[Book 4: Drums of Autumn]

18 hours ago, Dejana said:

I read the books first, but as the books went on, it was easier to see Gabaldon's heavy hand in how she painted the "obstacles" to Jamie and Claire. Her writing makes it so that Jamie has to be coerced or cajoled into sex with anyone besides Claire. When he marries another woman, it's under pressure from his sister and false pretenses (he never would have married Laoghaire if he'd known her full role in the trial). 

I think Frank's plan with the gravestone is beyond convoluted but withholding the knowledge that Jamie survived Culloden? The wrong choice but one many men in his shoes would make, if he thought she'd leave forever and take the child with her. The story would be boring if everyone did the right thing.

That approach runs into problems when the story says Roger has lingering hangups about Bree being raped,. 

*The books allude to a sizable age difference between Frank and Claire, and they married when she was 18. The show completely omitted this dynamic, or any sign that Claire/Frank might have been wrong for each other, even without the time travel.

DG wants to have this great love story spanning time, so Jamie can never fall in love with anyone else (Claire doesn't either, after Jamie) so I think that's why he has to be coerced and cajoled.  When he was with the madam at the brothel at the beginning of the reunion episode, and he appeared to be a customer, I thought she had that covered - sex was with prostitutes because he couldn't love anyone other than Claire.  But apparently not enough to DG as she wrote it that Jamie has only 2 other encounters plus whatever happened with Leoghaire, all of it bad or sad.

Someone had an idea that maybe it was best Claire didn't find out about Jamie surviving Culloden until Brianna had grown up.  Knowing he was alive during that 20 years would have been very frustrating and it would be scary to try to get a child through the stones.  But Frank's motives were for himself I agree.

I remember the early 70s and there was more discussion of rape beginning to happen.  One of the first considerations (of course) was the effect on the woman's husband!  His pain was first, naturally.  So it is consistent with the times.  DG would remember better, as she's a bit older than I am. 

18 marrying a 30 year old would make a rather traditional, male-as-master marriage.  It's part of the contrast that Jamie is 5 years younger than Claire, I think.  Claire isn't the follower type.  With a younger husband also disadvantaged by being born in earlier times, she has a better shot at equality.  

Kindle says I am 50% through this book before the plot starts moving, where Roger goes through the stones.  I was interested to see in the books, Joe Abernathy knows about the time travel.  He and Roger have this interesting phone conversation where they dance around it until they both admit it.  Very hard to suggest to someone who might think you are crazy.  Even Geillis only did it under extreme pressure.  I think Geillis suspected Claire early on - but thought Claire might have an anti-Jacobite agenda.  

[S05.E11: Journeycake]

1 hour ago, toolazy said:

 

The gemstones are what they use to steer in the absence of an anchoring person in the time they want to get to. I'm not sure why you're assuming it's Jemmy's fault that they didn't go.  I mean, it might be, but there was no indication of that in the show. 

The show is smart to not get in the weeds over the rules of time-traveling.  It doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it so trying to make sense out of it is a losing proposition. 

I don't think I said it was "Jemmy's fault" as if he were guilty of something.  Only some fun speculating about what could have happened.  There's been a lot of discussion about gems but also discussion about having some time period in mind, which a small child can't envision or even understand.  So maybe they'd have to wait for him to be old enough to imagine another time, maybe at 6-7 you can do that as you start learning history then.  And his parents could tell him about their time at that age, so he can imagine it.  

I didn't say the show was not smart, but the book/show are based on the concept, and so naturally people will speculate about the imaginary world created.  I think it was a brilliant idea of the author, and she has made the most of it.  She would not have expected people to not wonder about it.  Clearly we are supposed to wonder what has happened with the young MacKenzie family here. 

[S05.E11: Journeycake]

On 5/3/2020 at 9:20 PM, Glaze Crazy said:

I vote for Roger and Bree dropping into a Ren Faire or the NC Highland Games/Gathering in the present (1974ish?). Might be easier to pass off their period attire. In the book Brianna sewed up some nondescript shirts and pants for them to wear going back to the future. Or they are right next to the Blue Ridge Highway.

I didn't think of that.  Both Claire and Brianna made some efforts to have the right clothing - OK Brianna's was lame - when they went to the past.  At Culloden, Claire didn't have much time to think about how her outfit would seem in the future.  But Brianna and Roger were planning for weeks, so you'd think they'd show the clothing efforts as was done in the books.  But then again, I didn't even notice it until I read your post.  And it would be really easy to pass it off as re-enactment or festival costume, in 1974.

On 5/4/2020 at 2:05 PM, iMonrey said:

It seems to me that these people make a lot of dangerous assumptions about time traveling. This is a completely different stone circle than the one they used in Scotland. What on earth makes them so sure it will take them to their own time? What if they wind up 200 years further in the past? They'd be even worse off than they are now, there wouldn't be anyone there! Or what if they go so far into the future that they're the ones who are out of place? This seems like a crazy risk to take.

Furthermore, how on earth could Roger possible find his way back to those stones? He only stumbled upon them when he escaped from the Mohawks. How would he have even know where he was, let alone how to get back there again? It's not as if there are road signs. {STONE CIRCLE NEXT EXIT}

Very true.  Posters went on and on about Claire returning to electricity, plumbing and showers.  But Claire had wondered whether they might send her further back.  I'd stay safe in the 18th where I had a great husband.  I'd hate to run into a battle with Uhtred or something.  But the song gave Claire some courage, because the person in the song went back to their own land.  

