Anothermi

I mentioned this is my original post as well. It led me to assume that this area may not have been populated by Frasers due to J, C and co moving on for some reason. They are always getting into situations where leaving for other parts is the solution are they not? So yeah. I don't want to have to wait through a bunch of episodes that don't address the new time traveler. Nor to be left hanging about why no Fraser descendants were called at the event in Brianna and Roger's time. They are just too big—as mysteries—to be left unanswered.

Just to be clear. I wasn't trying to imply that was the only reason why (any) man wanted marriage. However, it was something they knew existed and would expect—if push came to shove. For many it was much like Jamie viewed it. My point was more about how women were starting to view marriage. It was no longer the trade off that-could-be-to-their-benefit. If they wanted to be their own person they really had to know that the prospective husband would not use his legal rights to prevent them.

Further thoughts on the Brianna/Roger impasse. In my post above, I forgot to include that Brianna stated out loud to Roger that she doesn't think she believes in marriage. And that is the crux of the issue. Brianna is living in a time when feminism is impacting many women's lives and they are questioning the role that marriage plays in relation to the wider opportunities available to them. Even in 1970 marriage gave men significant control over his wife and much of what she could or couldn't do. Feminist minded women were wondering what marriage gave them?—given that they could now support themselves financially. The commitment of marriage was NOT one of love but of control. For many women it was not even a promise to support and protect much less cherish and respect. Women like Brianna could see that a meeting of souls did not need a piece of government paper to exist. Roger—like Frank—put his trust in the institution that gave him rights over the woman he loved rather than in his own effort to keep the bond between them alive. That's what is remarkable about Jamie's character. He believes in both the commitment before his God and within himself to his soul mate. So Brianna was signalling that she was willing to make a commitment to Roger with her body in hopes that it would bring them closer, and Roger was unable to process that she was indeed willing because he only accepted the one, legally sanctioned way. ~~~~~~~~~ Re: where Claire and Jamie were when they found their dream home. I thought they weren't far from Woolam's Creek based on the conversation with Ian and Myers. They were splitting off to go to the trading post and would take the wagon. They would then meet back up with Claire and Jamie at Woolam's Creek. So, I assumed that location wasn't so far away that C & J would be days on the road still. Therefore the ill advised choice of settling at the idyllic Fraser's Ridge would still mean they'd not be far from the village where they would get supplies and have access to other social contact. I could be wrong though. I don't have a great batting average on this sort of thing.

I mentioned loving the Scottish farewell gestures between them. Roger's—when he gave her the jar of salt—was "Well... congratulations on your new home. Salt, for life's tears. May they always be happy ones. May ye have flavour in your life." Very lovely and symbolic. And his toast was "May the roof above never fall in, and may we below never fall out." Roger has the soul of a Bard. I got the impression that he had finally acted on 1) his love for Brianna (which Fiona mentioned) and, 2) the fact that the house was way too big for him—which he'd mentioned the first time he met her back in S02. He was upping stakes and following his heart with the (old romantic) notion of winning his true love. I expect he sold it to Fiona and her man for a song—but for enough to support him (and Brianna) for a good long while. I also wonder if the lovely ballad he sang—and wrote if I understood his intro that it would be "something different" correctly—was meant as a metaphor for his and Brianna's relationship? Not that HE meant it that way. Scots are well known for their laments so the song was generic in that way—but from a story perspective. Yep. But with Claire it's bits of someone's skeleton. But I'll bet she'd shove a recently drawn portrait in there with it if it came to that. And it would come out without a wrinkle!!! I, too, thought shoving the "only picture of us together" into her handbag was not a good idea. I eased up a bit when I realized how big the handbag was (or is that shoulder bag?). Still I know from experience that paper needs something to support and protect it from getting wrinkled so I'm still with you on your outrage. The more I think about it the more is seems like Roger is "Frank" in this relationship—even though there is no biological connection they are alike in personality. This part is more like Jamie: He's loved Brianna practically since he first saw her and has a very clear idea of what their life together would be—forever. His love is expressed in NOT "bedding" her because she means so much more than that primal urge to him. He will always love her. This part is like Frank: She belongs to him. He needs her to agree that her love for him is a solid as his is for her. He wants her to tell him she feels the same about him—he even says they don't have to marry for a long time. He just needs to know that she will always be his. Right now he's a walking romantic tragedy. He and Brianna aren't even speaking the same language! OK, literally they are, but they mean vastly different things. SHE can't make the same commitment because she knows that she hasn't lived enough to say that and keep to it—especially based on her awareness of her mother's experience. She knows she cares a lot about Roger—and is demonstrative about it—but she doesn't know if it is permanent or passing. He's been unable to read her actions. When she offers a physical relationship as a next level he reads it as a statement that she feels the same as he does. Assumptions! On both parts. Gah! A brief internet search resulted in information that the "Scotch-Irish" settled in large numbers across the BlueRidge and Allegheny Mountains in the backcountry of southwest NC. So generally west. Certainly as west as most settlements went back then. I had to remind myself that their concept of "west" fits within our concept of eastern USA.

