Hyla
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Hyla
-
-
41 minutes ago, MissL said:
I was wondering if anyone else caught the moment when George let Ross go see Elizabeth and he said something like "yes, yes go see what we have brought her to." For a second I thought he'd somehow now figured out that she did something to herself in order to have the baby early. But now I don't know because I don't think he'd let Valentine hold his hand if he still thought he was Ross' kid. He did say something about how their daughter looks nothing like her mother so..the dads looks come out on top with Elizabeth? I don't know. Maybe he just thought she got upset and went into labor early because of their fight.
I was wondering about that too. It was after Dr. Enys found the bottle, so I thought he must have told George what had happened.
But, I think you're right that he may have been blaming the feud between himself and Ross for contributing to her plight.
(Of course, as others have said above, it was his nasty behavior towards and withdrawal from Valentine that were causing the most stress on their marriage. Would a better man than George (pretty much anyone since he is among the worst of the worst) have been able to maintain a happy family in that era if his suspicians had been confirmed? Would Elizabeth have had to go to equal lengths to protect Valentine from Ross if the situation had been reversed?)
I love how Elizabeth was at least able to buy harmony between George and her two younger children. The scene where Valentine took his father's hand and then when they were standing together by the grave implied they would be close in their shared grief and memories for a time. And of course George will dote on little Ursula.
Without Elizabeth to reign him in any longer, George is going to be very dangerous indeed in both large and extremely petty ways.
2 hours ago, TigerLynx said:I wanted to smack Geoffrey Charles for his "She wasn't a Warleggan. She was a Poldark." Me, "No you dolt. She was a Chenoweth. She married a Poldark and a Warleggan." Elizabeth left two young children behind who are Warleggans. Does Geoffrey Charles give damn about his brother and sister? He seemed awfully happy discussing how his dead mother was a Poldark.
I thought it was strange he wasn't at his mother's graveside with George and Valentine.
Naming Elizabeth a Poldark I think was meant to be the ultimate compliment by Verity - that she was all that was grand and good and noble in their opinion. Though, I agree it doesn't make much sense
-
7
-
-
16 minutes ago, iMonrey said:
Can somebody help me remember how Claire was able to discover this? I mean, Geillis and Dougal's child would have been a secret, and Roger had no idea he was descended from a Mackenzie so how did Claire find out about it?
I have a clearer memory of the book than the show. But, I'm fairly sure Roger in the show talks about being adopted by Reverend Wakefield but going back to his birth father's surname MacKenzie. I can't recall a particular scene where Claire realizes he's Dougal MacKenzie's great-grandson. Was the conundrum where they have to stop Geillis Duncan from going through the stones so she isn't burnt as a witch - but if they do prevent her then Roger will never be born brought up in the show?
In the book Claire and Dougal have a conversation and he tells her he placed his and Geillis's son with a couple with the surname MacKenzie who had just lost their baby less than a year previously. Claire refers to that child as the Changling - since he was switched into the new identity.
Reverend Wakefield has a family tree he made for Roger that Claire sees and recognizes the couple's name and the date is about right - so that and Roger's having Geillis Duncan's intense green eyes clues her in to who he is.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Megan said:
All of this! I have always disliked Roger and never understood how anyone could like his dumbass. Imo, he doesn't improve during the series. He sucks.
I hated Roger soooooooo much when I read Voyager last fall and Drums of Autumn did not redeem him for me. He's such a controlling, condescending, self-centered bastard and I did not care for his relationship with Brianna most of the time. (He has some redeeming moments - but, overall Brianna needs to get away from him immediately!)
The only thing that kept me interested in the character was that the author must be characterizing him that way on purpose since he is supposed to be Dougal Mackenzie's 7 times great-grandson or something. He's just as bone-headed, impulsive and dismissive as his ancestor and seems to bring back the foil to Jaimie that was lost when he killed his uncle.
I really, really like Richard Rankin's portrayal though and think they'll go with a softer, more likable version for the show.
I am glad they kept in the conflict brought on by the different backgrounds. The minister's son from more conservative Scotland versus Brianna's Civil Rights Era university student raised by progressive parents in the U.S.
It will be interesting to see how they resolve their relationship issues as the story progresses.
What I most want to see going into this season (other than Brianna and Jamie meeting) is Brianna's attitudes to 18th century realities contrasted against those of her WWII era mother and biological father. I thought she adapted way too easily in the book.
I found Brianna and Roger's scenes in the show more engaging than Claire and Jamie's peril of the week.
As always the costumes, sets, props and scenery were top notch!
-
4
-
-
28 minutes ago, voiceover said:
I do credit Ross for finally saying to George what the audience has been thinking these past months: What more do you want??
A legitimate heir that's his own blood and not that of his greatest enemy. The Warleggans have been expending every effort from the beginning to raise their family and their name to greater wealth and station. That they've produced a fourth generation Warleggan who is actually a Poldark is the worst possible revenge Ross could have on all their scheming.
I would say George isn't overreacting or being petulant at all when he protests Ross's having stolen the potential life of his flesh and blood heir by keeping Elizabeth unavoidedly occupied during the early years of their marriage.
-
1
-
-
What a finale! This was such an engrossing episode.
Elizabeth will be missed - she died so young and lost out on so much life. She was vibrant and complex and intelligent and the show will be far less interesting without her.
It is so tragic how each of the men in the opening sequence contributed to her misfortune. Francis by making the family destitute, George with his jealousy, and Ross most egregiously of all for forcing an illegitimate child on her that roused all that jealousy. She risked everything to protect her living child and got that brief moment of happiness where she thought she'd escaped with the baby and herself intact as well. She could have had a long contented life having won that peace with George.
I kind of hope to see Valentine grow up to challenge Ross to a duel. (Ross will of course throw away his shot - but I hope Valentine doesn't for the sake of his mother)
I don't know why, but I find Morwenna and Drake very endearing and am glad they found happiness. (Though it did seem a bit soon after Elizabeth's death). It seems Morwenna is already coming around to Drake and hope their future will be bright!
Loved Nana Poldark in the opening scene with her tarot cards!
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Jacks-Son said:
Sam: “God go with ee maid”
Rosina: “ And thee, Sir”
Sam: “Rosina? What passed twix thee and my brother, I believe he did wrong. A promise is a promise and should not be broke on a whim.
Rosina: “’Twas not a whim Sam. For he loved she afore he ever saw me, and when she was wedded, he felt he must go to her, so…I respect him. I don’t respect her. She’s free now, yet she’ve turned him away. If she truly loved him, why did she so?