Ye ken there was a sign pointing to Craig Na Dun, with the number of miles 5 or 6, I think.  Frank passed in his car and then turned around and went up to it.  But that was the 1940s.  

On 5/4/2020 at 2:41 PM, aemom said:

Once they realized that was their ticket home, they probably wrote down some very detailed directions.

As for getting to the right time - they haven't really focused on that too much on the show, but the idea is that you are supposed to think about the time that you want to be in when you go through the stones.  Not sure how that would work for Jemmy, but I guess we have to hand wave that away.

That's how Claire wound up in that time.  She was thinking about Frank's ancestors at that time when she first touched the stones.

Jemmy being very young and not familiar with the 1970s - it would make sense that he can't imagine the 1970s.  An argument for them not going anywhere.  Jemmy doesn't know any other time.

On 5/5/2020 at 9:22 AM, nodorothyparker said:

There was some nice character work in this one, but otherwise I was sorely aware of just how much of a nonissue Brianna and Roger leaving seemed to be for all the tearful farewells and entire episode dedicated to it.  There was no real discussion or debate and no big compelling reason for it beyond Roger wants to go, which is legitimate given the time he's had in the 1700s, but it played out very much as a plot point being checked off.  Show Roger apparently never connected on any level with any of these people as he was all but booking it out of there and the rest of the family barely seemed to manage more than "Oh yeah you. I guess you're leaving too."  I've always had mixed feelings about book Jamie offering Claire a gemstone during the sweaty menopause window sex as it seems just a little too good to be true for a character who's lost as much as he has to be so willing to offer her an out when the rest of them go, but at the same time I realized in watching this that I was missing it here.   In framing staying or going as entirely a safety issue with a war looming, though, it felt like they missed a prime opportunity to acknowledge the earlier choice in a very similar situation Jamie and Claire made that led to both the family as it is and so many years of grief and heartbreak.

 

Even the show could use more discussion about time traveling.  They seem to fear the claim of boredom from some of the viewers who have to have constant action.  But I would find the discussions interesting.  Just makes the characters look to dumb to even think about it.  

I can do without Jamie offering her to go back.  I would not like her at all for considering it, as she's already done that anyway and made that decision.  Nothing is different now except for missing her grandchild too, but earlier she was willing to never know anything about her grandchildren and never see Brianna again.  

The war looming will result in American Independence and Claire knows that and that it would be possible to move to somewhere that did not get a lot of fighting and involvement in it if she's afraid.  For that matter, how much of the war was fought in Western NC?  Yet in modern times, the USA and USSR both have nuclear weapons and at that time, there was a real fear of a planet destroying war.  In school, we had "civil defense drills" where we covered our heads, which would have done nothing to save us in a nuclear bombing.  

[S05.E11: Journeycake]

On 5/3/2020 at 2:59 PM, BitterApple said:

Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!! Not a cliffhanger with Roger and Brianna!!! Where do they end up?! Obviously not in the 1970s, judging by their reaction. So are they even further back than where they started? The show's never given hard rules for time travel, but that would be an interesting twist if you could only travel back from the year you were born and not forward. 

Jaime delicately eating the peanut butter sandwich with knife and fork was hysterical, and I thought the dinner was a clever and touching way to tie the two time periods together.

I feel like a lot happened in this episode, but the one thing I'm waiting for is to hear Ian's story about his time with the Mohawk. Hopefully that gets covered in the finale.

 

Yes, the only one who went forward in time was Claire.  To a time she had been born in or existed in before.  Roger and Brianna could do that.  But perhaps you can't travel to where you didn't exist before even if you can hear the stones.  Now we also know that a rope is good enough to make you travel together.  And fortunately it keeps time travelers with non time travelers together, so that R and B did not go forward when Jemmy could not, even though they could have without him.   Which leaves open that maybe Claire could take Ian back by tying a rope around them.  

Eating the sandwich with the fork and knife was delightful.  I looked up the history of sandwiches enough to see that it was about the 1770s that Lord Sandwich started the popularity of them in England.  That wouldn't have reached the US yet.  Jamie just did what came naturally.  Ian picked it up, but that may come of being with the Mohawk, or seeing that the others did it that way.  

I am really more interested in what happened with Ian than another Claire kidnapping. 

On 5/3/2020 at 4:57 PM, theschnauzers said:

I’m pleased that Diana wrote this episode. She has that deft touch with family interactions. And the ones with Jemmy, Lizzie and Ian were heartwarming. And entrusting Ian with the land grant given to Roger will help Ian feel more attached to Fraser’s Ridge. It’s interesting the Browns didn’t say one word about Mohawk Ian in this episode.

Strange, but I found Lizzie the most touching of the scenes.  Her devotion to Brianna is strong.  I did notice Brianna didn't really say goodbye to Jamie individually as with everyone else.  

On 5/4/2020 at 12:31 AM, Cdh20 said:

I love, love, love cliffhangers! That is all for now!

Yes, you can think about them and speculate, which is fun.

On 5/5/2020 at 6:05 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

Now with the baby, they may have painted themselves into a corner and will just resolve it because plot. The logical outcome is 1572 but why the baby would override Bree and Roger I doubt has a thought out explanation. 

 

It's the first time it's been tried by more than one person at a time.  The baby perhaps cannot travel to the future even though he can hear the stones?  The situation for the youngest person in the group prevails?  They did disappear, because Ian saw it, so they went somewhere.  Somewhere R and B did not expect.   

They came from Craigh na Dun, so what is in NC in that area in 1974 might be surprising.  Or if you go through one portal, you end up where you started, so maybe they are just at Criagh na Dun.  Fun to speculate.  