I can imagine the flurry of indignant letters between Aunt Jocasta and Jenny-at-Lallyboch castigating Claire for failing to be a true Mackenzie wife. Or in Jenny's case—Mackenzie/Fraser wife.

Ah yes. Thanks for the reminder. I did think she was being very cavalier—in the worst sense—with another person's remains. I even grumbled "leave it alone" when she started clearing the mud from the eye sockets. It's somewhat surprising that its spirit was so welcoming and helpful to her. Hope we learn who it was. Could be someone we've already met, but I can't think of who? She really only had Joe during her time and the spirit did NOT look like him.

I was so happy to finally learn what Brianna and Roger were up to—even if it was just being apart. I actually relaxed into the first 30 minutes. And I made it through the “FAKE-OUT!” Claire's-not-really-in-peril part equally happy that the show subverted my—by now—knee jerk expectations. The ratio of story progression in just one era to time-jump story telling is just about right. I needed this one right about now. New things that I liked: Ian is turning into a fine young Man—and learning fast. Great arguments regarding not being his parent's property for them, nor Jamie, to decide what life he will have. He HAS grown since we first met him. John Quincy Myers looks to be a candidate for becoming a recurring character—and I welcome him heartily. Claire getting lost without needing Jamie to rescue her from PERIL! AND she's seems to have acquired a spirit-guide-from-the-future. That came as an unexpected talent—and a welcome twist IMHO. Clarence: the Mule! Great character actor. Roger is a singer? Yes! Fiona: Mrs-Graham's-grandaugher, turns out to be Not!Leery but a lovely friend to Roger. Who'da thunk? I also loved the Scottish farewell toasts between them. Brianna is Gonna be an Engineer! Yay! (It's a Peggy Seeger song from the 1970s: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=yeHRcY8toBg&list=RDAMVMyeHRcY8toBg ) Brianna drives a (now vintage) Mustang! <wow whistle> Classic Outlander segue from future to past: Mustang (car) on the road in 1970 > to horse and cart on the same path in the 18th century. Other Stuff: I'm on team Brianna in the marry/ don't marry debate. I love me some Roger but he's stuck in 18th century morals. Very Jamie-like, yes. But Jamie is a product of that time and Roger is not. True Love: What's marriage got to do with it? It's just not a sixties/ seventies vibe. At one point I thought Claire was going to say something... thoughtful... “Jamie, those things you said yesterday about having nothing to give me... “ But Jamie cut her off with “Oh, dinna fash, Sassenach.” That pissed me right off. It's rare to have Claire make the self-reflective observation—and it didn't happen this time either. One of the portraits the camera panned to, at the Scottish fair, looked a lot like a modern-day Dougal! I guess with all the Scots who emigrated to North Carolina there'd have to be some other Mackenzie descendants besides Roger. But on that same line, there were no Frasers called for the Stag burning ceremony. Would that indicate Jamie and Claire didn't stay in that neck-of-the-woods long? Possible omens of future plotlines: John Quincy Myers mentions that they are on land that now belongs to the Cherokee; that the Cherokee are brave and honourable fighters but that they do what they must to protect their lands from whoever tries to take them. Jamie echo's that he “dinna blame them”. By the end of the episode he's fallen in love with and decided to claim land that most likely is still in their territory!

Arg!. And character development is what I want from this show. The galumphing about—highlighting plot points and emphasizing the story over the character depth—is my biggest complaint about theses two seasons (3 & 4). I'd prefer if the main characters don't start out with modern-day attitudes but are flawed. Then the narrative can provide them with avenues to learn and grow—both internally and together. Sadly, Claire hasn't learned anything since losing her daughter Faith. Even that sounded more like self-pity than self-awareness. Jamie—on the other hand—appears to be "perfect-in-every-way" and is there to get them out of the messes Claire gets them into! 😠 This was not true in S01—which is why it is so irritating now.

YES! I, too, thought the modern Highland dancing meant we'd get something related to Brianna and Roger! Guess we'll have to wait for the appearance of the yellow brick road that leads to the stone circle being constructed in the first episode. I had a fleeting thought of that call back too—then promptly forgot it. I forgot to reply to this as well. I didn't actually notice the Scottish burr but I did take note that Phaedra appeared completely comfortable with Aunt Jocasta—enough to speak "familiarly" with her in Claire's presence. I'm sure that doesn't happen in the presence of other guests. But I am quite willing to assume that Phaedra is supposed to have learned English from Aunt Jocasta—who still has her Scottish accent. I looked up the actor and, despite a very short bio, I learned that she is classically trained—meaning has studied and performed in Shakespearian plays. So, what ever her original accent was, she'd have likely learned the skills to give a good stab at a Southern U.S. accent if required.