Sam: “That, I cannot answer. And perhaps I have no right to speak to thee of Drake at all, but if you’ll allow me….
That’s the end of their on-screen conversation, but from the looks of both at this point, Rosina seems willing to listen to what Sam has to say about Drake and his situation and Sam seems willing to bring her in the loop.
Thanks for that :) If I ever watch the episodes through again it will have to be the British version through Amazon then. Character moments make the show for me especially when they are irrelevant to plot.
-
3
-
-
I absolutely adored this episode! The plot advanced so much and every character had something to do! I especially enjoyed the choreography of the infirmary scene with the focus shifting rapidly between the different character interactions to tell the story.
I loved where Ross and Demelza were as well. That's what I want to see - an established couple and the community they are supporting all around them. I'm glad Caroline was able to go back to Dwight and I hope she feels brave enough to risk another child. If she had decided to be estranged from him forever due to feeling she'd failed him and herself and especially Sarah by not being able to provide her child with strength and viability that would have been understandable. But, they made such a loving family. I hope they try again!
I also felt for Morwenna and less so for Drake. I can see where he couldn't just move on and find happiness elsewhere knowing how much Morwenna has suffered after sacrificing herself to keep him out of prison. If only he could sweep her away from all of her miseries, but they are both so constrained by the world they live in. And poor Morwenna, betrayed by everyone in her life. I think it's to be expected that a gently reared lady, protected and sheltered all her life, would be irrevocably scarred not only by the unexpected reality of her husband's abusive demands but also by the complicity of everyone around her who knew about what she didn't. Dwight is the second person she's tried to open up to - describing her experiences as being violated - I wonder if those attempts to be heard will get her committed.
Ross meeting Valentine was so sweet and so wrong. He never should have been risking Elizabeth's well being by being anywhere near Trenwith, but Valentine is so like him and having to grow up without a biological father who would understand him is so sad. Damn Ross for putting Elizabeth in that impossible position in the first place. It's created so much anxiety for her in her attempts to protect herself, her sons, and the people of Trenwith as much as she's able. It also casts a shadow over her newest child, especially if she's going to try for another eight month baby.
Looking forward to next week's episode - hope it's paced like this one!
1 hour ago, Jacks-Son said:The Amazon airings do seem to have a longer run time. I've purchased the season pass and I will let you know what got dropped, if you're interested.
Please do! Anything not plot related risks being cut, no matter how good. Some of my absolute favorite scenes have been deleted ones :(
-
3
-
-
They do need to bring back Verity.
Glad creepy Hugh is dead. I hope Demelza doesn't feel guilty since she wasn't able to promise him the hope of love that he implied would save his life.
With everything Dwight was saying about Hugh missing something essential that would give him the will to live was the viewer supposed to think he'd died for lack of love from Demelza?
I hope that's not where they're going with her story.
Finally, Ross steps up and takes responsibility! And George loses the power and prestige he was crowing about for so long. But, poor Elizabeth! She was relying on that gig to distract from Valentine's questionable parentage.
I suppose it is in Elizabeth's best interest to have a second child by George, but he's not that much better than Ozzie.
Are Ozzie and Rowella going to pick up where they left off? Well, as long as that keeps him away from Morwenna. (Still want to see her with Drake).
Emma was saying that no man had touched her. Because that used to matter then. I don't know if Sam believed her though since he started talking more about her soul.
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, Magnumfangirl said:
Me neither. I don't get Demelza's attraction to him at all. He looks like a 12 year old girl and putting the moves on the wife of the guy who rescued you from a POW camp is complete asshole-ry.
So is the whole if you don't sleep with me again I will die line.
I don't see any hint of romance in it at all. This guy is just gross and manipulative.
5 hours ago, Magnumfangirl said:Where did Caroline disappear to when Sir Bassett came to Nampara for tea after Agatha's memorial? She and Demelza were seen rushing back to the house to straighten things up and then she just vanished.
I thought she was still there standing to the left of the screen during the tea.
49 minutes ago, HoodlumSheep said:This episode felt so empty without my beloved nana poldark :'( I wish her tombstone would have cracked or something just to let us know she's enjoying the afterlife. I'm gonna miss her witchcraft. Now my only hope of seeing her again is possibly haunting george's dreams or something. Pretty please? I still want her to somehow make george rue the day he ever messed with her.
I hope they call back to that too! Jeffrey Charles at least should be loyal to her. I hope she has passed her legacy on :)
-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, Zella said:
Zacky broke my heart in this episode.
The hangings were surprisingly dramatic to me. I actually gasped aloud when it finally took place.
That was a difficult scene to watch. Especially when Ross leapt into his last minute speech and Zacky seemed to dare to hope his son might be spared. Kinda figured one was getting the follow through though and it wouldn't be either of the Carne brothers.
3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:Definitely. Ross wants to have his cake (no office) and eat it too (be influential in local politics). Sorry, Ross, it doesn't work that way. This is one of the things that really exasperates me about Ross.
And then he's walking through the town with Dwight after that awful hanging and he still seems to be on the fence about it. His neighbors are suffering and dying and he could have been doing something about it all along if he'd just give up that righteous, uncompromising ideal of himself.
On 6/11/2018 at 11:38 PM, Pogojoco said:Oh, Demelza- I know Ross has been a complete donkey (though a very, very fit and pretty donkey) but I cannot with Hugh and his poetry.
I can't stand Hugh. Not only is the poetry bad but he comes across as manipulative and completely self absorbed. Maybe when he first got out of the French prison and saw Demelza on the shore his feelings were kind of understandable, but at this point, I don't see anything romantic there at all. Is his blindness also supposed to be a metaphor? He doesn't seem to see her at all, or have any regards for her marriage or young children.
At least Caroline and Dwight seem to have a healthy relationship in a good place. I'm most invested in them and in Morwenna and Drake realizing they absolutely need to run away together.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, terrymct said:
I think part of the problem is that originally the show was a somewhat deep dive into the culture and history of a specific point in time, Scotland immediately before the Battle of Culloden and the start of the decline/demise of the strong clan system. There were issues with the story, particularly the dastardliness of Black Jack and the potential of someone getting raped every few minutes, but it was good because we were figuring out an interesting place and time looking over the shoulder of a person who was as new to it all as we were.
That's so true! The first half of season one was very well put together. It was gorgeous and immersive and was competently telling the story it was trying to tell. The show never really achieved that quality again in later arcs.
