Full spoilers for Outlander Seasons 1-3, including Wentworth, Faith, Culloden, and Black Jack Randall’s death.
Content note: This article discusses Black Jack Randall’s violence, abuse, sexual assault, and the lasting trauma he causes Jamie and Claire. We discuss those events through the lens of story, character, and adaptation, not to excuse or romanticize them.
Black Jack Randall is not just Outlander’s cruelest villain. He is the reason the first era of the story works.
That is a strange thing to say about Jonathan Wolverton Randall, a man defined by domination, violence, obsession, and abuse. But as an antagonist, he does exactly what a great villain is supposed to do. He does not merely stand in the hero’s way. He exposes the hero. He tests the hero. He turns the hero’s strengths into weaknesses. He forces choices the story can never take back.
And that is why Outlander would not be the same show without him.
Black Jack Randall makes Claire’s story personal. He makes Jamie’s trauma specific. He makes the first season terrifying. He gives Wentworth its horror. He gives Culloden its emotional closure. He also creates a problem the show eventually has to solve: once a villain has shaped the entire emotional engine of a story, you cannot keep bringing him back forever.
Black Jack Randall is Outlander’s perfect antagonist.
And that is exactly why he has to go.
Start With Our Outlander Character Guides
This page is our central guide to Black Jack Randall, his role in Outlander, his relationship to Claire and Jamie, and why Tobias Menzies’ performance is so essential to the early seasons. For more character analysis, episode recaps, and podcast coverage, start with our Outlander Cast Podcast Hub and our Outlander Season 3 Episode Guide.
Who Is Black Jack Randall In Outlander?
Black Jack Randall, whose full name is Jonathan Wolverton Randall, is a British Army officer in Outlander. He is played by Tobias Menzies, who also plays Frank Randall, Claire’s twentieth-century husband.
Black Jack first appears as a shocking mirror of Frank. Claire sees the face of the husband she knows, but the man in front of her is not Frank. He is violent, entitled, sexually predatory, and obsessed with control. That contrast is one of the show’s earliest and most effective horror moves. Claire is trapped in the eighteenth century, and the first familiar face she sees is attached to someone monstrous.
Randall becomes one of the defining antagonists of the first three seasons. He threatens Claire, brutalizes Jamie, shapes the trauma of Wentworth, complicates Claire’s loyalty to Frank, and finally dies at Culloden in the Season 3 premiere, “The Battle Joined.”
He is not the only villain in Outlander. But he is the one who makes the story personal.
Why Black Jack Randall Is Outlander’s Perfect Villain
A great antagonist is not simply someone who does bad things. A great antagonist is the person who forces the protagonist into the deepest possible conflict.
That is why Black Jack Randall works so well. He does not attack Claire and Jamie at random. He attacks the exact things that define them.
Claire values control, intelligence, competence, bodily autonomy, healing, and home. Randall takes those strengths and turns them against her. Jamie values honor, courage, loyalty, love, and sacrifice. Randall takes those strengths and turns them into weapons. Together, Jamie and Claire build a marriage around trust, desire, protection, and chosen belonging. Randall violates that space and makes their love cost something.
That is what makes him so effective. He is not just an obstacle. He is a pressure system. Every time he enters the story, someone has to reveal who they really are.
Black Jack Randall Attacks Claire’s Need For Control
When we first meet Claire, she is capable, modern, self-reliant, sexually confident, and intellectually quick. She is a combat nurse. She is used to crisis. She understands bodies, wounds, blood, fear, and pain. She believes, at least on some level, that knowledge gives her control.
Black Jack Randall immediately destroys that illusion.
In “The Garrison Commander,” he gives Claire one of her first true tests in the eighteenth century. The scene works because Randall does not begin only with brute force. He begins with performance. He apologizes. He appears civil. He invites Claire into conversation. He lets her believe she can manage the room with wit, charm, and intelligence.
Then he turns the room against her.
That is the first sign of why Randall is such a dangerous antagonist for Claire. He sees her confidence and wants to break it. He sees her independence and wants to isolate it. He sees her intelligence and wants to prove it is not enough. He sees her desire for control and makes her feel small.
From that point forward, Claire understands something essential about the world she has entered. She cannot simply outthink every danger. She cannot rely on modernity to save her. She cannot assume that being right, smart, or brave will be enough.
Randall makes the eighteenth century real.
Randall Forces Claire Into The Choice That Changes Everything
Black Jack Randall does not only threaten Claire. He pushes her into the choice that changes the entire series.
Because of Randall’s threat, Claire has to marry Jamie.
That marriage becomes the emotional center of Outlander, but it does not begin as a purely romantic decision. It begins as survival. Claire is a woman out of time, trapped in a dangerous world, still married to Frank in her own mind, and trying to return to the life she lost. Randall makes that impossible. His pursuit forces her deeper into the MacKenzie world and ultimately into Jamie’s life.