I put on my reaction armour before I watch. Prepared for horrible violence? Check. Prepared for lack of depth? Check. Prepared for the (Alice) Through the Looking Glass experience that you described in your post? (Inexplicably running from plot point to plot point as fast as possible.) Well—I try but never succeed. In her defence—it seems the rights to adapt are a whole-package deal. And she loses ALL rights to how the material is treated. It seems the initial pitch for the first couple of seasons was encouraging enough to convince her to sign. I wonder if there was no real over-arching plan for the show beyond Season One and Two? It sure feels that way. (Full disclosure: I'm working my way through The Making of Outlander: Season 1 & 2. That's where the above came from.) I'd expand that to any scene Young Ian was in—and/or Rollo. The discussion where he sees a similarity between how Indians were described and his knowledge of Highlanders. (Including the receptive way John Quincy Myers—the beardy guy— reacted to this.) As @gingerella mentioned—his interest in Indian women. I agree that this sounds like foreshadowing. His competence in helping Claire in her now familiar table-top surgery. I am assuming Ian's had further practice assisting Claire—ever since he brought her surgical "cutlery" when Leery shot Jamie full of buckshot back in Lallybroch. (First Wife I believe.) His face when Rufus told Claire that his family was back in Africa and how he was stolen from there. Of course, the encounter with the skunk and the interaction Mr. Myers when cleaning the stench off of Rollo. I was sure he was going to try to give her some plain truths—that what she was doing was going to make everyone suffer—especially the enslaved people! So I was happy he risked that. You could see all of the house-servants both amazed to see white people treat one of their people like a human being—but at the same time you could see the terror in their eyes as well because they knew they would be made to pay for her kindness in the most horrible ways. I've given her actions and attitude some thought and I can believe that both she and Jamie would be capable of blundering about as they did when faced with the obvious injustice they witnessed. Jamie fell back on Scottish ways and attempted to place Rufus under his protection. Even the white slave owners of Scottish decent didn't ascribe to that approach in the Colonies. I don't think Claire would have known much more than the concept that it is wrong to enslave another person. I doubt she would have read any books that described how slaves where kept down—which did exist in her modern lifetime. She was either travelling the world with her Uncle Lamb; or studying medicinal botany; or with her nose in medical texts. Neither she nor Jamie would know the legal knots that were created to bind both enslaved and slavers to the economic system that benefited the white settlers. Jocasta knew—and had made her peace with them by treating her enslaved people with as much respect and care as the laws would allow. She and her husband could be deemed pragmatic. Jamie saw the need for that way before Claire did and was the only one who could make her see the only path she had before her—to trample on her beloved Hippocratic oath. The call back to what she did for Colum was genius because it allowed her to make peace with that choice the way she had done for Colum. Good catch! I dinna remember that. But it also explains Jenny's skepticism regarding Claire's lame excuse for not writing—even from the far away Colonies. I also agree that any time Scotland is even referenced gives a brief respite from the disappointment of so much of the rest.

Thanks that makes sense. I have to stop trying to speed read. 🙄

How do you work that out? I'd mentioned—see quote below—that Claire gave us a voice-over stating they'd been making their way up the coast for 4 months! We have to assume from Georgia because that was where they washed up after the storm. Was there an indication of how long they had been in Wilmington that would fill out the time to more than a year?

No wonder I was lost. The only Wilmington I am familiar with is in Delaware and they certainly weren't there!

Something for this Canadian to google! Yay. Will get back when I know more. That bit went over my head. But a quick rewind unearthed a voice-over by Claire that they'd been in America—she makes no provision for the fact that it was not YET America—for 4 months and were making their way UP the coast. Pretty sure they were in South Carolina. But later we learned they were headed to the home of Jocasta Cameron—the sister of Jamie's mother—who lived in North Carolina. At least that explained why they were in South Caroline when they originally landed in Georgia. (but now I don't know why I thought that. Anyone else have a clue as to where Hayes got nabbed?) That threw me for a while. Hopefully Aunt Jocasta will protect them from the worst of having lost the gems they had with them.