I enjoyed the time in France for the exploration of that culture and the new characters introduced. But, all the shenanigans to stop the rebellion didn't work for me and they had lost me plot wise during the second half when they were trying to win a war they had already crippled and that they had to have known was doomed to failure.
8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Well, I'm not so worried about Marsali. I don't like her, so the show can kill her off and I'd be fine. ;) I guess I'd fee bad for Fergus though. But who knows? Maybe he'd find someone nicer.
She's been awful to Claire and she left her sweet little sister to live alone with their crazy mother, but I do admire how fearlessly she stood up to her stead-father. And the casting is amazing in how much she looks like Leoghaire.
8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Oh, good God. There's going to be Indian attacks, aren't there? Those heathen Native American savages...That is probably not going to come off well at all.
I can't imagine them resisting the temptation. I don't know how historically accurate raids on coastal towns by wild Indians would be at this stage of colonization, but, I don't imagine that would stop them!
I found this episode's dance scene stereotypically dubious in that they felt they had to incorporate the frenzied murder of a chicken and some guy who showed up looking for his sister. They don't seem to be afraid of controversial depictions of minorities if drama or interesting visuals can be made.
8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:I'm sure Claire will think she knows so much better. I just wonder if it will turn out as well as her foray into the slave market in Jamaica.
If her persuasion skills are yelling in people's faces and hitting them with her parasol until they see and do things her way, then she will be just as successful.
8 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:But I don't trust the show not to make them essential - even in small way - to the winning of the war. Like with perhaps meeting Thomas Paine: no doubt he'll get the idea for Common Sense from Jamie and/or Claire! (gag). It's those kinds of things I don't want to see.
Ugh, I don't want to either! But, I would like a scene where they are reading Common Sense and debating the issues of the day as they figure out where they fit into the movement.
4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:One British guy that Jaime would be happy to see? Lord John. His high class insults were a thing of beauty, and his shade at the navy. "Well in the ARMY we have more traditional standards..." He really is a great friend, I hope we see him again. And hopefully it wont be awkward if they end up on different sides of the same war.
No! I want to see Lord John again, but I don't want to see him and Jamie face off across a battlefield with echoes of his last fight with BJR. (I have to confess, Claire has been irritating me with all her humorless agitating and suicidally stupid decisions - in that scene I really was preferring Jamie and kind, calm, rational John Grey as the power couple.)
4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:Sad that Gellis is dead, she was fun to have around. Lady had grown a serious case of the crazy eyes.
Geillis made a much more interesting villain than equal opportunist rapist BJR. It's a shame she won't be showing up again with even more out there prophesies.
3 hours ago, ganesh said:Unless Claire decides to run the spy ring and is the unnamed source. Because they were not good spies on Turn!
They were all terrible spies in Turn! - it was an insult to the real-life Culper Ring. But, I was in love with that show as a period piece set during one of my favorite eras. I could see Setauket as a real place and I liked the characters and their soap opera level dramas.
3 hours ago, abc123baby said:Claire is 50 when she returns, Jamie is 45. When they first meet in the beginning of season one, we learn she is 27 and he is 22. She stayed 3 years before returning to Frank through the stones (30) and then returns 20 years later. Further, we know she revealed to Murtaugh she was born in at least 1918 and she returns in 1968. That confirms her age.
Thanks for working that out! Doesn't she also travel from 1968 to about 1765? So, she'll be 60 when the Revolution hits and Jamie will be 55. Murtaugh, if he's still around will be at least 20 years older than that. (Still want him to show up though!)
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, ganesh said:
By definition, if it's a closed loop, then no, what they do doesn't have an impact. Do they know that it's not a closed loop? Or is it? Because I'm skeptical the show/author put nearly as much thought into this. Claire clearly (heh) flashbacked to the bones before killing Gellis and put two and two together. I'd venture she is smart enough to figure that out.
I'd say Claire's going back in time had an impact on Jamie and other people who met her. Everything she did in the past changed things from what they would have been otherwise. Claire just isn't aware of a timeline where she didn't already impact history.
Instead of thinking of it as closed loop, I wonder if Claire would think of it as fate or destiny. I would hope after her experience that she would go and read some science fiction.
3 hours ago, ganesh said:I thought in S2 that the Scots won a battle they weren't supposed to because they figured out the secret path through the fog to ambush the Brits. Or they won it in a way that was different than the 'original'.
I don't think Claire remembered enough about the details of the battles to be of any help at all. I think the big victory was Prestopans, but Claire had always remembered that as a victory. She may have played a role in helping to get the local who knew the path through the bog to the high command, but he may have found his way there anyway.
I read some online summaries of how the real life battles were supposed to have played out after season two. What would have been really helpful for Claire to have remembered was the outcome of the planned ambush on the eve of Culloden. If she had just told Jamie to go with Prince Charlie's half of the ambush that night maybe they wouldn't have gotten lost and retreated back to Culloden Moor.
3 hours ago, ganesh said:It's way way more interesting if it's not a closed loop and they need to stop being bulls in so many china shops and not screw up the American Revolution.
It is more interesting if there is the danger that they might harm the cause or if there's the implication that their presence is needed to save it. Maybe they aren't committed to the closed loop model, but they also haven't shown where time travelling has changed history by presenting any alternative timelines.
3 hours ago, ganesh said:I have zero resonance with the daughter. They skipped over any character development with her and Frank and then it was just like 'bye Felicia!' Maybe if the Jamaica plot was a 2 parter it would have been more dramatic, but it seemed like a half hour's worth of 'uh oh! Gellis is going back! Oh she's dead and it's all over now ok.'
Even if the actress playing Brianna had never been introduced, using Claire and Jamie's daughter and the reason they were separated for 20 years as the prophesied victim is a way to justify Claire killing Geillis to the viewers.
It was a quick intro to Geillis and her evil plan just to resolve it so soon. I wonder if a build up earlier in the arc would have worked better.
3 hours ago, ganesh said:Given what needed to be accomplished narratively, I think I would have produced the season much differently.
Me too. Also I would have changed scenes to make Claire less enragingly stupid. Especially the episodes where Claire jumps off the British ship and does not swim towards the port lights the goat lady was pointing to and the one where she tells everyone to stay below then goes out to stagger across the deck trying to get Jamie's attention when he's obviously busy steering the ship.
-
1
-
4
-
-
11 minutes ago, ganesh said:
I'm not so confident the show is saying that it's all a closed loop though. Where's the drama then? There's no reason for them to do literally anything.
The characters don't know it's a closed loop, so they're still risking everything with the goal of changing history. And they still have free will so what they do still has an impact, just not necessarily the intended one.