That is why he matters structurally. Without Black Jack Randall, Claire does not need the same protection. Without that threat, she does not marry Jamie in the same way. Without that marriage, the story does not become the story we know.
Randall does not create Claire and Jamie’s love. But he creates the conditions that force them together.
That is antagonist work at its highest level. The villain does not simply block the plot. He creates the plot.
Black Jack Randall Turns Claire’s Strengths Into Weaknesses
Claire’s strengths are real. She is brave. She is smart. She is adaptable. She is sexually confident. She is medically gifted. She is morally stubborn. But Randall repeatedly finds ways to make those strengths dangerous.
Her intelligence makes her think she can talk her way through him. Her medical confidence makes her believe she can diagnose, treat, or morally reach people. Her independence makes her resist help even when help is the only thing that can save her. Her love for Frank makes her protect Randall’s bloodline longer than Jamie can bear. Her love for Jamie makes her vulnerable to Randall’s manipulation.
That is why the conflict between Claire and Randall is more interesting than simple hero-versus-villain opposition. He does not only endanger her body. He destabilizes her identity.
Who is Claire if she cannot control the room?
Who is Claire if her choices hurt Jamie?
Who is Claire if saving Frank’s future means protecting Black Jack’s life?
Who is Claire if the home she finds with Jamie exists because a monster forced her there?
Those questions make Claire’s arc richer. Randall turns her certainty into conflict.
Black Jack Randall Forces Jamie Into His Deepest Wound
For Jamie, Randall is not just a villain. He is trauma embodied.
Randall’s obsession with Jamie begins in violence and domination. He wants Jamie to submit. He wants to own something in him. He wants not only Jamie’s body, but Jamie’s sense of self. That is what makes Wentworth so horrific and so narratively important. Randall is not trying to defeat Jamie in a normal enemy sense. He is trying to remake him through pain.
Jamie survives, but survival is not the same thing as restoration. After Wentworth, Jamie is alive and devastated. Randall has not only harmed him. He has changed the way Jamie experiences his own body, his marriage, his worth, and his future.
That is why Randall cannot remain just a recurring threat. He becomes the wound Jamie has to live with. He becomes the thing Jamie must eventually face, not because revenge magically heals trauma, but because Jamie cannot move forward while Randall still holds that much symbolic power over him.
Claire And Randall Compete For Jamie
One of the strongest reasons Randall works as an antagonist is that he and Claire are, in a twisted way, competing for the same thing.
Jamie.
For Claire, Jamie is love, home, desire, protection, partnership, and the life she chooses after being thrown out of her own time. Jamie becomes the place where Claire belongs.
For Randall, Jamie represents control. Jamie is the man who survived him, resisted him, fascinated him, and became the object of his obsession. Randall wants to possess Jamie in the darkest possible sense. He wants access to parts of Jamie that Claire cannot reach. He wants to prove that he can see Jamie in extremis and claim knowledge of him through suffering.
That is why the triangle between Claire, Jamie, and Randall is so disturbing and dramatically powerful. Randall has seen Jamie at his most broken. Claire loves Jamie at his most human. Randall uses that difference like a weapon.
He has something Claire cannot take back.
Wentworth Works Because The Stakes Are Personal
Wentworth is one of the most difficult parts of Outlander, and it should be. But from a story perspective, it is also where the show proves why Black Jack Randall is its defining early antagonist.
The finale of Season 1 is not about a kingdom, a war, a prophecy, or a giant battle. It is about one person trying to rescue one person from one monster.
That scale matters. The stakes are enormous because they are intimate. Claire is not trying to save Scotland in that moment. She is trying to save Jamie. Jamie is not trying to win a war. He is trying to survive Randall. Randall is not trying to conquer the world. He is trying to dominate one man and destroy the love that gives that man meaning.
That is why Season 1 works so well. The conflict is personal, specific, and emotionally legible. We understand what everyone wants. We understand what can be lost.
Randall gives the season its shape because he makes the danger intimate.
Why Season 2 Is Weaker Without That Same Personal Antagonist
This is also why Season 2 can feel less dramatically clean than Season 1.
Season 2 has villains and obstacles. The Duke of Sandringham. The Comte St. Germain. Political scheming. Poison. War. Time itself. But many of those threats are less personal than Black Jack Randall. They create plot, but they do not always create the same emotional pressure.
Trying to stop Culloden is enormous, but it is also abstract. We know history is heavy. We know the future Claire came from depends on the past unfolding in certain ways. But “change history” is not as immediately personal as “save Jamie from Randall.”
That does not mean Season 2 has no power. It absolutely does, especially in “Faith,” the duel, and the moments where Jamie and Claire’s marriage is pushed to its limits. But it is telling that many of the season’s strongest conflicts still trace back to Black Jack Randall.