Time Jump! At least it wasn't too far into the future. Just enough time for our gang to travel from Georgia to South Carolina and buy some new clothes—not necessarily in that order. Oh, and get into trouble. Liked: The fiddle/banjo rendition of the title song. Reminded me that we were in the Colonies now. The clear and present introduction of the stone circle right at the start. Given that I started watching way after the series began—and can't un-see pictures posted on IMDB when I'm looking up “who is that actor?”—I exclaimed (something—don't remember what, perhaps just OH!) when I saw the stone circle being built. I was thinking Brianna/Roger because I couldn't miss her face in Seasons upcoming. The question is: Does Claire come get them? Or do they find they're own way? Still don't know where the stone circle is or when more time travel will happen. But I won't bother wondering about the details. It was shown to us up front and is now playing the role of Chekov's gun for this Season. Hayes being the method of introducing the... hmm... social standards of the new world—strict moral rules, underpinned by corruption—and the class-structure-where-Jamie-can-inhabit-both-upper-and-lower. Seems he prefers to hang out with the “lower” class— i.e. all the Scots in the tavern who sang for the soul of poor ignorant Hayes (aka New!Angus). I had barely had time to get to know Hayes by his actual name—nor the other one—before they were gone. Young Ian's trauma: Really impressed that they went there. Mirror of Jamie's sexual torment only Geillis/Ian this time. But Ian had Jamie to help him through. The bonding. The recall. Short but so powerful. Possibly my favourite scene from the episode. Other Young Ian stuff: We learn that Jamie wrote to Jenny about where they were when they were back in Georgia. THANK YOU SHOW! And we learn that Ian's parents wanted him to be a man of learning and influence. How's that going to pan out now? (Serious question.) Jamie describing that what is between him and Claire continues past death. That his soul belongs with her. "Nothing is lost, just changed." Claire says that is the 1st law of thermo-dynamics but Jamie calls it faith. I call it—the beginning of the answer to the appearance of “the Highlander” in Inverness, 1945 (or 1946?). Other things of note for me: We got right into Which side are you on? early in the show. The governor offers free land for allegiance to the Crown and recruitment of others who would swear the same! Jamie? Will he or won't he? No time for that this episode. There is PERIL to endure! We see Claire and Jamie—in partial dress—make love in the woods, in the night. I was sure they would be interrupted by bandits but was grateful to be spared that replay. But they wake up fully clothed? What's with that? Guess they are more practical in their old age and added clothing before sleeping to keep the cold away! And is it normal to leave a horse in all it's gear over night?? Secondary characters are dying left and right! Makes it hard to get invested in any of them. New Character Steven Bonnet: NOT a friend of Gavin Hayes. Don't trust him. He was a selfish bastard (Jimmy) in Downton Abbey and I don't trust him now. His Suspicious behaviour: Says he is a friend of Hayes but—when Jamie visited Hayes— only spoke as if he were one when the rum was produced. Asked to help bury Hayes. Does he plan to hide something with Hayes body? (Ah, wrote this as it happened. Now know it was to use J & C to escape. The Bastard!) Discusses the fascination with circles with Claire re: her wedding rings. Is he a time traveller? Claire and Stephen bond over the concept of drowning. Does this foretell how he meets his (well deserved ) death? At least we didn't have to wait to learn that Bonnet is exactly what I thought he'd be. Plus he's ruthless! I'd prefer that this 'baddy' becomes a more complex character—but I think that concept died with BJR. Toto? I don't think we are in Scotland anymore. Sub-plots/ plot-threads to watch for: Who will become the new Angus/Rupert sidekicks? And how soon will this occur? And how long will they be allowed to exist? When will we be reunited with Murtagh? !!!!! Will Claire get her Jamie wedding ring back? Is the loss of it an omen? How will Claire, Jamie and Ian deal with being penniless again? Make a pact with the British-Governor-Devil? When will the stone circle be re-introduced?