I thought for sure that truth telling tea was going to be used on Claire and it was going to come out that she and Jamie had worked to defund Prince Charlie's cause at the same time Geillis was diverting funds from her wealthy Scottish husband - so both their efforts cancelled each other out. Also, I thought the showdown that resulted in Geillis's murder would be triggered by Claire, having drunk the tea, telling her all about how Dougal really died!
There's still drama, just not of the kind that requires the authors to come up with an alternate timeline when the character's succeed in changing the past.
11 minutes ago, ganesh said:That begs the question then why did they have the plot at all where Brianna was specifically mentioned?
I think just to reference a character who'd have some resonance with the viewer and to raise the stakes so Claire would have a believable reason to kill Geillis. The prophecy, the gemstones and the treasure box were all WTF plot points to me.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:
I would think that the constant threat of Claire being raped would be much less likely in the colonies than in the highlands/brothels of Scotland. I hope so anyway. On the other hand, this show doesn't have a good track record with that so far, so I don't see them giving up their go-to plot device so easily.
I was worried about Jamie, Ian, Fergus and Marsali too. This show is equal opportunity in torturing it's characters in the worst ways. Maybe considering where they are they will explore other sources of danger and drama next season.
9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:And I would love it if we actually got historical figures such as those you mentioned - and maybe Thomas Jefferson,Thomas Paine (who came over on a ship infected with Typhoid fever!), and Patrick Henry - on the show!
Oh, definitely Thomas Paine! And I hope Jamie goes back into printing, deciding that the better weapon is the written word. And Common Sense and other seditious materials should definitely play a huge role as they meet people and have another chance to bring a nation out from under British rule (successfully this time).
9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Lord, just don't tell me she decides they need to try and stop it! For...reasons.
I wonder if she might decide she can improve on the movement. Wouldn't America be better if they'd abolished slavery in the beginning or respected Native American land rights or listened to Abigail Adams and enshrined equal rights for woman in the constitution?
9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Oh...I don't know. If what ever they do somehow contributes to the American Revolution's success, that might be too Mary Sue/Marty Stu for me if it comes across as those poor, stupid Americans wouldn't ever have succeeded had it not been for Claire's wonderful doctoring knowledge and Jamie's incredible leadership.
I don't mean that I want to watch them being essential to the winning of the war. I just mean the outcome is set so no matter how much trouble they get into they aren't going to change things. For instance if Claire distracts Jamie while he's trying to haul cannon up a slope and they end up losing one the battle would have already been recorded as having been won or lost with the exact number of cannon they end up with. So, their actions contribute to what happens but not necessarily good or significant things.
9 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Missed opportunities! I would have liked some of these. Since we seem to get a lot of crazy coincidences anyway - why not actually tie them to the story a little better.
Since they showed in the very first episode of season 2 that Claire and Jamie were unable to change the outcome of the Rising, it might have been interesting to drop hints along they way that history was going along exactly as Claire knew it had, and all their attempts were doomed because they were in a closed loop.
6 hours ago, ganesh said:I can't either. Which was why '200 y/o baby' was such a huge deal. Is there anyone left who cares about the prophecy?
I hope not! It was an incredibly stupid prophecy. The only reason Geillis can possibly care about the idea of a new Scottish king after everything she failed to change so far is because she is insane. She's from 1968, she knows there never was another rising that went anywhere and she knows monarchies lose all significance in the 20th century. Was she going to drag Brianna back to the 18th century to kill her? And the sacrifice would inspire Charles Stuart to try to take Scotland again? What was Geillis doing in Jamaica anyway? If she's so interested in the Stuart line she should be in France or Italy.
6 hours ago, ganesh said:Is it? When Claire left Brianna, it was like "bye forever". Her suddenly being all, "I miss my mother I'm going back" doesn't seem consistent. However, she may find a newspaper article or something of Claire's untimely death and decide to go back to save her, which I could buy.
It's consistent enough for me that while Claire thought it was good-bye forever Brianna may not want to live out the rest of her life without trying to see her mother again. Besides that, she knows the location of a time travelling portal! Why wouldn't she want to try that out at least once, even if she didn't have someone she wanted to visit?
I'd also buy she saw her mother's name in Revolutionary War era documents and thinking she's going to interfere too much with history goes back to prevent her from doing so.
6 hours ago, ganesh said:Since they're in America now, you know they will meet up again with Merdaugh.
I hope so! Though he'd have to have survived into his 70's in order for that to happen. Maybe he met an Ellen and they'll meet his kids?
6 hours ago, ganesh said:With Gellis, it seems like they were going for the closed time loop, but I was saying that based on the previous events that they weren't consistent in that regard.
Have they ever shown that Claire was able to change history? They've shown she had a role to play impacting history, but nothing to say she had altered events away from her timeline. Proof to me would be if Frank or the Reverend Wakefield had mentioned the Duke of Sandringham being murdered and beheaded in his own home by a notorious Scottish outlaw before she went back. That event at least seemed to have been a direct consequence of Claire's having gone back to the 18th Century. Other things, like St. Germaine poisoning might have been inevitable - the king would have just had someone else in the poisoner's role.
3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Well, Claire has had 20th century vaccinations, so that should keep her safe from things like small pox outbreaks, etc. like she didn't get Typhoid fever this season. Jamie has no such insurance - except that his wife is a miracle worker!
I trust the plot armor mentioned above to keep Jamie safely with Claire until the end if the series. It's the theme of the show they always save each other, the more last minute the better!
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, ganesh said:
Because the act of finding Gellis' bones in Boston means she's fated to die in that cave, and she has to, to close the loop. On the other hand, they're showing Claire mucking about in time, in real time, so maybe not closed loop. Like the French guy in S2 only died because Claire was there.
I love time travel stories and agree this series so far seems to be closed loop time travel. Which is so tragic because so much effort was spent on trying to prevent/win the Jacobite Revolution and everything the involved characters did just ended up causing what they were trying to prevent!
If Geillis had been wandering around caves in Jamaica looking for stone circles in the 20th century say, she could have stumbled over her own bones!
Likewise, Claire on her second honeymoon with Frank in Scotland could have found her name in some report written by Black Jack Randall even though she hadn't met him yet.
She also could have read a historical account of St. Germaine? dying of poisoning without having any idea she would one day go back in time and give him the poison.
If they do go on to play in the Revolutionary War (and I hope they do!) I will no longer be worried they will mess everything up for the Americans. I'll know everything they do contributes to how history eventually works out.