Even when he is not the main engine, he keeps reaching into the story.
Randall Makes Claire Choose Frank Over Jamie
One of Randall’s most complicated effects is the way he forces Claire to choose between Frank’s future and Jamie’s pain.
Claire believes Frank’s existence depends on Black Jack Randall’s survival long enough to continue the Randall line. That belief puts her in an impossible position. She knows what Randall has done. She knows what he means to Jamie. She knows the damage he has caused. And still, she asks Jamie not to kill him.
That choice is brutal because it is not cleanly heroic. Claire is trying to protect Frank. She is trying to protect a future she came from. She is trying to make sense of history, lineage, marriage, guilt, and obligation. But from Jamie’s perspective, she is asking him to spare the man who destroyed him.
That is why Randall’s presence keeps working even in Season 2. He forces Claire into choices that reveal her divided self. She is Claire Randall and Claire Fraser. She belongs to the twentieth century and the eighteenth. She loves Frank and Jamie in entirely different ways. Randall turns that divided identity into conflict.
Randall’s Shadow Hangs Over Faith
Randall is not solely responsible for the tragedy of Faith. That would be too simple and too cruelly neat. But his presence helps create the pressure around it.
Jamie’s duel with Randall prevents him from being with Claire when she needs him most. Claire’s bargain to delay Jamie’s revenge fractures trust between them. Their marriage is already under tremendous strain from France, politics, grief, pregnancy, and the impossible burden of trying to change history. Randall intensifies all of it.
That is what a great antagonist does. He does not have to cause every tragedy directly. He creates the conditions in which tragedy becomes harder to escape.
Faith matters because it is not just a plot event. It is one of the deepest griefs Claire and Jamie carry. Randall’s shadow across that chapter reminds us that his damage does not stay contained to the scenes he appears in.
Why Tobias Menzies Makes Black Jack Randall Unforgettable
Black Jack Randall would not work nearly as well without Tobias Menzies.
The performance is terrifying because Menzies does not play Randall as a mustache-twirling villain. He plays him as controlled, curious, intelligent, and deeply broken in ways the show never asks us to excuse. Randall can be quiet. He can be charming. He can sound reasonable. He can seem almost reflective. Then the violence arrives, and we realize the civility was part of the threat.
That is also why the Frank/Black Jack dual role matters so much. Menzies gives us two men with the same face and entirely different moral centers. Frank is flawed, wounded, and often frustrating, but he is human in recognizable ways. Black Jack is what happens when power, entitlement, cruelty, and appetite are given a uniform and permission.
The contrast makes Claire’s displacement more frightening. The face of home becomes the face of danger.
Black Jack Randall Is Not Great Because He Is Evil
Black Jack Randall is not a great antagonist because he commits horrible acts. Evil alone is not interesting.
He is great because of what his evil does to the story.
He forces Claire to adapt. He forces Jamie to survive. He turns marriage into protection before it becomes love. He tests the limits of Claire’s independence. He makes Jamie’s honor costly. He complicates Frank’s future. He pushes the Frasers out of Scotland, into France, toward Culloden, and eventually into the long separation that defines Season 3.
That is the difference between shock and story. Randall’s actions are horrifying, but the reason he remains narratively important is that those actions change the characters.
Without Randall, Claire does not become Claire Fraser in the same way.
Without Randall, Jamie’s trauma does not shape the story in the same way.
Without Randall, the first era of Outlander loses its most personal force of antagonism.
Why Black Jack Randall Has To Die At Culloden
As powerful as Randall is, he cannot stay forever.
That is the paradox. Black Jack Randall is one of the best things about early Outlander, but if the show keeps using him forever, he stops being powerful and starts becoming a trick.
The story can only contrive so many ways to bring him back into Jamie and Claire’s lives. Season 2 already stretches that logic at times. Randall keeps reappearing because the emotional stakes are highest when he is nearby, but that cannot be the show’s only source of personal conflict.
Jamie needs closure. Claire needs release. The audience needs the story to move forward. And Randall, as the embodiment of Wentworth, has to be removed before Jamie and Claire can enter the next era of their lives.
That is why Culloden is the right place for him to die. It is the end of a world. It is the end of the Jacobite dream. It is the end of Jamie’s old life. It is the end of Claire and Jamie’s first marriage era. And it is the end of Black Jack Randall’s hold over the story.
Black Jack Randall’s Death Is Closure, Not Victory
Randall dying at Culloden does not erase what he did. It does not heal Jamie in one clean stroke. It does not undo Wentworth, Faith, France, or the years of trauma that follow.
But it does close the loop.
Jamie wakes on the battlefield with Randall dead beside him, their bodies tangled in the wreckage of history. It is grotesque, intimate, and fitting. Randall does not die in a clean heroic duel. He dies in the mud and blood of Culloden, attached to the man he could never fully possess.