On 5/5/2020 at 8:27 PM, Hanahope said:

they had to see something odd from their expression.  What would they see in 1572 or so?  More native Americans?  That wouldn’t be odd.  There was no suggestion of a settlement in 1772, so not likely to be one in 1572.

I don’t think going back in the past would cause such an expression, that’s why I think it must be the future.  It’s just a question of how far in the future.   
 

The way Jemmy was going forward as if to someone he knew supports that they might have gone nowhere and he's waving at Ian, who is just walking away.  

The safety issue is often discussed, and it is true for medicine.  But for accidents, they are more and bigger, trucks, buses, cars, planes and trains all have accidents.  There are more types; electrical and so on.  But the medical system makes it more likely to survive and survive less maimed, without amputations and better ways to deal with disabilities.  

The overall situation though might give someone pause.  If you left in 1970, you know there is a threat of nuclear war.  I might be hesitant to go back with the possibility they could return to an earth laid waste.  Though you could just use the stone to go back if you could notice that right away.  I remember the early 70s, and we knew the US and the USSR had enough nuclear power to blow up the earth many times over.  They do know they are going back to that situation.  

[S05.E05: Perpetual Adoration]

On 3/22/2020 at 4:22 PM, cardigirl said:

 

I was not as enamored of Jamie murdering the British soldier, even if it was self-defense. It just seemed very uncharacteristic of him.  He usually figures another way out of such situations, but this just felt very false and not natural to the character. Jamie has killed before, but not like this. 

 

 

Murtaugh wanted to kill Bonnie Prince Charlie right off, and Jamie wasn't having any of that.  Then after months of effort, Jamie and Claire were reduced to trying that right before Culloden.  Dougal overheard and disrupted that plan.  Maybe Jamie could have neutralized Knox with his own misconduct, but prior experience may have hinted that he'd have to kill him someday and things could be much worse by then.

On 3/16/2020 at 9:02 AM, Cdh20 said:

I don't think it was out of character-Jamie will kill to protect his family, his first oath is to them. However in this instance, I thought he would have tried to intercept the letter instead first.

Yes, wasn't that Fergus' area of expertise?  

[S05.E04: Company We Keep]

On 3/8/2020 at 3:02 PM, BitterApple said:

It was sweet of Jamie to offer to raise the baby with Claire, but the Brownsville couple was the better option. They're younger, the wife can nurse and their lives aren't as chaotic. It's also a positive nobody seemed to take issue with the baby's skin color, aside from making observation that she wasn't white. 

 

I was expecting someone to object to nursing the baby on the grounds of race, if not the nursing mother, then her mother.  

On 3/8/2020 at 3:37 PM, nara said:

 I am getting tired of Jamie’s constant picking on Roger. I hope we don’t have to wait until the end of season for that to be resolved.

Yes, if he left Roger to deal with things, then at least respect Roger using his judgment as he sees fit.  

[The Last Kingdom - General Discussion]

On 12/30/2018 at 12:01 PM, snowwhyte said:

I haven't read the Last Kingdom books but the author also wrote the Sharpe series and the hero in that churned through love interests, most of whom died to fuel his manly pain so I'm guessing Gisela's death is by the book. It was a crappy ending for her though. There doesn't seem any point in getting invested in Uhtred's love interests because they won't last long.

I tried reading the books after seeing the Sharpe series, and noticed that one big change from the books was to amplify the stories of the women.  It seems the author does not want to write about women, and the book was nothing but battles and men, as Catherine Morland says, "the men all good-for-nothing, and hardly any women at all."  Or, they were just passing interests for Sharpe and plot points.  

So I wonder if that is what happened here too.  And yes, of course they conveniently die or go off, so the hero can have a series of beauties.  Especially I wonder if Hild, who is just a friend, is a as big in the books as she is here.    

And the rules seems to be that if a woman enters the convent, the marriage is automatically dissolved, which was very convenient.  I thought hilarious Uthred just thought he could marry Gisela, as that would have been bigamous, but that's how they took care of it. 

 

 

[The Last Kingdom - General Discussion]

On 11/30/2018 at 4:31 PM, skyways said:

Agreed. I felt I was physically there. 10 episodes are too short. I wanted to see more Athelflaed, Athelred, his adviser, Hild instead of Skade, Haeston, Bloodhair in short enough of the Danes!!!

But Ragnar why? WHY??!!!!😵😭

I felt like I was physically there too.  In fact, I was dreading going outside in the cold snowy winter, but then realized it is about 80 degrees outside where I am.  

[S05.E02: Between Two Fires]

Brianna seems to be much better than Claire about living in the 18th century and accepting that it is the 18th century.  Warning Claire not to mess too much with the timeline of the universe or doing something to get accused of witchcraft.  

Claire was clever to put her advice under a man's name, though.  

Perhaps Claire could have treated the body so that it did not stink:  I suppose they do something to them in the morgue so they don't.  Alcohol perhaps?  Though she did not need the autopsy to know the cause of death.  And having been through medical school, she doesn't need to study cadavers to learn about the inner workings of the human body.   

Jamie seeing Brianna and Jem is probably more than he ever expected to do.  

Roger could have just practiced.  He has Claire examine his eyes because he can't shoot?  Doesn't he realize he could practice and get better?  Dumb.  Not sure why he wants to go back - even he does not complain about the lack of 20th century conveniences.  Brianna and Claire were talking about them in an earlier episode, but both really don't seem to mind not having them.  If Claire minds, it is only expressed where it hinders her helping someone medically less than she knows she could.  