-
2 hours ago, BitterApple said:
With Geillis dead and nobody left to care about the prophecy, I'm trying to picture a future storyline for Brianna. She could presumably make an attempt to go through the stones because she's curious about her father and misses her mother, but I can't envision a scenario where her presence is an absolute necessity.
It's just as much a storyline driver for Brianna to decide to go looking for her missing mother and try to meet her father as it was for Claire and Jamie and company to sail out to Jamaica to save Ian at all costs. And just as likely to lead to all kinds of side adventures and coincidental meetings no matter how necessary her being there is to the overall plot.
7 hours ago, Otherkate said:Well, if that's the case, I sure wish they had gotten a better actress to play Brianna. She stands out in this show and not in a good way.
I think I must be one of the only fans who likes the actress who plays Brianna. I tend to find something compelling about an American accent as delivered by a native English speaker. There's something repressed or intense in it maybe? Besides that I thought she did a good job playing a 19 year old presenting as stoic and unflappable but still letting signs that she was struggling with a life and sense of self in upheaval come through. During the Christmas episode I was thinking Claire shouldn't have left her. She may say she's all grown up and doesn't need her mother anymore, but she has unresolved stuff causing her to fail out of school and I think she still does.
I think realizing she actually wasn't ready to say good-bye to her mother might be what would compel her to attempt a trip through the stones. That and of course there has to be a scene where she meets her 18th century father!
-
3
-
-
17 hours ago, LoveIsJoy said:
Each episode has gotten increasingly unbelievable, and is beginning to feel like a poorly written Harlequin romance book. I can suspend disbelief to enjoy a show to some extent, but when every plot point is so conveniently contrived to save the couple from the latest, so-called cliffhanger, it’s redundant and boring.
I haven't much cared for the silly, convoluted plot this 2nd half of the season either. I've felt irritated with the show presenting one disjointed contrivance after another in place of a cohesive story so that I'm not sure what genre it's supposed to be this season. The unlikely existence of a treasure box to drive Ian's kidnapping and the voyage to recover him, all of the moments of separation-danger-reunion, the cringworthy addition of a prophecy that makes no sense and a villain who was supposed to have been killed off in the first season popping up just so the hero of the piece can kill her again all just seem thrown in and half-thought out just so they can keep making episodes.
That said, I still like the costumes, props and scenery and have been watching for stand alone scenes (since they're usually well-acted), and to find out where the characters end up. I do still like the characters and the overall story, and I'm still a fan of the central love story, even though I've been frustrated with the events and plot holes of the last few episodes.
6 hours ago, Otherkate said:Loved the revolutionary drums in the ending music!
I will forgive this show if the point of the Caribbean adventure was only to relocate the characters to colonial shores in time for the American Revolution! I was a huge fan of Turn! so the fife and drums made me very excited for Season 4 (it would be especially interesting to see the war from a Southern state's perspective, should they stay in Georgia). I don't want to get my hopes up too high, because I don't know what the original story is. I will look past repetitive arrests and captures and violent personal attacks that threaten the lead couple if they can also tell a story that gets into the stakes of the Revolution (and if they get to meet Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington!)
6 hours ago, Otherkate said:The only real issue I had with this episode was the ridiculous scene in the water where Jamie SOMEHOW manages to dive down and find Claire in that water in the middle of a hurricane. And then takes the time to make out with her or something. Absurd. Almost took me out of the whole thing, but I recovered.
I actually liked the surreal underwater rescue scene, and I'm not sure why that scene and the beach scene worked for me since they were just as absurdly unrealistic as any of the lineup of lead couple in peril scenes that came before.
They were both beautifully shot, and neither was rushed, and that may have been part of it. But, I think it was more that the story suddenly seemed like a fairy tale with the rescue, when it didn't before, and I could accept it as believable as long as I understood the story in that context. Also, Jamie and Claire so happy to be washed up alive on the beach and Jamie making it sound like Georgia was some foreign land only spoken of in legends seemed fairy tale like as well.
I know the other scenes that I've complained about were also about imperiling the couple and then reuniting them. Maybe it was because those last two scenes were so pretty or maybe just because they marked the end of the season. Either way they set me up to look forward to season 4 and I hadn't been until then.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, ganesh said:
Claire would have been furious regardless. I'm 43; I have lived and I have loved. It's just patently absurd and pathetic that at their ages they didn't love anyone else.
The story was set up so they didn't have any other opportunities. Claire was married to Frank for something like 17 or 18 years and Jamie was a prisoner for that same amount of time. There was only a two or three year window before their reunion for them to explore their options.
Claire chose to spend that time trying to get back to Jamie. She said she was aware a 20 year separation meant he would have lived a life and was prepared for the possibility he would have other ties. She came around rather quickly when he explained why he had remarried, because she understood how much he wanted family. If his 2nd wife had been anyone other than the one person Jamie knew had tried to have her burned alive I don't think she would have felt nearly as betrayed by that. The anger also seems to have been due to his keeping of something so game changing from her knowledge.
Jamie did not waste time getting married as soon as he was free to do so. I was surprised about that because I thought the plot had been arranged in such a way that Claire's return would coincide with Jamie's return to Scotland and his figuring out his life there. It does make you wonder if Jamie could have just gone home after Culloden if Claire wouldn't instead be meeting his teenaged biological children.
On 11/9/2017 at 10:03 PM, ganesh said:What I don't like is the whole "one tru wuv" concept of the show. It's actually kind of pathetic and reduces the depth of the characters imo. So what if they each loved someone in the ensuing TWO DECADES? And I get that Leary herself is a special case, but still.
I used to be a sucker for true love stories, and I still have a fondness for the concept, but I've mostly outgrown that by now. Two characters who have certain compatibilities and incompatibilities and have to work to maintain their relationship are far more interesting to me now. What I like about Claire and Jamie is that they are characters who both believe in the concept of one true eternal love and try to act accordingly, but reality gets in the way. Claire found it was far more comfortable to give birth and live in the 20th century supported by her law-abiding professor husband. And Jamie may have intended to spend 200 years in purgatory faithfully waiting to be reunited with Claire, but in the end he was lonely and found it easier to remarry.
I wonder if he did just marry Laoghaire for the girls, or if he was rekindling something that had been between them since Castle Leoch but that he had denied to Claire because true love. Either way that's twice now she's tried to murder her romantic rival which does not say much for her character. I also have to wonder about her bringing her daughters with her to confront Claire or why she chose to show up so late at night - or did Jenny just invite her over without telling her why?
