would have been good) – but more for seeing that idyllic relationship between Bree and Frank that is so often referenced have a little more texture to it. Perhaps he could do no wrong in her eyes, but he did act that way and she forgave him. Which would help characterize her nonsensical ill feelings towards her mother.
its really nice post thanks to sharing
Thank you for this great in-depth analysis. I totally agree with you. Ira was greatly missed in season 3 particularly in the second half. As an illustration of my point, I can only say that I have watched Season 1 and 2 hundreds of times and ep. 301 to 306 several times since the DVD came out. I have not bothered rewatching ep. 307 to 313 after the first watch.
Diane – I totally see what you’re talking about here. If I’m being honest, I have not rewatched any of the second half yet. Usually I find myself sneaking episodes in here and there to get a greater understanding of the show. But, the back half of 3 never really helps me with that understanding.
I love a well written, in depth analysis that helps me comprehend “why” I like something so much. Excellently reasoned, thank you.
After season 2, it seemed that several fans were happy to see Ira go. I never understood that attitude. As a non-fan, non-book reader, he helped maintain the balance that Ron & Maril so badly needed in the writer’s room. Not to mention the huge bonus of his being an extremely talented writer.
Another thing that really puzzles me: the almost universal dislike of episode 202 “Not in Scotland Anymore”. It’s one of my favorites! It’s a pithy juxtaposition of the sumptuous decadence and ultimate trivality of the French court. And no matter how finely dressed the Frasers are, since they are neither trivial or decadent, they are ill-suited to be there. The best dramas throw in a humorous episode every so often. Again, it’s needed for balance.
If one respects Ira as a writer, then this episode needs a second chance.
Thanks for the very kind words! This is the exact reason why we have the blog, to help people figure out that “why” of it all 🙂
As far as 2.02 – I was not a huge fan. I thought it undercut all the dramatic tension that was built in the premiere. As a standalone episode, it’s not terrible – especially when you look at it like a satire almost. Which is why I will definitely go back and give it another shot with your thoughts in mind. Hopefully it will be better this time!
Anne Kenny. She wrote the Wedding….why did these talented writers leaver Outlander??
They didn’t give clear reasons why they left and, of course, there’s lots of rumor mongering.
My take is that, shortly after he left, Ira announced his DS9 documentary that he is writing and directing. (it looks fantastic by the way) and that’s why he chose to leave. Seems more like a legacy choice than anything.
And Anne, well, she has been very mum about the situation. She doesn’t have any announced projects so it’s hard to see why. Perhaps she felt it was just time to move on?
I loved season 1 and the depth to which the characters were developed. The scenery was spectacular, the writing and acting were spot on and it made me want to go to Scotland very much. ( Which I did!) Season 2 was full of intrigue. I thoroughly enjoyed the opulence and depravity of the French. Having lived in France for three years I appreciated every costume, set, story line and all the characters. I thought Mother Hildegard, Master Raymond, the Comte St Germaine, King Louis and Louise were perfectly cast. I liked most of season three but felt two episodes, The Doldrums and Creme de Menthe dragged a bit. The season 3 finale should have been split into two longer episodes to do it justice. It felt very rushed and disjointed. I wish each book was given given 16 episodes like the first season told in two eight part editions. That first season set the viewers expectations very high and I feel the same depth was not given to season 2 or 3. That being said, I love the Outlander series and am more pleased than disappointed with it and would like to see all the books come to life on television. I have read each book several times and could not imagine anyone else portraying the main characters.
Good article. Answered many of my questions/thoughts. I felt the last scene of Season 3 was particularly weak. Just a minor change, the residents of Georgia helping Claire and Jamie and inviting them to rest at their home would have been logical and b bit more like the book. I felt like the new writers were lacking some of the passion and energy of S1 and S2. Agree….still quite good, just not absolutely excellent.
Hi Blake,
Interesting piece. While I didn’t always agree with Ira’s take on the material, in the end I believe the show benefitted from the push/pull in the room between the “book” people and the “non-book” people. Claire and Jamie’s world became fuller and richer. I never felt the lack of this in the books, perhaps because in the books, we are WAY more in Claire’s head than we could possibly have been in the show? Whatever it was, the alchemy worked.
As for me… I am in Australia as I write this, working on a dramatic adaptation of The Forgotten Rebels of Eureka, a non-fiction narrative by Dr. Clare Wright, about the women who were part of the Australian gold rush (1850s). Women! Historical drama! Yahoo!! (Also writing a supernatural YA pilot —female lead — from an IDW graphic novel.) Outlander was a FANTASTIC experience, but, yes, it was time for me to move on.
Please come back. I was so sad when you didn’t write J&C’s reunion. 🙂
I think this is a good analysis and agree with most of your commentary. I’d love to see a similar article about the directors. At the recent OutlanderCon in Las Vegas, it was truly notable how many times the actors mentioned Metin Huseyin and how much they loved working with him. Anna Foerster’s name also came up. Neither of them worked on Season 3 as far as I know.