 

[Book 4: Drums of Autumn]

On 7/12/2016 at 9:28 PM, toolazy said:

I blame Brianna almost exclusively for the Jamie/Ian/Roger fiasco.  If she would have just told her parents that she was handfasted with Roger and had been raped by Bonnet, end of problem.  Roger Mac doesn't get beaten, Ian doesn't go to the Indians, etc.  This is the point in the books that I begin to actively hate her. 

Also how Brianna acted as if they did it on purpose; that they knew they were beating the wrong man.  It was mistakes on their part, but reasonable ones given what they knew at the time.  So she didn't have to get so angry at them about it.  

[S04.E13: Man of Worth]

On 1/27/2019 at 10:36 AM, cesstar said:

I felt that the episode lacked some kind of reconciliation between Bree and Jamie at the end, particularly after their conflict drove the action for the latter part of tge season.

On 1/27/2019 at 11:19 AM, Future Cat Lady said:

Jamie and Claire should’ve been at Jem’s birth.

They should've cut a lot of the walking to the Mohawk village to get time for the Fraser family reunion. 

And Jamie didn't get to hold is grandchild? WTF!

Yes, I was annoyed extremely at Claire for giving the baby to Jocasta.  WTF?  That was absurd.  Why would Claire do such a despicable thing?  And they should have wrapped it up between Jamie and Brianna - the whole season led to the payoff of their meeting.

On 1/27/2019 at 11:36 AM, nodorothyparker said:

Quote

 

As it is, this felt like a speed reader's version of events where the show couldn't be bothered to pause to give Jamie time to make up with his daughter or give him more than a glance to the newest member of his family who won't be immediately snatched away from him.  It couldn't take the time to give Roger even a cursory look at this child that he was willingly giving up his entire life in his own time for.  I'm okay with skipping the book version of the birth which always feels weirdly anachronistic but replace it with something that conveys the weight of how much it means to finally have this family all together all in one time and place.

Still, they were all awfully cavalier about their actions getting the poor Mohawk woman kicked out of her tribe.  It's all very well and good to make promises beforehand about how you'll "help" if they do you a solid first, but they seemingly walked away with nary a thought about the destruction their rescue attempt caused.  

 

 

 

Yes, Roger should have held the baby, too. 

I had predicted they would include the exiled Mohawk woman and it was a surprise they did not run into her.  I don't think they would go look for her but of all the coincidences in the plot, their running into her would have been an expected one.

Brianna has a temper and cools off, I guess, she doesn’t recall now she was so mad at Roger she broke up with him on their wedding night because he did not tell her about the obituary.  And he didn’t get to explain he was about to when he found out she had already gone to visit her mother.  Because she found out about it on her own.  

So she will cool off against Jamie too.  But this is supposed to be because she is like Jamie.  Yet I don’t recall Jamie having these types of flares of temper.  With him, it is more a big mouth (like getting into the fight with the McDonalds after the duel) or justifiable revenge, like BJR.  I guess he got mad at Claire for leaving when he went off to see Horrocks, but they argued it out right after.  And that wasn't unreasonable as Brianna's flare ups are shown to be. 

The Mohawk village is a marvelous set.  Must have been expensive.   Though the portrayal of the Native Americans is a problem as they are consistently cruel and unreasonable every time they appear.  DG/script shows them like another set of redcoats, always wrong and always cruel. 

It was a change that the set of redcoats that came at the end didn't arrest Jamie for once.  I was ready for them to take him off after the twist that they wanted him rather than Murtagh.  

 

 

[S01.E08: Episode 8]

On 8/2/2015 at 11:00 PM, WatchrTina said:

I'll probably watch the next season but right now I don't much care about it.  I just hope Verity has the good sense to stay on board her ship with her husband like Anne Elliot at the end of Jane Austen's "Persuasion."

I like the comparison to Anne Elliott Wentworth; who followed in the footsteps of her sister-in-law Mrs. Croft.  She preferred to sail with her husband rather than stay home on shore waiting.  She spent a winter on shore at Deal and that was the only time she ever fancied herself unwell!

[S01.E08: Episode 8]

On 8/2/2015 at 11:00 PM, WatchrTina said:

Not gonna lie -- I hated most of this episode.  The Warleggens are too one-dimensionally evil and I find it hard to believe that they can ruin someone by just calling in a loan for no reason.  Was banking really so capricious and screwed up back then?  There are other bankers -- can't they go to one of them and refinance the loan?

 

 

 

 

I noticed that about the Warleggan loans too.  What is the point of borrowing money in any amount when the entire amount can be called in due at any time, with no even to of default?  It would only even begin to work if you had that amount of money anyway, in which case, you don't need to borrow it.  Sheesh.  And the Warleggans would be hated and no one would bank with them.   

 

[S01.E07: Episode 7]

On 8/5/2015 at 11:24 AM, Nidratime said:

Yes, once Verity formed an attachment to Andrew Blamey, it became almost beyond their control. If Verity's family had been at all concerned about her needs and desires before than -- rather than just take her for granted -- they should've made an effort to encourage suitable suitors and accompanied her out more out into society. But, I'm guessing part of the reason why that didn't happen is that Verity's mother had passed away and there was no one looking out for her interests. Her father and brother took the easy way out by just allowing her to slip into the role of Mistress of Trenwith, until Francis got married and kind of made Verity redundant as well as making her realize how much she really wanted to have her own home and family via the very presence of a young family (such as it was) in her midst.