-
2
-
-
I loved, loved this episode for all the character interactions! It was the reunion episode I was waiting for :)
9 hours ago, ganesh said:What I liked about the show at the outset was the race against history to avert Collodeon. The show spent an enormous amount of time world building, and they did a great job of it. The characters just leapt off the screen. Even in the second season, France was a living place.
I've been nervous too about where the show is going now that Claire and Jamie have been reunited. The first two seasons built the world and then gave them the purpose of trying to save Scotland from the devastation of the last Rising. Without that structure are they just going to bounce from adventure to adventure with no higher purpose?
1 hour ago, Auj said:If Jamie is no longer being hunted for treason, then why is he supposedly using this fake name A Malcomn? Has he been charged with sedition? Did I miss something?
I was wondering about that too. It seemed like he had a legitimate print shop business under his false identity and was using it as a cover for his smuggling and sedition activities. He told Claire he's been arrested on suspicion, but never charged. The fake name may have been a way to protect his Lallybroch family and wife and daughters in case he did get charged.
On 11/10/2017 at 4:27 AM, Auj said:You know I think that my heroine Jenny and her trusty husband had a momentary lack of their good sense when they allowed their son Young Ian to go anywhere with the irresponsible flighty duo Jamie and Claire. How long did it take for those two to lose that kid (with the eternal bad hair day)? So, YI swam out to this little isle to get the treasure and a Pirate ship just happens along and picks him up? Are we now seeing Pirates of the Caribbean uh...6?! Arrrgh...Where is Murtaugh? Or any of the Highlanders? Dead and gone and now it’s pirates.
I laughed out loud when Jamie said they could be trusted with Young Ian's care. Especially since the very next scene has them dropping him off a cliff to swim out across frigid ocean water to fetch them back funding for alimony payments.
Lack of access to boat technology and the existence of the treasure in the first place both struck me as ridiculous. It seems more dangerous to risk hypothermia and drowning then attention of people wondering why they are hauling a boat cross country. I was also convinced he was going to drop the treasure in the sea trying to swim back with it. (Young Ian is adorably earnest and sweet, but this is the same kid who just burned down his uncle's print shop.)
Was that a pirate ship? It made no sense other than plot convenience that it showed up right then. Did they happen to see Ian and sent someone ashore to press him into service?
This might belong in the unpopular opinion thread, but I was very sad about Jamie's promise to Joanie. It was such a beautifully acted and engaging scene by both characters and I really wanted to believe Jamie or at least believe that he believes his intentions are good. How involved does he really mean to be in her life if he first runs off to Edinburgh to engage in illegal activity and risk hanging, then meets up with his first wife and makes plans to dissolve his connection with her mother, and finally sails off to who knows where in an attempt to find the ship that kidnapped his nephew? Or did he just mean financially? He doesn't seem to have the means to do that either if they were relying on recovering that treasure to support the girls and Leoghaire.
-
1
-
-
I was so relieved when the excise man tripped on the clothes and wasn't able to follow through on that assault he'd promised last episode. I had been worried considering the track record of the show.
Much better that it was a set up to show off Claire's skills as a surgeon. I didn't have a problem with her trying to save him. I don't like how murder and death is treated so lightly on tv and in film, so any show where characters advocate for life or where suffering and death is shown to have consequences is a welcome change for me! (I've read about trepanation before and saw it done to save someone in HBO's Rome so I wasn't surprised when Claire went there. Or that she'd probably considered 'how would I treat this ailment if I were in the 18th century?' all during her medical training. )
My favorite scene was Jamie coming in and taking the knife from Claire. There was sensitivity and understanding there. But, so much tension and uncomfortableness everywhere else!
It makes sense that 20 years of living very separate lives have made them different people and that they have a lot of work to do to reconcile.
Claire needed to go to the Campbell's by herself. Even if it's taking a risk, being able to walk down a main street in daylight to go visiting without an escort is a minimum requirement of being an independent person. Besides, Fergus had better things to do advising adorable young Ian.
It's Jamie's character who has changed so much! I'm not sure how long it's supposed to have been since he left Helwater, but he was at least 15 years between cave, prison, and parole - and those weren't happy years. It's not surprising he's worn down, bitter and angry. But, to be so casual about dead bodies and where to put them and all these other underworld shenanigans. Claire can't have imagined it was this man and this life she was crossing thousands of miles and 200 years to be with.
And how could Jamie lie to *Ian* like that about young Ian? It was so, so awful to leave him out of his mind worried about his son and then send him out into the night on his one leg to keep searching. Especially with the wonderful reaction shot to Ian's meeting Claire again after all this time and he and Jenny thinking her gone.
It felt like Jamie wanted young Ian as a surrogate son. (But, doesn't he already have Fergus?) And that he thought he had a better understanding of him then his own sister and brother-in-law. Did he maybe have plans to pass the print shop and his other businesses onto him?
What a contrast between Jamie's indignation that 19 year old Brianna may have compromised her virtue and his 16 year old nephew/surrogate seeming to feel it was okay to bring a girl back to his uncle's beloved print shop.
And then burning it down.
Looking forward to next episode!
-
3
-
-
I thought it was a good episode up until the last scene.
I watched it through twice and it wasn't until the second viewing I realized the woman retying Jamie's neck scarf in the opening scene was the madame from the brothel. It was a very domestic scene, with some cordial flirtation. She seemed very into him and not at all happy when he returned that evening with a surprise wife to untie that same necktie for him.
The reset back before Claire's arrival and Jamie's walk through the streets with the stone buildings and carriages and passers-by was so well done! And the call-back to the sign with Jamie fussing over a smudge was smile-inducing and showed after years of prison this was someone proud of the business he'd built.
The first time watching I thought Claire was a bit presumptuous to drop in so suddenly after 20 years of no contact and first not turn away when he asked her to and then claim they were still married when she couldn't possibly know anything about his life circumstances. (The viewers of course know he's prayed for her and kept her in his heart throughout all his time in the cave, and at Ardsmuir prison, and at Helwater, and kept true to her to the point where he had to be blackmailed into visiting another woman's bed.)
The second time through I though she should have been more presumptuous. I get they were going for awkward, but when Jamie was sitting up off the floor she was hesitant to even touch him and he was too distracted by the very unimportant spilled drink. I thought they should have been more joyful, but maybe it's more realistic they have things they need to work out first.
The line that worked best for me because of the delivery was Jamie's telling Claire he had seen her many times but in all of those times she'd never touched him. I was really sold on the longing and years of pain of missing her with just that moment.