Sorry to leave you hanging @gingerella. Stuff came up. I agree that this episode was better than most in the second half of this Season, but The Bakra was definitively the best of that bunch. The show seems to have miscalculated how many episodes they would need? We got half an episode wrapping up The Bakra—which only took 30 min—so they tacked on a prelude-to-Season-4 to fill out the rest? They were very distinct and different stories. There is a clunkiness about this adaptation that surprises me. I can't figure out if the book(s) are just too difficult to capture or the show runners just don't have their fingers on the pulse of the narrative? In no particular order: Geillis was too batshit crazy to continue, so wrapping up the mystery of the skeleton-in-the-cave was satisfying enough for me. I missed the mirroring you spotted, Ging, so good catch. I don't think Claire had a premonition about her part in the death of the skeleton Joe was examining. He was the one who revealed to her how the mystery woman was murdered. It was after she almost decapitated Geillis that she realized how her actions in the past would become visible in the future. Killing someone is enough to make anyone stand there shaking, but knowing she'd already seen the outcome—and how long Geillis had lain there in the cave—has got to be more debilitating. Would "echos" be a good word to describe that experience? Mr. Willoughby! Wah! We had better get Murtagh back if they are moving Willoughby to Martinique!!! One or the other MUST be present, show. Do you hear me? Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for both Margaret and Willoughby—and I hope they get to come back at some point—even for a cameo. Their stories where wrapped up neatly in a bow for us. Lovely. But now there is a void and Jamie needs a BFF. Yes! And marriage seems to agree with her. She's looking more attractive too. I think I've completely adjusted to the new Fergus. You can't be a cherub all your life. People will start laughing at you. I think we were supposed to deduce that when Jamie told her to "Go. Find Young Ian" that he meant her to prepare first and then continue their quest for Ian—not wait for Jamie to be freed. Claire does a lot of stupid things—but going home to change (into her stinky clothes), giving Fergus the job of saving Jamie and thinking over a wee spec of a plan was not among them. I assume that she set off to Rose Hall while it was still dark that same evening. Fergus and Marsali were still in their fancy dress when they found the note that same night. The show just thought we'd prefer to see Claire happily being dead instead of all that prep business. 🙄 (I won't go into Claire's stupidities as they have become a feature of her role now.) Jamie was determined to fulfill his vow to get Young Ian back to Jenny. And Claire states that Lord John had the warrant withdrawn. A hard copy of that would have been a good protection, but by the end of their miraculous ordeal-at-sea it would have been just so much pulp. Here is the scene on ship just before Jamie 'doesn't shave his beard' 😉: CLAIRE: It was very generous of Lord John to use his influence to withdraw the warrant. JAMIE: Aye... it'll be good to return to Scotland, Sassenach. Mm... Be nice to be home. Aye. Ah... we'll, uh... we'll return Ian straight to Jenny. CLAIRE: He might not want to go back, - after all this adventure. JAMIE: [chuckles] I dinna care if he wants to or not. I'll deliver him to Lallybroch if I must stuff him into a hogshead. All I can say is that this show has something against Jenny and Ian! Haven't they suffered enough due to Jamie's actions? Now "fate" is meddling in their reunion with their youngest son. When will Jenny get a reward for everything she's done for her brother?! Jamie's first job in the new world needs to be to get a quill and some paper and sent off a letter to Lallybroch on the next ship out. The best part of this episode goes to Lord John. That was a great scene! And Jamie managed to keep himself from saying anything—although you could see he really wanted to. It seems that little tidbit—provided to Claire by the guy on the Porpoise who had been employed by Jamie's nemesis in A. Malcolm—that "Captain Leonard" was ambitious and looking to improve his prospects, was all the show planned to give us regarding his motivation. But Lord John pointed out for us that "Captain" Leonard was clearly not qualified for either the promotion he got due to the typhoid fever nor the one he was hoping to get by capturing Jamie.

Exactly! Add to the above that Jamie says there’s a box full of ancient coins on Silkie Island and Margaret-the-oracle senses that the treasure is born of blood and death. I also found it odd that Dougal had the treasure to hide, not Colum. But I sure as hell want the dirt on any bloody, deadly, ancient MacKenzie conflict.

Geillis is always spinning a story. But she is in the past for one reason and only one reason. Her whole storyline this episode is a continuation of her reason for time traveling. She chooses men by what they can do for her. Perhaps she described her feelings for Dougal in the way Claire would find believable. But having his child was just the current tool to her helping THE cause. She moved on as quickly as he did when it didn't pan out. She saw something in Claire—maybe just as someone who knows where she's from and the comfort that brings. But we saw she thought Claire was in the past for the same reason she was. She was wrong, but that's what she believed when she saved Claire. Geillis answered Archie's question " how did (she) know about the jewels" by telling him: They were handed down from father to son for generations, until they came into the hands of Dougal MacKenzie. He hid them along with the family treasure on Silkie Island. Seems that there is a story behind that explanation and I want to see it! The treasure was in a box hidden behind a stone (?) with the Mackenzie Clan symbology. (coat of arms? or the like). So, the last part—that he hid them along with the family treasure—is true. That is vague enough that they could have belonged to Mackenzie ancestors OR perhaps he got them through his wife's ancestors? I'd like this tidbit to get a fuller airing. I was relieved that Claire managed to keep her mouth shut on that topic. I'm sure it had something to do with knowing that Gillian had murdered her husband in order to time travel, but there are a lot of reasons for her to keep her cards close to her chest as far as Geillis is concerned. The woman is a homicidal maniac who is batshit crazy and a pathological liar to boot! Claire did that one thing right.

I don't know. I think both stories could be true at the same time. The Mackenzie brothers have been functioning as one leader for years. One is the brain—the other carries out the plan. Column could have found a place for the bairn and Dougal would have taken it to its new home. If Colum didn't tell him NOT to rescue Geillis then that would have been his own decision. Colum told Claire he'd never heard Dougal mention the child. That is different than ensuring it got delivered to loyal Mackenzie parents. And given that Dougal was hitting on Claire after Geillis' supposed death—whether he helped Geillis escape burning or that was just the story she told Claire—he moved on from her and the child right after. I'd trust Colum's information before either Geillis or Dougal's.