Francis could at least have spent some time with Blamey and gotten to know him.  He could have respected Verity's opinion, that the reform was genuine, at least enough to see Blamey on a few occasions and talk to him.  

In Persuasion, Mrs. Croft sails the seas with Captain Croft, and likes it very much.  When her brother, Captain Wentworth, says that ships are not comfortable for ladies, she scolds him and says they are not so fine all their lives.  Mrs. Croft had even been to the West Indies.  

Capt. Blamey had a steady trade with Portugal, which wouldn't be a transoceanic voyage.   I believe he did talk of Verity seeing Portugal.  

[S04.E11: If Not For Hope]

Of course Roger gets captured again.  Anything to drag it out, lol.

If you buy a man, why mistreat him - supposedly you bought him because you had some use for them.  They even let the other guy die.  So far, other than the grandmotherly medical woman and the girl with her, the Native Americans are portrayed in a very negative light.  Interesting tease that Roger, enjoying the shower, might have gone back.

It seems Brianna loves Roger most when he’s not around.  But be together one day and night, and they have a fight and a break-up.  This is not a great love story, but I don’t suppose the author meant it to be.

If Lizzie made an honest mistake, so did Jamie.  It was hardly a mistake even.  Lizzie sees a man manhandling her mistress and mistress comes home raped.  Jamie had no way to know there were two men involved, either.

Brianna’s handling slavery with more aplomb than Claire or even Jamie.   At least she is willing to stay there at the house.

The "motherhood is all" stuff is very 20th/21st century.  Up until the 90s, mothers did not protest so much about how the children are the most important thing in the universe and come before everything else - My mother was of the last stay at home generation, and and neither she nor other mothers talked like this about the holiness of motherhood.  (In fact, my mother complained quite a bit, lol).  

There was no reason Claire couldn’t tell Jamie that Brianna had spent the night with Roger too.  They had the handfasting excuse, if Jamie’s 18th century mind can’t wrap around premarital sex for a daughter.  But he's already shown that he can get some 20th century concepts about women, and didn't complain that Brianna wasn't married yet as for example, Murtagh expects she must be, as she would in the 18th century at her age, and understood enough to tell him that women could do a lot more in Claire/Brianna's time.  In 1970, the sexual revolution/pill was pretty new and Roe v. Wade was 3 years away and women were still drinking and smoking while pregnant.

Handfasting

Quote

The Scottish Hebrides, particularly in the Isle of Skye, show some records of a 'Handfast" or "left-handed" marriage taking in the late 1600s, where the Gaelic scholar, Martin Martin, notes "It was an ancient custom in the Isles that a man take a maid as his wife and keep her for the space of a year without marrying her; and if she pleased him all the while, he married her at the end of the year and legitimatised her children; but if he did not love her, he returned her to her parents."[11

It does seem to have been gone by the 18th century though.  DG and show seem to be pretending it still exists yet changing its terms for convenience.  With Marsali and Fergus, it was not in effect until consummation; for Brianna and Roger, it has no effect at all apparently.  

[S04.E10: The Deep Heart's Core]

So a time can just be on your mind and you will go there if you accidentally went through the stones, not intending to, as Claire did.  

It's very convenient that there is a time travel portal near wherever Claire goes.  Maybe she is drawn to them.  Maybe there are quite common on earth.  LOL.    

[S04.E10: The Deep Heart's Core]

On 1/6/2019 at 11:46 AM, GingerMarie said:

was not her story to tell.  I am ticked off at Claire for not defending Jamie when Brianna said she did not trust him and Ian to do the right thing when tring to find Roger.  Claire you let me down.  It felt like she was driving a wedge between father and daughter. 

Claire just didn't tell Jamie enough.  Though I guess she too thought Roger had gone back through the stones.  But it was possible that he didn't.  Big assumption on their part too.

On 1/6/2019 at 11:57 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

And this should probably go in the Unpopular thread, but Brianna can just stop with her rage at both Wee Ian and Jamie-to the extent that she’s acting like what they did with Roger was done with the knowledge of who Roger was. They didn’t. It’s all on Lizzie, If blame is to go around. And all she got was a “You should be” from Brianna when Lizzie said she was sorry.😒😒😒😒

No way will Roger go through the stones. Either he’ll stop or the Mohawk will yank him back.

I can’t recall if Wee Ian proposed to Brianna before she found out what he and Jamie had done with Roger in the buik, but his proposal in the show was a bad choice, considering that  Brianna has decided that Roger’s fate was an intentional EVUHL plan and that Jamie is an unconscionable “savage” and monster, instead of being given WRONG information. Yeah, TOTALLY #TEAMJAMIE here.

I did appreciate that Claire didn’t jump on the it’s all your fault, Jamie! bandwagon. And I thought it was perfect how she let Jamie know that Bonnett was the one who raped Brianna.

Wasn't happy that Brianna couldn’t or wouldn’t even consider why/how Jamie did what he did. 

I was thinking when Roger escaped - oh you just know it's not going to hold and he'll be caught again.  

I think Lizzie's conclusions made perfect sense; how was she to know?  Brianna didn't tell her a thing about Roger.

 

On 1/6/2019 at 6:53 PM, Atlanta said:

I do like that Bree mentions they are handfast. She didn't do that in the book. Jamie can understand that, but I can't believe there's not a priest or reverend that couldn't legit marry them there when they were in Wilmington. Big plot hole via Diana. 

I thought as soon as you slept together you were married; that was a big issue in Fergus' case.  