That image is the right ending for him. Randall wanted control. Culloden gives him chaos. Randall wanted dominance. Death makes him powerless. Randall wanted Jamie marked forever. Jamie survives.
That is as much victory as Outlander can honestly offer.
What Black Jack Randall Means To Claire’s Arc
Claire begins Outlander as Claire Randall, a woman searching for home after war. She wants stability, belonging, purpose, and a life that feels like hers.
Black Jack Randall destroys her original map.
He forces her into the MacKenzie world. He forces her into marriage with Jamie. He forces her to confront the limits of her modern confidence. He forces her to choose between Frank’s future and Jamie’s pain. He forces her to realize that survival in the eighteenth century requires more than intelligence and stubbornness.
By the time Randall is gone, Claire is not the same woman who looked at the blue vase in Inverness. She has loved Jamie, lost Faith, tried to change history, returned to Frank, carried Brianna, and lived with the consequences of every impossible choice.
Randall does not make Claire strong. Claire was already strong.
But he reveals what kind of strength she actually has.
What Black Jack Randall Means To Jamie’s Arc
Jamie’s story with Randall is about survival, violation, shame, rage, and the long work of becoming whole enough to keep living.
Randall tries to define Jamie through trauma. He tries to make Jamie’s body and memory belong to him. He tries to turn love into leverage and sacrifice into humiliation. For a time, the damage is almost unbearable.
But Jamie survives. Not neatly. Not magically. Not without scars. But he survives.
That survival matters more than revenge. Jamie’s victory over Randall is not simply that Randall dies. It is that Jamie continues to love Claire, father children, build homes, make choices, carry grief, and remain himself despite what was done to him.
Randall changes Jamie. But he does not get to finish writing him.
Why Outlander Needed Black Jack Randall — And Needed To Move On
Outlander needed Black Jack Randall because the early story needed a personal antagonist strong enough to define Claire and Jamie’s first great transformation.
He makes the story intimate. He gives Season 1 its danger. He gives Wentworth its horror. He gives Season 2 some of its sharpest conflict. He gives Culloden one of its most haunting images. He forces Claire and Jamie into choices that change the rest of their lives.
But Outlander also needed to move on because no single antagonist can carry a story forever. Once Randall dies, the show has to find new kinds of stakes: marriage after trauma, parenting across time, political violence, family legacy, survival in America, and the cost of building a home in a world that keeps trying to burn it down.
That is the right move. Black Jack Randall is essential to the beginning of Outlander. But if the story is going to grow, he cannot remain its center.
Black Jack Randall Explained: The Final Verdict
Black Jack Randall is Outlander’s perfect villain because he is perfectly designed to hurt this story’s heroes.
He attacks Claire’s need for control. He forces her into impossible choices. He competes with her for Jamie. He turns Jamie’s honor and love into weapons. He makes the stakes personal. He changes the direction of Claire’s life. He leaves scars that shape Jamie long after Wentworth. He gives the early seasons their most intimate and terrifying conflict.
But that is also why he has to go.
Randall’s purpose is to force Claire and Jamie into transformation. Once that transformation happens, keeping him around would weaken the very power he once had. His death at Culloden closes the first great era of Outlander and clears the way for the story to become something else.
It hurts to lose a villain that effective.
But that is how you know he worked.
Listen To Our Black Jack Randall Character Study
Want the full podcast conversation? Listen to our deep-dive character study on Black Jack Randall below.
Related Outlander Coverage
- A Study On Black Jack Randall: our full podcast discussion on why BJR matters to the show.
- Wentworth Prison Recap & Reaction: the first half of our coverage of one of Outlander’s most difficult episodes.
- Wentworth Prison Part 2: more analysis of Jamie, Claire, Randall, and the fallout of Wentworth.
- Wentworth Prison Live Commentary: our commentary track for Episode 1.15.
- Faith Recap & Reaction: the Season 2 episode where Claire and Jamie’s grief changes everything.
- Keeping Faith: a nurse’s perspective on the loss of a baby in Outlander.
- Oh, Frank: our complicated journey through Frank Randall, also played by Tobias Menzies.
- Outlander Season 3 Episode Guide: follow the season that finally closes the Black Jack Randall chapter at Culloden.
- The Battle Joined Recap & Reaction: our coverage of Culloden and Black Jack Randall’s final shadow over Jamie.
- Outlander Cast Podcast Hub: browse all of our Outlander recaps, character studies, interviews, and listener feedback episodes.
Go Deeper With Mary & Blake
Love the craft, character, and emotional analysis behind Outlander? We go deeper on the show in Outlander Cast and inside The Nerd Clan, where members get bonus episodes, Blake’s Book Club, extra analysis, community discussion, and more.