FINALLY! We've got back to the episode after First Wife (or what should have been after it). Warning! Long post. (I must have stored up space from the episodes I had so little to talk about.) Ian was kidnapped by Portuguese mercenaries acting on the orders of The Bakra—someone who knew the treasure would be there and who likes young boys. Someone new? The only person people—in this show—who fit the last part of that description—to my knowledge—are dead. BJR & Sandringham. It's Geillis! Who was not burned for being a witch; who doesn't look like she birthed a child—OK hard to tell what with being covered in blood And the suspicions by some of our number—that Geillis may have been la Dame Blanche spoken of by the old fellow Jamie spoke to in Ardsmuir Prison—turned out to be on the nose. Sounds like she may have spread those tales to keep folk away from Dougal's treasure. So—if it takes 5 episodes to get back to where we left off in A. Malcolm and First Wife—should we expect to encounter characters from the intervening episodes to appear sooner or later... Captain Leonard, of course. And, of course, he is a villain. Check The seer and her unscrupulous brother. Check. (but she is simpatico with Willoughby—one thing that pleases me greatly. Maybe it is not her skeleton-in-the-cave but that of Geillis? Although she seems to know there is danger for her ahead. Lord Grey, of course. It appears he didn't use the sapphire to pay for a physician- as I thought, but used money available for the prison upkeep (what little there was). He kept the sapphire for sentimental reasons and hand-waved away the circumstances. (more on it later) So, on to some thoughts on this episode. (I am so relieved to be back on “charted territory”.) We get an immediate call back to S01E06 The Garrison Commander (I think that is the correct one) where Dougal takes Claire to a spring that kills (or sickens) anyone who does not tell the truth. He has plans but needs to know that she is not a spy. Geillis has found herbs that do the same thing—only more efficiently so as to eliminate the need to clean up messes made by liars dying—or being sick. I do hope she doesn't put young Ian under a spell so he won't trust Jamie and Claire. But if she can, I don't see her not doing it. One thing is true from this parallel. Both Dougal and Geillis are using the action for reasons of personal gain. Not an altruistic bone in either body. They were made for each other. But judging from the story she told Claire—of how she escaped death by fire—Dougal would have been a dead man soon enough if he'd stayed with her. And if Jamie hadn't dispatched him, I mean. why, Why, WHY does Claire—after Jamie has told her he wants to keep her in his sight—always do the opposite—like wander off alone; oblivious to where her husband and the others are? Is she like this in the books? Will she never learn? Does being independent mean being being stupid and/or thoughtless in these stories? And to top it off—when New!Angus brought her umbrella so she would appear respectable to the inhabitants—all I could see were mostly black/brown faces and wondered if she was racist—based on her response of "I don't care what THEY think"? But I guess she meant the people who were white and who owned the black/brown people. Still, rubbed me the wrong way. BUT it appears Claire wandered away due to plot necessities. She needs to have Jamie save a man. A man who can surreptitiously get them information about what happened to Ian—because there will be slaves from the Portuguese ship at the Governor's party who were bought from that ship. I also speculate that the document with Claire's name on it—indicating she bought a slave, when and where—will come into play in future plot twists. Calling Roger Wakefield! But it seems Claire is back to being the clueless one because Jamie has to patiently explain why destroying (this future evidence) is a bad idea for their new property. (transparent much?) Next, we learn that Geillis was the benefactor the Campbells were travelling to. Did the brother put an advertisement offering his sister's skills in Jamie's paper back in Edinburgh? How did Geillis find out about her—Margaret? Doubt we'll find out. <<shrugs>> Geillis believes Margaret will be able to tell her the meaning of the Brahan Seer's prophecy, but it will require the three sapphires she gathered back in Scotland and the one Jamie gave Lord Grey is missing—obviously. Seems that's how Geillis will know when the new Scottish King will arise. duh; Duh; DUH! Intrigue and danger ahead. Gotta hand it to Geillis. She's nothing if not persistent. At the Governor's party—Willoughby is once again a highlight. He makes a joke that a dandy and a Frenchman are one and the same thing—or was it a joke? (made everyone laugh anyway) He sees the human being in Margaret and is drawn to her as she is to him. I hope they don't have an unhappy ending and the the skeleton-in-the-cave IS Geillis (next season I'll bet) and NOT Margaret. The other highlight was the Jamie/ John reunion. Everything I could have asked for. The awkwardness between all three of them. Claire wondering what is going on—and not knowing because Jamie didn't tell her everything. John dismayed at Claire's very existence. Jamie trying not to show how eager he is to know more about his son. At least John both gave him something "he remembers you", but tempered it with “from time to time”. I fear this triangle is only going to get more difficult—even when Claire learns more. Willie is John and Isobel's son now. Clearly Lord Grey is not happy being in Jamaica and it seems he's destined to be there a very long while. He called being given the post a “malediction”—a curse—and the “terminus” of a series of “so-called” promotions. So his career path has not improved since he was landed with Ardsmuir Prison. Just his titles. The solo interchange between Lord Grey and Claire—when Grey heard what she knew about Willie—even up to his mother being the sister of John's wife—made me think that John would dearly like to know if Jamie told her about HIM. Neither of them trusts the other at this point. The Claire/ Geillis interchange started off well. Although I had to look up the date of Casablanca to ensure it was made during a time that Geillis could have seen it and known the famous quote that she offered as an in-joke between time travellers. It is good to finally know what happened to her. Dougal definitely dodged a bullet poison pellet not being allowed to marry her—much good that it did him. (at least he died by the hand of someone who actually loved him) She has become a serial murderer in her quest for Scottish independence. Beware Claire. Beware. Hope Claire never tells Geillis about Roger. But this is New!Claire so I think she will. And COINCIDENCE! Geillis married an Abernathy and had bought a slave—spoken of just before Claire made the scene in the slave market—who she apparently bought for “breeding” purposes but who didn't provide bairns—we were told. Wonder if Claire put two and two together regarding her friend Joe Abernathy? Geillis is not a woman to stop breeding her property based on one bad purchase me thinks. Plus, she lied to Claire and Jamie about having seen young Ian! Can she gets worse? Of. Course. She. Can! Poor Margaret. She's forced by her brother and Geillis into doing something that she believes is evil—that will bring death. She'd rather be bringing hope to people who have little of it. That is who Willoughby sees when he looks at her. And he sees the pain she is in— having to tell Lord John's "fortune". I don't think what she said has much to do with Lord John. Geillis already told us she needed the three stones together for Margaret to tell the prophecy of the Brahan Seer—regarding the coming of the new Scottish King. But that doesn't mean Lord John—among others—won't be touched by the evil unleashed by the interpretation of the prophecy. And since it's bound to come up in future episodes: Margaret Campbell: When twice twelve hundred, moons have coursed, 'tween man's attack and woman's curse... and when the issue is cut down... ♪ Then will a Scotsman wear a crown. If we didn't start this tale with the premise of Claire time traveling 200 years—both to and from—this prophesy would mean: NEVER will a Scotsman wear a crown again!! But that would be a different show. After that all we get is the lead up to the next PERILOUS ending. I'm surprised that Captain Leonard found them so soon. Once the Artemis had been unloaded, Jamie had the crew moor it out of sight at a cove they'd passed coming in. Unless Captain Leonard had arrived first and done the same thing? Possible. The Governor's party was set for the night they arrived! Once again Claire is required to exhume her generic “danger/peril” face for the final shot of the episode. <<yawn>>.