On 1/7/2019 at 5:14 PM, snowbryneich said:

I assume Claire didn't defend Ian and Jamie so that they could have the next big misunderstanding where Jamie spends the journey to the Mohawk wondering if Claire would prefer Frank to him just like Brianna. But actually, I've never really considered did Claire tell Jamie about to her promise to Frank to not look for him while Frank was alive? I know he later finds out Frank wasn't the best husband - I think Claire and her glass face give a bit away when he is talking about Laoghaire and how things were between them. Because otherwise given Claires timing - coming back after Frank's death Jamie could think he was second best. (Rare moment of insecurity for the King of Men there.)   

Claire went back because Brianna was an adult now.  Frank's death at the same approximate time was another Lucky Coincidence.  

On 1/9/2019 at 10:12 AM, aemom said:

The stones send you to whatever time you are thinking about when you cross.

Claire wouldn't have been thinking of any particular time her first time.  Though you could want that Geillis had just gone there and that made the stones pick it when the traveler wasn't thinking of a year.  And that the stones are not exact, explaining the different years Geillis and Claire went back in.  Both 1740s but not the same year.

 

On 1/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, Pingaponga said:

My shower-thought of the day...Brianna and Roger are, of course, cousins.  Distant cousins, but cousins nonetheless.  Roger is a descendant of Geillis and Dougal's child, and as Dougal was Jamie's uncle, that makes Brianna and the child first cousins.  So Brianna and Roger are first cousins many (many) times removed. Which makes this conversation between Jamie and Brianna kind of amusing.

As you go back each generation, the degree of relation is cut in half, you are half a parent, a quarter of each grandparent, an eighth of each great grandparent.  So when you go back that far, even in a direct line, the more remote ancestors are barely related to you.  You're more closely related to your present third cousins than to you 8 times great grandfather.  

And today there are US states that still allow even first cousins to marry.  

[S04.E10: The Deep Heart's Core]

 

On 1/7/2019 at 10:22 AM, BitterApple said:

Me too. That seems like an odd thing for Claire to tell Brianna. "Oh, btw, your biological father was raped by one of your adoptive father's ancestors, more tea?".

It seems we only find out how much Claire told Brianna about her 18th century previous adventures when it suits the plot.  It is odd that she would have related the happenings at Wentworth.  If she did that, she must have told just about everything.  Her assault by the French King, the guy she killed, killing Dougal, the witch trial.  And while at the Ridge during those weeks would she have told all about Jamaica and the hurricane.  And does Brianna know about Faith?  And Lord John and William?  Geillis' fate?  

On 1/7/2019 at 1:29 PM, Cdh20 said:

I liked that he said he did it to save/protect  Claire & would make that choice again for her-it's important that Bree knows how much he loves Claire, & also that a rape was what triggered him to beat up Roger, even though it was wrong of him to take matters into his own hands. I am sad for Jamie that now she is so mad at him, & had to add that jab about what Frank would or wouldn't do! Of course the problems with this episode were mostly with Jamie being a man of his time! Too bad Bree didn't see Frank beat up those guys in the alley in episode 108.

Frank is 20th century too, so the comparison isn't exactly apt.  You can go to the police then.  And definitely your men would be arrested for attacking the rapist.  Though I think in 1970 it would likely get ignored by police and they not believe her; it was still bad that way as far back as 1970.  

Jamie had a bit of 20th century sensibility that he may have gotten from Claire.  Claire was pretty negligent in telling Jamie that Brianna was raped, without the stories of the two men involved, and also without giving Jamie extra instruction on how 20th century Brianna will view things.  Jamie had no reason to know it was that complicated.

On 1/7/2019 at 3:03 PM, Hannah Lee said:

Jamie being a man of his time, for me, accounts for why he beat up Roger before trying to confirm who Roger was or why he was there, or telling him who he was.  

But as for the rest, I'd argue that the problems of this episode were mostly as a result of people not sharing information with each other, all the way back to Brianna not telling Lizzie that she was leaving the tavern with someone she knew and trusted...her friend Roger, back when she first took off with him in Wilmington.  (I still can't wrap my head around that. Yes, yes I know she was excited to see Roger, and probably not thinking clearly.  But Brianna and Lizzie had just traveled across the ocean together, Bree knows how dangerous the 1700's can be (between her own experiences and stories Claire told her)  and they were basically alone in this place neither of them knew, where neither of them personally knew a soul.  Whether or not Bree felt OK leaving with Roger, you'd think for a second she might say "oh, wait, I've just left a woman alone in a tavern, an ocean away from her home, and I'm the only person she knows here.  We've had each other's backs for weeks, and technically, she's charged with, responsible for, looking after me...hmm maybe it might be kind to mention to her that I won't be back for a while so she doesn't worry/go wandering around looking for me, putting herself at risk")

 

Lizzie identified Roger, so Jamie could not see any reason to try to identify him.  He'd been identified from Jamie's point of view.   

On 1/7/2019 at 10:04 PM, ganesh said:

I have to agree. She certainly has a right to be furious, but it just put me off. Jamie, ok. He jumped to the obviously wrong conclusion and said some really ignorant things from her pov. Ian didn't deserve it though. And, really, that's not how Frank raised her. Not a good look slapping people around.

I was already put off by the 'not communicating important information' trope all around. How was Jamie to know she had sex with Roger and the Bonnet raped her? 