That emphasis on touch made me feel a little better about the photograph scene, which I found so disappointing first time through, like so many other viewers. I wanted him to be amazed by the photos and say things like she has my hair or my mother's eyes or want to know anything at all about her! Claire was beside herself excited to have those photos to show him and proud of who she had accomplished raising in all those years they had sacrificed apart. And he just shut her down cold, leaving her to wonder if it was a mistake to include the swim suit picture. Then he jumps right to telling her about HIS son who has nothing to do with Claire and could have been mentioned in a confession much later on.
The second time through I thought the photos were too overwhelming for an 18th century person and he couldn't get his mind around seeing them. And that he was covering for feeling no connection at all to this stranger baby progressing to adulthood without him. He had a tangible connection to Faith who he had felt growing in Claire, and Willy he'd been able to touch and wrestle with and have a relationship with. I think Claire understood Brianna wasn't real to him which was why she agreed with his emphatic Mine! and indulged his enthusiasm about how amazing his son was. (I hope Lord John and Isobel keep him updated - I assume they commissioned the portrait for him.)
Jamie was believably an old duffer to me what with the glasses and the raspy way he said now tell me about my daughter and seemed to move around more deliberately. Claire with her hair back to natural seemed as young as when they'd last been together.
I loved that Jamie didn't want to let Claire out of his sight and wanted her to go everywhere with him. And the reunion hug with Fergus! And her meeting young Ian who may have really thought she lived in a fairy doon.
The best line of the episode was Jamie's asking Claire to promise not to leave the premises. I laughed out loud because she would of course do just that, first opportunity. Thwarting convention and doing her own thing are second nature to Claire. But, she's acting out of time and that always makes things difficult for everyone.
That last scene looked ominous with the burglar blocking the door and Claire choosing to engage when she's not likely to intimidate him. It is way too early into the reunion to do this to them, but I don't trust the show to not go through with yet another attack. There must be drama after all!
As long as Jamie, or the madame, or the maid bringing up breakfast interrupt that attack I'll be looking forward to next week to find out Jamie's secrets and how he and Claire are going to negotiate a relationship now that they are different people with different expectations.
-
5
-
-
6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:
I'm confused about this line. Did you mean the opposite or am I just misunderstanding? It seems to me that both the Jamie/Geneva encounter and the Jamie/Claire first encounter are similar in that both parties were pawns in them. In Jamie and Claire's marriage, Jamie was a pawn of Dougal's political scheming in marrying him off to a Sassenach so that he (allegedly) wouldn't be eligible for Laird upon Collum's death. Claire, of course was a pawn of Dougal for the same reason and to avoid BJR. In the tryst between Jamie and Geneva, Jamie is clearly a pawn of Geneva's to have one final say over her own body and destiny while she herself is a pawn in her parent's marriage scheme to the Earl.
I was trying to say just considering the encounters themselves. Who was in the room by choice and who by coercion. In the greater scheme of things Geneva's whole life is being lived as a pawn. But, in the one instance of arranging the tryst with Jamie, I wasn't considering her a pawn because she was the one doing the manipulating and making someone else powerless.
6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:That Jamie had feelings for Claire before their wedding night is not something we find out until later - at Lallybroch, I believe. I mean, sure, it was easy to speculate that he did, and that was obvious (to me at least) that was where the story was going from their first meeting, but if it tilt my head and look at it another way, the same could probably be said about Geneva. She admitted afterward to having feelings for Jamie - at which he scoffed and wrote off as lust vs. love. And yet, later in the ep, Isobel says tells Jamie that she really did love him. So...there but for the grace of Claire could have been Jamie.
That's so true! Claire could have just dismissed his feelings for her just as he did Geneva's. Jamie was fortunate that Claire was more willing to be open with him despite her being conflicted about Frank and getting home. There's no reason to believe that Geneva didn't really love him to the same degree he did Claire on their wedding night.
6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:I got the sense that Geneva was very aware of this - and Jamie maybe not quite so much. Yes, he took his time with Claire and charmed her, but he was also just a horny young man on his wedding night and also had the belief that, well, Claire was his wife now and it was inevitable. Whereas on his wedding night, Jamie pretty much held all the power. With Geneva, she pretty much held all the power as far as the blackmail over Jamie, but nothing else to bind him to her as Jamie had with Claire. If that makes sense.
Once Jamie and Geneva were done with their one-off encounter Geneva's hold on him was over and she couldn't compel Jamie to act like they had shared something special if he didn't feel that way or else want to admit there was something there. I don't think Jamie was at all aware of what was really going on during his wedding night. Or that it ever occurred to him that Claire would have been motivated to pretend she had feelings she didn't. Being overwhelmed by his own emotions he would have assumed Claire's were similar. He didn't at all suspect that Claire was just waiting for an opportunity to escape in the beginning.
6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:That's why I wonder - especially when Geneva said that she didn't know what to do - if Jamie recognized a bit of himself in that moment, and realized, like he'd maybe never thought about before, just how trapped Claire must have felt on their wedding night.
I hope this comes up again when Claire and Jamie reunite - since he must now have a new understanding of what that night must have been like for her.
3 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:Probably not. Would Jamie even know about pulling out? He was a virgin on his wedding night - and then his only sexual partner was his wife, whom I suppose he was trying to get pregnant. What other experience has he had with women except with the whores in France (but not copulation with them) and Mary McNab? Also, his Catholicism might have something to do with not pulling out - if he did know about it. There's something about 'spilling the seed' being a sin in the Bible, if I recall.
He probably wouldn't. Claire wouldn't have been likely to mention it, first thinking she couldn't conceive and later wanting a pregnancy. I would think with all the time spent in brothels and learning new vocabulary the concept would have come up in talk at least. But, not in his own experiences.
Jamie must know the connection between ejaculation and pregnancy. He could have chosen to satisfy Geneva and ended early himself since she wouldn't have known the difference. But, maybe he really didn't know that was an option.
If he was aware of the idea of spilling seed, he should have done that since it couldn't have compounded the sin of being with Geneva in the first place all that much. Spilling seed in the bible is sinful in the specific context of a man disobeying God's command to impregnate his brother's widow. It would not have been disobeying God to not impregnate Geneva! But, I don't know what Jamie's beliefs around that would have been.
6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:I agree. I hope that they discuss Gellis/Gillian more next episode since they haven't even mentioned her this season yet, have they? They need to do more research on how the stones work (which it seems Gillian might have done) rather than only concentrating on finding Jamie.
They should at least be mentioning her notebook if not the fact she's gone back earlier than Claire wants to go. (And mentioning her fate of being burned as a witch should be something that makes Brianna and Roger concerned about Claire's safety going back.)