Do you think Black Jack Randall is Outlander’s perfect villain? And did the show let him go at the right time?
A few thoughts:
Perhaps you're using the royal "we" when discussing your opinion of season 2, but if not, you'd probably be better served by saying "*I* wasn't satisfied…" Because all I could think as I read it was "who's WE?" because I was very satisfied.
2. I can understand not reading the book(s) before watching the series, as it provides an interesting perspective on the show, but to proclaim you "never will" read the books is puzzling to say the least. Why? You don't like to read? That's the impression I get.
3. As someone who's read all of DG's works, multiple times, my favorite book is Voyager, hands down. BJR is indeed a great character, but I have to tell you – as the series continues, he recedes further and further into the distance. Life goes on, and the story of Jamie and Claire is a wild, long, twisted tale full of memorable and disparate characters.
And as Voyager and subsequent books prove to is, the classic protagonist/antagonist structure isn't always necessary. There are many more ways to spin a tale, and the Outlander series doesn't often fall into a neat narrative slot. Like life itself, it's often messy, chaotic and full of characters that come and go, with motives and outcomes that often don't reveal themselves for the span of several books.
typo -"prove to *us*"
Hi Charlotte – you made a valid point. I think I was referring to the royal "we." It is unfair to corral everyone into my line of thought. My apologies.
As for NEVER reading the books – probably another poor choice of phrasing. I will never read the books while the show exists. AS you know, I want the show to speak for itself. Once it ends, I will read the books.
Being worried about the antagonist in future seasons is certainly a little hyperbolic. I am sure that there must be another few great characters to come down the road. I mean, there has to be, right? There are a total of 8 or 9 books. But, my assertion of being worried about those antagonists not being as "personal" is a fairly reasonable one.
The stakes between BJR, Jamie, and Claire, were just so particular and intimate that I can't see how they can recreate that magic. But I would be the first person to admit how happy I would be if they could.
Hi Claudia! Thanks for reading! I understand your concerns. IN fact, please see my response to Charlotte down below.
I was reading your column eagerly and agreeing right along with you until the words"i have never read the books"Sorry but that phrase totally discounts any opinion you may see fit to expound on .The series is Rons interpretation of Dianas work , hardly the same thing . Its like smelling the meal but not eating it . Totally your lose as it is right there for your pleasure , yet you refuse to partake.You my dear should seek help with your literary anorexia.JMHO
Not having read the books, you can't imagine the the series ( meaning Gabaldon's plotting) can't bring in any other possible antagonist. In fact, Voyager introduces two very formidable antagonists as well as a crucial quest. The difference is that Jamie and Claire are more united and in a partnership in meeting these antagonists.
They won't recreate that particular magic, Blake. They'd be foolish to try. Gabaldon certainly doesn't. As I said, it's different. It has to be, or the audience would get bored, IMHO.
I don't think it's a spoiler to let you know that one of the key themes of Voyager is loss and redemption/recovery. Every character in the book is touched by this. "Voyager" is an apt title as every character – from Jamie, Claire and Bree, to Young Ian, Fergus, Marsali, Mr. Willoughby, John Grey – has his/her own voyage. It's not what you may have come to expect from the first two seasons. Throw your expectations out the window and expect only one thing – to be surprised.
I'm glad to hear you eventually read the books. They are a treat on their own.
Cheers.
I'm glad to hear that you will eventually read the books. They are a jo
Yeesh sorry about the typos. Need an editing option. 😉
Brilliant, Blake!
Hi Blake, thanks for a well thought out and articulate essay. I found the theme of your essay – the dynamic between Claire and BJR – to be interesting and for the most part I agree with you that it in large part shapes the story. However, I feel the Claire/BJR tension is less important to the development of the story than the love between Jamie and Claire.
I don't think your opinion is less valid because you didn't read the books because the TV show should and does stand on its own. However, for book readers, as I am one, I think there is a deeper understanding that the story is a love story more so than a good guy / bad guy struggle. I agree that BJR is an outstanding antagonist – someone who checks all the boxes and certainly adds a very compelling and vital part to the story line. But, without the primacy of the Jamie and Claire love story – Outlander would be reduced to Joker versus Batman, with is a good story, but it isn't Outlander.
Jeez – I think I almost got through it without a typo … but alas the last sentence should conclude with which is a good story, but it isn't Outlander.
In the books there is another villain that replaces BJR. This particular "villain" affects Jamie, Claire, Brianna and Rodger. For those who haven't read the books, just wait and see. The Outlander series does not disappoint.
Thanks Blake so well put together post,must agree T.Menzies acting is brilliant,but don't worry there are many more antagonist in the future,no not as dark as BJR,but who needs more rapes I certainly don't,but villains there will be,and there will be some real darkness yet.