Well, I only wrote "foretelling Claire's future" because that's kinda how it was presented. Claire asked the man what she was saying and he responded as though she'd asked for the "seer's" advice by requesting money. That was how the show portrayed it. But because we know of the woman's skeleton-in-a-cave from the Claire/Joe scene it makes more sense the way you phrase it. This deserves it own space for: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 THIS is a very interesting observation. This wasn't in the "previously on" section, but during the opening credits. But I would have missed most things at the beginning anyway—thinking they weren't important. I'll have to watch with a keener eye next time. I think I can maintain enough interest to get through the opening credits of each episode! Well—Jamie was always a bit impulsive, but he had level-headed support around him (Murtagh!!!) which sometimes made him think twice. That suspiciousness was provided for us viewers from the moment Mamacita showed up on screen. And it never wavered. MOST shows don't make a point of highlighting something just to repeat what they already—and have continued to— show us. Of course, if so much of this season is time filling— then, sure— it was an unnecessary repetition used to pad out the episode. Given that the last episode that was not irrational was A. Malcolm (E06 which is less than half of the Season!) there is a high likelihood that it was filler. I had managed to tell my screen "Fraser" at least 4-5 times—gradually increasing to a shout—before Jamie opened his mouth. THAT was NOT a suspenseful moment and should not have been treated like one. 🙄

I think I can just refer to @gingerella's post above and declare: "WHAT! SHE! SAID!" for most of this episode. But I wrote a few notes at the beginning—before I started sitting there shaking my head for the rest of it. So here are my first reactions: GIVE.ME.A.BREAK! Her bundle of worldly goods washes up on the exact same spot that Claire does??? Hogwash. There must have been a shuttle that picked up her goods and left them for her at her destination (she should have caught the shuttle too!). Really Show!?! Glad I got my Olympic-level eye rolling warm up started at the end of last episode. THEN she manages to get a fire started (yay Claire—no small feat) but doesn't think she'll need to make another one so she burns all her “kindling” with her bustle thingy. <mutters to self she's delirious from lack of water over and over—but to no avail> Then my brain shut down. Correct. I looked it up. Jamie introduces Fergus to Claire and then mentions that his real name is Claudel but they both agreed that it wasn't "manly" enough. I did utter a small "ohhhh" at that point. But I commend the show for including the flash-back to the scene where the seer foresaw it in Claire's future. I'm not sure I would have put two and two together for that mention. I worried that it might be the fellow from the Porpoise. There was one Chinese man on each ship. I was not ready for more DRAMA! Turns out I was not ready for NO DRAMA either. This was not my favourite variety-show episode. Good catch! (Both you and Yi Tien Chao). But then I remember the beautiful turtle shown during the opening bits and was very sad. Perhaps the Show is asking us to believe that Yi Tien's cooking is so bad that he dumps the bottle of sherry into the soup after it is cooked to mask how awful it tastes? Ok. I don't actually believe that. From this episode alone I can't credit the Show for putting any thought into it AT ALL! This is a gripe I have with the Show runner's and writers. Why have they fallen into the trope of the dumb female who can't figure out what to do? Actually they swing back and forth between 'Claire is clever and resourceful' and 'Claire is clueless'. Claire was raised by an explorer Uncle. She learned how to cook over an open fire and must have learned how to avoid dangerous bugs and other animals as well—due to the locations he took her. (The one shown in her memory was in a desert like location, but they travelled all over.) Claire knows enough to create shade for herself and drink dew (or rain) caught in a leaf, but not to make a plan when faced with "Uncharted" territory? Is her curiosity compartmentalized into medical-related only? It was 2-3 minutes shy of one third of the entire episode! It felt long because she kept coming across as an idiot! Do something smart—do a bunch of stupid things. Of Course he is. AND he is going to be the new bad guy. Too bad. I liked him. I guess the military brings out the worst in a man. The one thing I noticed that you haven't mentioned was the time the show gave to Mamasita noticing the zipper on Claire's corset. She fingered it, but didn't look surprised, just looked back at Claire. No further reference was made, but if the show HAS any sense I would think this bit will come up again—at the very least in "previouslies".