I'm okay with them researching Jamie's whereabouts first. They should compile a list of where he is each year of his life. If the stones don't work the way they want them to they'll at least know what happened to him. If they do then Claire can match the year she ends up in to the list and know where to go!
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, ganesh said:
Oh no, it's clearly not sci-fi. That's why it bugged me that the show even bothered to have Roger say that when they clearly have evidence to the contrary, and then have no one bring up Gellis.
Definitely a logic gap there - more for the viewers than internal coherence.
I've loved time travel stories since forever so it's actually refreshing to see one based more in folk lore/fairy tale than anything else.
3 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:I hate that Claire gave away the pearl necklace that belonged to Jamie's mother. She kept her wedding ring, why would she give away her pearls?! Wouldn't she want to give them to her daughter some day ( even without full disclosure of their origin?!)
I think Frank gave her permission to hold onto the ring until she was ready to take it off - he just didn't realize she never would be! But, everything else, from the period clothes he burned to the pearl necklace, had to go as part of the promise to leave that past life behind. Claire would have wanted to keep them I'm sure - but she'd also agreed Brianna was going to be Frank's daughter. She couldn't pass on Jamie's pearls to someone who could never know he existed.
3 hours ago, Juliegirlj said:I liked the way they handled the sex scene with Jamie and Geneva, except for the cheesy strip tease by Jamie. Horseback riding could have ruptured her hymen, but, the way Jamie took his time and was gentle with her ( until being gentle wasn't required) made it enjoyable for Geneva. Jamie's sensitivity and intuition about Geneva's feelings of " love" for him after they made love was so sweet.
A previous poster, RulerofallIsurvey on page 1 of this thread, posted a link: https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/07/31/hymen_break/ - horseback riding and doing splits won't stretch hymen tissue. Also, the idea of rupturing is a myth: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfBQnQTkhsq4&ved=0ahUKEwj75N6eztfWAhUJ7iYKHeqKA3YQtwIIKDAA&usg=AOvVaw1FlFOyRsfW1fSyyHzcalL5
While Jamie was kind and sensitive to Geneva he'd have been a heck of a lot kinder if he'd used his knowledge and experience to please her but not get her pregnant. I wonder if that even occurred to him?
2 hours ago, ganesh said:They ruled the shooting an "accident" or whatever, and there's no one to dispute Willie's heritage, so I wouldn't see why not. Neither of his adopted parents are going to say anything, and they clearly seemed settled in to live there at the end of the episode.
We're they at Ellesmere because of Willie at the end? I didn't pick up on that. Those big houses and rambling grounds all looked the same to me. I just assumed he'd gone back to Helwater to live with his grandparents and aunt. Or do you mean Lord John and Lady Isabelle would live there after adopting him?
-
Thanks! @RulerofallIsurvey
12 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:On the lust vs. love - imagine how different it would have been for Jamie if Claire had given him the same speech, as she probably very well could have at the point when he gave her the pearls.
She really could have! I'm now wondering that too. If Claire had been less generous with Jamie or less willing to admit she had feelings for him out of loyalty to Frank that first night it would changed their whole meant for each other dynamic.
Their initial arranged/coerced encounter was different from this episode's in that both parties were pawns in it, but similar in that Jamie had feelings for Claire beforehand and was invested in that first time leading to something deeper. And in both cases that was an odd expectation as both Geneva and Jamie must have been aware their partner was only there because they wanted to protect family and/or to avoid imprisonment.
Claire had promised to be honest and admitted to there being something special between them afterwards. If the show had been trying to imply Jamie had some attraction to Geneva in their first riding scene together but was in deep denial about it - that could add another layer to the lust vs love conversation. Also, the circumstances with Geneva deciding to blackmail him were of course incredibly icky.
10 hours ago, piequinn35 said:I agree, I don't get it what's the point of looking for records, they couldn't ask the stones to bring her back to a specific year, she might arrive in any year ex. even before Jamie was born. I was also uncomfy when Jamie offered himself to Lord John. :/
I hope there is more doubt cast on when she'll end up if she dares to pass through the stones again. Especially since they must realize Gillian doesn't end up when Claire wants to go to - was that factored into on Roger's timeline calculation? None of them know how it works, it's a huge risk. Unless the stones are magical.
I think the kind of time travel that occurs in Outlander is less science fiction and more magic based. It seems like Claire's ability to cross through the stones is more due to destiny, and as hers is tied to Jamie's, she'll of course be transported where she needs to be to reconnect with him.
It was sad that Jamie thought he had to make that offer to Lord John and didn't understand how highly his old prison warden regarded him or how insulting that offer was. Jamie's had a really difficult life, full of traumas. It's no wonder he holds on so tightly to Claire's memory. His time with her was probably the happiest of his adult life and she was someone he could fully trust as an ally.
-
1
-
S03.E11: Songbird Road, Part One
in This Is Us
I wondered that too - but was the first grenade muffled because it detonated underwater?
I wish Nicky had at least tried to grab the kid and throw him in or had abandoned ship in the kid's direction.
I agree with the quote above that said the irony of that was that the boy was reaching Nicky - maybe if they had both gotten to shore safely Nicky would have been more at peace and open to being helped.
I don't blame Jack for cutting off Nicky. He suffered a lot to bring Nicky back. And it was more than an accident what happened on the boat. It was equivalent to a drunk and high individual taking somebody else's eight year old without permission and putting them in the front seat without a seatbelt and then speeding down the highway. He didn't mean for the kid to die - but the kid shouldn't have been in that boat in the first place.
I think once away from the war Nicky could maybe have gotten his act together with Jack's help - but Jack just didn't have anything left to give him.
The Big Three and Rebecca might be confused and hurt knowing their dad not only lied about his brother being dead but also allowed him to languish and suffer without reaching out to help him.
But, that was Jack's decision to put the war and his dysfunctional family behind him and create a life as perfect as he could make it for Rebecca and his kids.
He struggled with his demons and alcoholism and financial worries enough already. The burden was already weighing heavy on his already weak heart. If he'd opened the door a crack for his brother it might have blown wide open and brought all that trauma and pain with it taking down him and his family with it. He couldn't risk that.
It's too bad for Nicky - and he's suffered for the last 40 years. I'm looking forward to seeing his healing in the next few episodes.
Also, I like the flashback parts the best. I want to see more about Jack and Nicky's childhood and how their father went from the loving family man when Nicky was born to the father they both couldn't stand to be around.