Really should read the books,as I have read them all twice and can judge the show a bit better,RDM does a great job,but some loving for Jamie&Claire got lost,hope it'll be back in season 3.
I found this to be a fascinating read. Your analysis of the show as a non-book-reader gives you a really ‘clean’ view I think. I watched Season 1 before reading the books and then got hooked on the books and read them all before season 2 hit our screens. I found that with season 1 I just absorbed the whole thing as it was comin’ at me, and the story and characters unfolded to me episode after episode. I was filled with suspense. But with season 2, already knowing the story line, I was filled with anticipations and expectations … which often led to disappointment. Sometimes I wish I could go back and have your kind of open view of the TV show.
I think your analysis of the antagonism between Claire and Black Jack actually does hold true for the books too. Us book readers know that there is another bad guy looming on the horizon, but his antagonistic dynamic mostly involves Brianna. Can’t wait to see how you dissect that one!
Diana Gabaldon discusses some of this. Succinctly: great love comes from great sacrifice. BJR forces both Jamie and Claire to make sacrifices. These sacrifices almost kill our title characters, if not physically, then their souls. But Jamie and Claire come through with a weightier love for each other than they could have imagined before their trials.
Their strengths (loyalty, faith, goodness) are their weaknesses that turn back into strengths.
Very interesting, Blake!
I have not thought about BJR that much, but I agree with most of what you wrote….except that I do NOT worry about future seasons. Oh, you know nothing Jon Snow, eh….Blake 🙂 It's certainly not happy ever after for Claire and Jamie. Plenty of drama to come for them and their kins!
I also have to say, that I really appreciate your "show only" input!
Thank you so much for reading! Is there a part you find yourself most gravitating towards?
THanks for your thoughts. I totally agree that the story is ultimately in the hands of Jamie and Claire's love. I would never try to argue that BJR is the main character. BUT – I think that without him, J and C's relationship does not exist. More importantly, to what extent does BJR push J and C? What does he force them to do, or, conversely, not do? That's what makes the story compelling.
THe idea of including ALL of the Frasers and Rodger sounds like a tantalizing one. I do worry that it sounds a little like a broad base villain, but I am certainly intrigued to see what they bring. DO you like the future villain better? Or do you think BJR is a better fit?
Thanks for reading, as always! I love how active you are on these comments! AS for reading the books – I don't think I'm going to read them until the show is over. I only started watching for two reasons:
1. My wife really loves the books and wanted me to do it
2. Ron Moore. I've loved him from his days dating back to Star Trek, through Battlestar Galactica (obviously) and I think he is a supreme talent.
That said, I want Ron Moore's version of OUtlander first. I want to watch it without any preconceptions, or expectations. Once it's done, then I'll read Diana's version.
Thanks for reading Andree! I really appreciate your kind words and I am totally on board with your ideas of expectations and watching the show. I want the show to speak for itself.
Yep. I was surprised, but the books are excellent and there are more details than in movie!
Looking for the Ultimate Dating Website? Join to find your perfect match.
Yes. You lost me after admitting to not have read the books. DG is the creator of BJR and therefore the character's full development is sourced in the pages of the books. You miss out on detail and depth of character by not reading. I don't understand wht you "never will" read thw books?
This is now my second post of yours I've read and I must say, so far so good. I do agree that there must be opposition in life, real life or fiction, and that we are tried in those times and events that oppose us. In short yin and yang make the world a more interesting and satisfying place. They most certainly do in Outlander and I appreciate your pov as a haven't-read-the-books show watcher.
Ron Moore is a genius but his accomplishment with Outlander is due to Diana's brilliant story line. I say that because there is very little of the "true story" that's been changed. Though I certainly am not happy that Jamie and Claire didn't carve their initials on their hands as that was a harsh and beautiful goodbye in the book. I say this because of your decision to not read Diana's work until you've seen Ron's interpretation. But oh, what you're missing! As I'm sure you know the book is always better. Always. We're invited into the hearts, minds, and even souls of the characters and are privy to the reasons behind their choices. The show, Ron, the writers and the cast, do an excellent job of pulling us in without that insight.
I digress…yin and yang. BJR is a disgusting degenerate who turns my stomach. I love him! Menezies is genius personified in this roll. I completely disagree that his appearance in Season 2 was contrived, which is much more evident in the book. He continues to be a menace for a bit, so you have something to look forward to for a little while anyway. And I disagree that there was not a worthy and compelling enemy in S2. What about, oh, all of England and the attempt to take Scotland and quash the Highlanders and their civilization? And I do think the Comte, though foppish, was also a worthy opponent that strung us along and in the end drove Claire to murder (or what we're lead to believe is murder) with her choice to point to him as guilty of sorcery. There's also the wrenching and life changing experience of losing a child which in Jamie and Claire's case is personal to each of them internally as well as personal and threatening to them as our power couple.