I could see her being furious at first, but both she and Claire withheld information, starting with Bree not telling Lizzie enough and then both not telling Jamie enough.  Brianna thinks Jamie and Ian have bad judgment?  Their judgment was based on the information they had, which Brianna and Claire know full well was incomplete by their own choice.   How were they to know?  Kind of reminds me of Lizzie Bennett being judgmental of her mother for not liking Mr. Darcy, because he had saved Lydia, when Mrs. Bennett didn't know he saved Lydia.  

On 1/8/2019 at 12:42 AM, Iguessnot said:

 

Brianna easily slaps and insults Jamie and Ian, yet she is civil and calm with Lizzie. Since they aren't even trying, at least they are moving the story along.

I'm on team Lizzy/Jamie/Ian.  They had no way of knowing any differently.  Lizzie's conclusions were perfectly reasonable with the knowledge she had.  Jamie and Ian had no reason to think it could be more complicated. 

They keep saying Brianna is pregnant and unmarried.  But when Fergus and Marsali were hand fasted, the rule was that if the slept together they were married.  So aren't they married now?  Or have the rules been changed to fit the plot, lol.  

[S04.E08: Wilmington]

On 12/25/2018 at 10:09 AM, AuntieMame said:

There isn’t anything wrong with I’m not ready to make the serious commitment of marriage yet, but let’s take our courtship to the next level, but somehow Bree looked unreasonable saying this and Rogers “Hiw dare you even think about sleeping with me and losing your virginity?” was more than cringeworthy. 

 

1970 was 50 years ago.  The "level" thing about relationships didn't exist yet.  It was vey early in the sexual revolution.  Not everyone let go of the old constraints at once.  The pill was just recently invented and still controversial.  

On 12/26/2018 at 2:05 PM, Petunia846 said:

 

Yeah, language acquisition research shows that children pick up accents from their peers, not their parents. I see it all the time at work.

Immigrants' children always sound American.  They are living in the U.S. and spend a lot of time with their peers.  They might know some of their parents' language.  But they will take on the American accent.  They are surrounded by it, their ear is still not hardened (the reason older people keep their accent or have a harder time learning a new language). 

On 12/27/2018 at 11:24 AM, areca said:

I always thought "You bastard!" at that.  He never told Claire or gave any indication that he was going to!  He was condemning her to a life without children without consulting her!  And this was back in the day when it was *always* the woman's fault there would be no babies.

He found out he was sterile while Claire was in the 1700s - he thought his fertility was a moot point at that time.  So the first time he could tell her would be 1948 when she came back pregnant.  

[S03.E08: First Wife]

IMO the author wanted to make Jamie not look like a jerk.  It is easier to accept Jamie leaving his wife if the wife is a total jerk, the marriage is unhappy and they are separated, the children aren't his, and it's Leery, who we already hate.  We are on board for his leaving her due to that. 

Reminds me of Poldark, where Drake was going to marry Rosina, he was up front with her that he'd always love Morwenna, and when Morwenna's husband suddenly died right before Drake and Rosina's wedding, Rosina was all for his going to her and gave up on him right there.  Thus the author propped Drake and kept him from looking like a jerk.  Not as well, though, as I at least do feel bad for Rosina.  

Here, nobody feels bad for Leery.  So using her as the spouse props Jamie up and leaves him looking still OK and the good guy though he leaves her. 

[S04.E07: Down the Rabbit Hole]

On 12/19/2018 at 1:25 PM, Scarlett45 said:

I do think Claire TRIED to move on emotionally from Jaime but that didn’t happen, we are supposed to believe that’s due to their epic love. My stance is Jaime is very hot but I cannot think of any scenario that would make me give up indoor plumbing, modern medicine and legal personhood for love. Making the best of things when she fell through the stones the first time (on accident) was one thing, giving up her life, her child, and the 20th century on chance  to be with Jaime (what if he had been married to a woman he really loved and  didn’t want to leave).....

It's clear that Claire loves Jamie more than plumbing, modern medicine, etc.  She grew up living rough with her uncle.  She was already able to adapt to anything 18th century.   Without licensing boards or threat of malpractice, she could indulge her passion for herbs and healing.  

Above all, she absolutely loves helping.  She is always ready to help.  She was shown even getting Uncle Lamb's pipe ready for him by taking the first smoke!  He had her helping him all along and that is how she is conditioned.  Her first instinct is always to help.  She can help the 18th century people more.  Even if the 18th century person attacks her, she wants to tend to their injuries.  Of course she had to go on the plague ship no matter what Jamie wanted.  There are a zillion examples. 

I think she prefers excitement that the 20th doesn't have but the 18th does, too. Never complains, she is always ready to handle the problem.  I enjoyed that twice she used her Englishness to get Jamie and Co. out of scrapes.  (With teen Lord John and at the church where she pretended to be a hostage).  

So it doesn't seem like it was a problem to Claire at all, and we are talking about the love of her life.  

She knew it was a risk he'd have someone else, but may not have thought it was a big one, as she knows its a great all consuming love and the chances are that since she has not gotten over it, he hasn't either.  Jamie thought she could just go back to Frank, never thinking Frank might have had someone else in the meantime, either.  So this shows Jamie believes a man doesn't ever get over it, and definitely never gets over Claire. 

On 12/19/2018 at 11:37 PM, tennisgurl said:

You ever think Claire is just like "I mean, I love Jamie and all, but just this month, I've dealt with a Native American serial killer, a Native American ghost, multiple cases of deadly measles, slavery and having to mercy kill a guy to prevent a lynching, public executions, SO MUCH racism and sexism, robbery, attempted murder, my friend got scalped, and yet another war is about to start...maybe the 60s weren't so bad."