I guess I'm alone in seeing him as a decent fellow. Did he steal her because she was a woman? Wouldn't he have done the same for a male doctor who 1) had been willing to come aboard—however unlikely it would be; and 2) had a clear plan on how to contain the contagion which included getting to port ASAP? He sent word as to what his was doing, where he was going and how he would treat Claire until she was reclaimed by her husband. I concur that we learn that he also knew by that time that Jamie was a wanted man and— from what he'd seen of Jamie—having him come after them was his best plan to both save his men—and capture his man. Regarding the rather odd crewman—Gingerella has just mentioned that Fergus was assigned the job of "dealing" with him and yet he ended up on a British man-o-war. He had worked for Sir Percival, who was an agent of the crown. There is room— in what we don't know about how he got on that ship—for his connection with Sir Percival to be credible. He'd met Jamie and determined for himself that A. Malcolm and J. Fraser were one and same. Of course there is also room for less-than-honourable goings on as well. "Harry Tompkins" told Claire that Captain Leonard was an ambitious man and that capturing a notorious man wanted for sedition might give him a boost towards being awarded his own ship. So that may be why he didn't ask more questions but just took Tomkins at his word. And it looks like Harry Tompkins needed to curry favour—perhaps to get off the ship and back home. So I'm not saying that Captain Leonard is strictly on the up and up. But compared with almost every other officer we've met he is at least got a brain and some manners. So, based on this episode, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. ETA: Re-watching the bit preceding her jumping, Annekje told her the "water" would move her and the ship Co-Burn —not the land as I originally thought she was saying— was not far off and they would take her to the port. Granted, even so, it was a cockamamie plan. But when has Claire ever done any other kind of plan?

Riiiight. That (hopefully) will be an interesting conversation confrontation between Jamie and Fergus. Following up on @Camera One 's point re: Claire... Now that Fergus' other influence is back, (yes, Claire was his other influence) perhaps he had second thought's about taking a life? After all, Milady tried to save the life of a man who tried to kill her! (tongue-in-cheek—I think)

I'm with you in all of that. It's how Jamie is treating him in this episode that has me wondering if it can withstand that treatment. Fergus IS standing up to Jamie and doing what he thinks is right. He's doing what Jamie would have done. But right until Muesli finagled Jamie's release from the brigg Jamie didn't see or appreciate that. I'm assuming his brief "you have my blessing" will have to do for the appreciation that Fergus (and Muesli) really deserved. I see a danger in Jamie changing from always doing the right thing to always thinking that what he does IS the right thing. It comes from the change in our main characters this Season. I don't ken your meaning lass, can ye extrapolate please? Mr. Pound's legacy was to Claire. It was that she had a blind spot when it came to him and didn't catch the symptoms of the disease soon enough to give him treatment. I did explain that the erratic content of this episode and this Season have me wasting time thinking the worse for the story ahead. I probably should have deleted it. I was not feeling very positive about the show. I disagree with this. They are on a ship, alone in the ocean and one of the main concerns of all the crew—from the lowliest to the greatest—is to ensure they are safe. There is no such thing as a little splash here or there in those circumstances. A splash could be a man overboard or cargo overboard. If they are the only ship they can see, then the splash will have come from their ship. There are men assigned to "watch-duties" to be alert for that very thing. Even if it's a drunken fight, every man (and woman) is needed to keep the ship functional. So if one goes overboard every effort is made to save them. The scene they showed—when Claire and Annekje where planning the jump— was one of surprising calm and quiet. I am readying my eye sockets for Olympic sized eye rolling if nobody notices.