Just my take. Variety is the spice of life. And storytelling. And blog posts.
check our website for play online casino…!!!
??????????
???????sbo
sbobet mobile
Thanks Blake for a great movie summary I really liked your BJR reflection on the 'Dark Knight'. Unintentionally I became drawn into this story by Diana Gabaldon, so wonderfully told and performed, directed and crewed.It made me feel angry and sad for all traditional peoples who have been adversely affected by oppressive colonising forces. Language Culture and tradition forever changed. I pray tomorrow for all indigenous cultures accross the globe as we have our Australian 'Sorry day' for our First Nation people and the effect that colonisation has had on their language culture and tradition. May we begin to learn respect and acknowledge the wisdom all first Nation peoples have, in their connection to country and ancestors past and present. I am an outlander (sassenak) in Australia.
Points well presented; points taken. In a word, Tobias is terrific. Visually compelling with those chiseled cheekbones, and giving us a visceral performance as BJR. Such a contrast to sensitive, scholarly Frank. Awesome acting, TM. You, Blake, are the perfect analyst/commentator for the visual series presentation to date. Even though it's rumored that you're 'ready to read', please don't 'read ahead.' Trust Diana to continue to challenge her characters and spellbind her readers. Thanks to both you and Mary for this forum.
Thank you so much, Blake, for this well-written and convincing argumentation. At the hand of the great villain as their antagonist, the two protagonists are pushed to the core of who they are, they are then forced to make hard choices to abandon their virtues and ethics, and eventually, they change. It's what makes the story compelling. Two more issues that have not been dealt with at length in your analysis puzzle me greatly. 1) What does the physical resemblance between Frank and Jack mean for Claire? How does it cloud her judgement, motivate her actions? After Faith's stillbirth she does feel remorse for making Jamie swear not to kill BJR, so she might have had an insight in the darkness of her motivations. How does the resemblance affect her relationship with Frank when she returns? At the onset we are told her relationship with Frank was rather imperfect, that they would find each other in sex if nowhere else. Why then is she so determined to do whatever it takes to keep BJR alive and have him marry Mary Hawkins? And 2) the plotting to kill Bonnie Prince Charles. It is one thing to hand the Comte a bottle of poison that will kill him when you are urged by a mad and powerful king who wants to see blood flow. After all, she is there to beg the king to release her husband, and she does not want to betray her friend Master Raymond. She is cornered and she sees no alternative but to hand her enemy the poison. Later, when Colum MacKenzie asks her to give him something to hasten his inevitable demise, she looks upon it as an act of mercy, even though she must have known that Jamie (and the other characters) would regard this as a mortal sin. The story takes a turn when she persuades Jamie to kill Prince Charles in cold blood. Rationally, the argument is thrown at us that it would save the lives of thousands of people. But that does not change the fact that she would actively have to kill the man, and make Jamie an accomplice in the process. She becomes a plotting murderess. And in the ensuing scene she rolls up her sleeves and gets her hands really dirty when she drives the sword in Dougal's heart. These actions are hardly the result of BJR's doing, are they? Or would you argue otherwise?
Blake, I'm writing on my wife's account. She is also a huge Outlander fan and like your wife she has encouraged me to read the books and watch the shows. Your analysis of the characters is impressive. I don't think Dianna Gabeldon put as much thought into the psychological interplay of the characters as have you. That's no insult to her writing, but I just think she is a gifted story telller who uses actual history and science to fill in the background of her characters' romantic entanglements. When you read the books, you will see what the fuss is about. She paints a clear picture for the reader that transports the reader in space and time.
However, as a man I could not bear to read later books because ANY man that had endured the public beating and resulting physical disfigurement that Jamie had experienced would have killed Randall at the first opportunity that presented itself. That would have been at Jamie's rescue of Claire at the prison or fort after Clair escaped Dugal's party and was captured by British soldiers. Every time I encountered Randal's character after that point I was thrown out of the story by the sheer unbelievable presence of Randal. If art truly imitated life, one of the the characters would have been dead. But the villain shows up again and again to do horrendous things while taunting Jamie and Claire. Unbelievable. Dianna got most everything right except her glaring lack of understanding of the male mind. Wars, professional sports, and violent crimes exist because of the male desire for dominance, territory, and sexual conquest. Jamie had been tortured and disfigured by Randall so one would expect a fight to the death between the two dominant males at the next opportunity. Randall is a great villain, but Dianna keeps him alive far too long for it to be believable to male readers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If you need your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you need to watch this video
right away…
(VIDEO) Why your ex will NEVER get back…
QUANTUM BINARY SIGNALS
Professional trading signals delivered to your cell phone every day.
Follow our trades right now & profit up to 270% per day.
Hi Blake:
I hope it's not too late to post on your great blog and podcast regarding Black Jack Randall as a villain.