It does not bother Claire, though.  She hasn't shown any regret about the things that happen.  Though in the 20th you also have serial killers, kidnappings, mercy killings (even legal in some areas), deadly diseases and all those other things still exist.   The real improvement is technology and the legal system, but not the existence of those evils.

 

On 12/21/2018 at 6:48 AM, Pestilentia said:

I guess I understand but the great love of my life was such a burning, all-consuming type of compulsion that I would have moved heaven and earth to keep- it was everything.

I truly would wish for everyone to experience a love like that at some point in their life.

And if that love had been cut short by war, if I was denied the ability to have our life together and then somehow got the chance to get it back?  

You bet I would go!!

Yes, if Jamie is not "all that" to any of us, he is to Claire.  

[S04.E05: Savages]

TPTB know we want to see Jamie meet his daughter; they are dragging it out most shamelessly.  If not for the Murtaugh reveal, they would deserve to be be flogged.   I can buy the Grand Coincidence that of all the gin bars -  Murtagh is right there.  But at least a big point was made of Scots tending to settle there. 

Claire is going to be alone in the cabin.  Of course she will be in danger.  Of course she will be attacked.  At least it turned out that Mueller did not attack her physically.

Could Mueller have been the one to bring measles to his family when he was immune?  He'd already had it.  Unfortunate that they had to kill off Baby Klara just to make this point violently.  It was so sweet that they named her after Claire.  All during a plot it was hard to care about when I want to see Brianna come back in time.  

Once again, the British are being stupid - if they overtax people to the point they don't want to work the land, they'll get nothing.  It was believable that there aren't enough settlers there, though.  That was when mass immigration was wanted and needed.  So it made sense the men had better opportunities like a job in the town.  

[S04.E04: Common Ground]

On 11/26/2018 at 1:53 PM, iMonrey said:

I can't remember if they ever discussed this in the show, but can someone who has read the books tell me:

Have Claire and Jamie ever discussed the possibility of going back to Claire's time together? Did they ever think of trying that? Because it seems to me that would solve an awful lot of problems. Not only would Jamie get to meet his daughter but they would be spared the weekly tragedies and constant danger they find themselves suffering because of how primitive the times were. 

I don't even know how Brianna thinks she's going to be able to find her parents. Assuming she can travel back through the stones, and assuming she lands in the exact same time her parents are currently experiencing, she'll have to find some way to get to the Americas and search for her parents. No small task. It would be one thing if they were still living in Scotland or England but the Americas of the 1760?

When Claire went to the stones just before the Battle of Culloden, she asked him to go with her.  He said he didn't belong there.  I think he could not run from Culloden like that, in his mind.  Then there is the idea he is one who cannot travel, since he didn't hear the buzzing and touched the stone without effect, so as to have it so that Claire has to go back and stay back to be with him.  The author doesn't want a quiet life for them, obviously loving to write all the wild adventures that are more believable/possible in the 18th century.  

Then even so, she could change it later if she thinks of a good wild adventure to take place in the future.  I had the idea maybe Jamie suffers some ill that Claire cannot fix in the 18th but knows she can in the 20th.  Jamie freaked out enough about the injection that more than that could be funny.  And having to keep Jamie from getting into fights.  And make him 20th century clothes and cut his hair to 20th century style.  It would have to be comic is my guess.   

On 11/26/2018 at 4:08 PM, Wouldofshouldof said:

I think there is a continuity error... JQM was known to the tribe, traded with them, etc.  He taught Jamie the respectful phrase to use when greeting them, but never mentioned that some of them speak English.  Are we to assume that they never spoke it in front of him?

Yes, I can only surmise the English speaker wasn't with them the first two times?  And I missed why they did their first two visits.  What did they want?  Were they just warning the settlers of the bear-man?  I had a feeling they were not really hostile because of the way they went away without harming anyone or anything both times.  And JQM maybe didn't know about the English speaker, so maybe it was a recent arrival, someone who had been away and then returned.  

[S04.E03: The False Bride]

I expected the transition for Ian from going back to Scotland versus staying in America to be a lot harder and involve attacks and kidnapping.  Glad it was that simple. 

How utterly convenient to wash up after a hurricane relatively near to where you have a relative living.  And how convenient that the 1970 festival was in NC right where Jamie and Claire were.  

At the very beginning of the season, it is clear there is a Native American Craig na Dune conveniently located, I will guess, in NC near Fraser's ridge.

I liked the tug-of-war going on at the festival.  That is very 1970.  

Claire going off when Jamie objected saying the mule would come back on its own - then he does but she does not - seriously?  Again?  Claire will never learn to defer to Jamie's 18th century experience and will keep disappearing, the last thing she should want to do to Jamie.  She doesn't learn from her own experiences.  

[S04.E02: Do No Harm]

I looked it up about freeing a slave and it seems it was anachronistic in that the restrictions did not come about until the 19th century.  At this time, owners could free slaves at will.  Reminiscent of the musical, 1776, where Jefferson said he was going to free his slaves, and Rutledge said that would ruin Jefferson's personal economy.  

The area may have been very loyalist, since most of them seem very pro-British and not still angry about the Stamp Act that just passed, but that might have been true for the South - it was harder to get them on board for the Revolution. 

I did think Claire should take off Frank's ring at least.  It's one thing to wear both but with Jamie's missing, and she doesn't have Brianna around (maybe a reason to wear it, but better just give it to Brianna). It seems ridiculous to wear it with Jamie's gone and she's actually with Jamie.