I know it's not really popular out there with Outlander fans to say that you haven't read the books, but like you I am just a show watcher too.
I agree with your thoughts and observations on Black Jack as a great antagonist and that Claire–more than Jamie–is his foe.
In the Garrison Commander we see a bit how Claire is recalling Frank–a man she loves when she looks at Black Jack.
Her emotions are turbulent on this–on the one hand she knows Black Jack as a bastard–but then she sees Frank in him, a man we know is essentially good man.
I agree that Black Jack uses Claire's fatal flaws against her.
To me, these are:
1 Her utter arrogance. Claire seems to believe she is the smartest person in the room. And she treats everyone else as if they are dummies.
She does this with Frank Jack, Dougal, the other Scots and even Jamie!
In Claire's mind no body else's opinion is valid but hers.
She stubbornly clings to these ideas even to her detriment (Going to France in S2, her ideas about Mary and Mary's baby, and Murtaugh had the idea about killing the Bonny Prince FIRST in episode 2)
2 Other characters treat Claire this way, much to their own detriment. For example Gellis. If Gallis had asked just ones in the Witch Trial episode what year Claire was from she would have maybe considered that 1968 was a different time from 1968. She might not have made the decisions she did.
3 Claire does not recall the details in what she tells,stories or facts. So she often screws up her stories in what she says. It is no wonder that both Jack and Dougal and Colum are suspicious of her.
4.she does not take the temperature of the room or take in account the feelings of the people in it.
And she never listens to others.
As such, she plows ahead and makes everything worse.
For somebody supposedly so intelligent, she makes some very stupid mistakes.
If she didn't feel compelled to "poke the bear" that she knew Jack to be, if she had been clever, she might have had a different outcome.
I will go as so far as to say, that it was because of Claire's arrogance and flaws that she felt like she had to antagonize Jack so much that she completely signed Jamie's death warrant that day long before Jack got him in Wentworth Prison.
First of all, in the Garrison Commander, Claire threw Jamie under the bus. Because of her big mouth, Jack knew that Jamie not only told her everything, he knew Jamie was a wanted man, and where exactly he was.
All Jack had to do was trail Claire and that would lead him straight to Jamie.
Like hunting fish in a barrel for him.
From that meeting with Claire, Jamie's torture and rape from Black Jack was a given.
I believe that Claire should take at least some responsibility for this.
As such, with the Claire/Jack dynamic, Jamie is the pawn between them.
It seems that Jack is as drawn to Claire as Frank is, she touches something within him but he needs to pervert those feelings.
Jack is that damaged.
It is frightening to think about just what horrors Mary was in for on her wedding night. Jack had not only been corralled into a corner by Claire and Alex with his marriage to Mary, but Alex had died on him that same night.
Just some thoughts on my part.
Thanks so much,
Hugs everyone!
Amazing blog you have! Get best live casino experience with Online live casino malaysia. The most amazing things about this live casino gambling are it offers 100% sign up bonus as a welcome to its newly signed up users and with valuable bonus points with each deposit.
I would respond with only one word: RUBBISH, an enormous pile of rubbish. The only thing that rings true is that without BJR there wasn't going to be this great story. Because without dark there's no light and without villains there are no heroes. Thank you.
I really enjoyed reading this piece, Blake.
Fascinating analysis of Claire and BJR. I think you are right in saying that BJR forces Claire and Jamie to choose. In that sense, I feel that Diana created BJR just to make sure that Jamie and Claire's relationship was strong and solid, to last through a separation of 20 years.
After all, without BJR, neither Jamie nor Claire would have really chosen each other. He forces them to go to places within themselves that most of us never see. He strips their essences to the bone, to nothing, and forces them to rebuild themselves.
This is such a clever way of creating a love story. OMG, Diana is even more of a genius than I thought.
You are right in saying that future protagonists won't be the same as BJR – who could actually ever compare to Tobias? I mean, seriously – but that isn't reallly necessary to the same degree in the later books. After all, BJR's presence at the start of this epic story has served it's purpose- creating a love story and a marriage that is so strong that it will survive impossible lengths of time where the 2 main characters are apart.
Thank you for this very interesting point of view, I really enjoyed it.
Roma Sars
I LOveED his character because he made it interesting plus Black Jack Randall and Frank were and in a way still are my most loved Outlander characters because their scenes were to me the best and most enthralling ones. I know this as when Black Jack or Frank are on screen I cannot unfocus myself from the screen like I usually can, the actions and the deeply personal rivalry that his character as BJR brings is like a magnet to me and then how as Frank its like he can play the most romantic, and caring husband (who personally is more appealing than Jamie for me), so after he died in start of season 3 at Culloden I actually cried because he was the best villain on the series to me. He brought the show to life, be it as BJR or Frank either way he made the show enthralling for me!