Anothermi

This move is a head scratcher. He's a character I would have looked forward to seeing again. ONE EPISODE!!! And he got more of a back story than Muesli (yahknow? Leery's spawn?). He's 14; been at sea since he was 7 because his seafaring father had some clout and got him a birth despite his youth. And he was on the officer-track because of that same family connection. That might also explain his sense of chivalry and honour. Seamen who were press-ganged are generally uneducated and given little or no responsibility. Somebody up thread mentioned they felt foreboding when Elias gave Claire his lucky rabbit's foot. I did as well. Claire felt so guilty for not noticing Mr. Pound's symptoms. However, if Mr. Pound's legacy is to be the reason Claire ends up doing something stupid down the road so as not to make the same mistake? I may just give up. Gah. This Season has me projecting even worse episodes!! I've got to stop doing that. ^^This^^ pretty much says it all for me. Where have the compelling main characters gone? So far—if it weren't for the interesting secondary characters—there is very little to keep us engaged. As @Juliegirlj wrote upthread: That states clearly why I so often find myself thinking W.T.F? in the past few episodes. There were a few seconds of dialog that hinted that there might be a reason for this incomprehensible approach, but very few. Jamie's treatment of Fergus & Muesli: OK. Let's just leave it at Jamie-is-not-himself these days. But I'm hoping that the connection he forged with Fergus—starting in France and then subsequent to Claire's return to her era—was deep and strong because I can no longer see the reason why Fergus is so insistent on emulating Jamie and needing his approval. Fergus is likely in his late twenties by now! He's a grown man and it's not surprising he's thinking of settling down. Muesli is another story. This episode she's appeared to be more like her mother than anything else. BUT... when she recognized that Fergus was a chip off the old Jamie block when it came to stubbornness (or honour as they would see it) it seems to me that the show was leading us to believe that it was HER brainwave that Jamie could be released from his imprisonment by a testimonial that Jamie was a man of his word and once given the Captain could trust Jamie would keep it. (Claire represents the half of Jamie that gets to break her/his word it seems. As long as it all works out, right?) Muesli would have been seen as a credible witness to this—at least from the Captain's perspective. I particularly loved when she quietly told Jamie that if he distrusted Fergus he didn't deserve Fergus' loyalty. (or words to that effect). Perhaps the show may allow her to become a real person—not a cardboard cutout monster like her mother. Captain Leonard: Since we've been deprived of Mr. Pound, I'm wondering if this guy is going to have a bigger roll in the story—once we get off these bloody ships! I may be alone in this opinion, but I find Captain Leonard is currently the better man (than Jamie) because he puts his duty to his crew first and foremost; and his duty to his job next. I vaguely remember James Fraser doing that at Culloden—only it went to Claire; to family; to clan; to country. This guy doesn't know Jamie. He's been given information that Jamie is likely wanted for sedition (as A. Malcomb) and his duty is to take him into custody to face trial. He knows he owes Claire beyond any ability to repay her, but he will not give up his sense of honour and duty for her. All I can say is: he's young. He may become more corruptible as he gets older. Not that I'd like to see that. He's treated Claire like a "real" doctor even though she would not be considered a real doctor back then due to her gender. He has put his trust in her and never challenged her methods. Again, that very fact is unusual for the time. He has already put his own reputation on the line for her and his trust in her has been proven well founded. I don't see that her being right about how to deal with disease leads to turning a blind eye on his overall duty. As far as I can see—IF he ends up in future episodes—he will at least be a man of his word. They are few and far between. I agree that—given how quiet things were that night—anyone on deck when Claire jumped would hear the splash—two splashes with the "raft"—and rush to investigate it. I understood what Annekje was explaining to her—that the currents near land are strong and they would take her to land quickly without her having to swim. But her bundle of clothes looked like it was just plunked on top of the barrel-raft and it would separate from the barrels before they hit the water (a third splash). Wouldn't that be where Claire's money would be? If she lost them—which would be very easily—she wouldn't be able to afford to catch a boat to where Jamie was headed. AND she'd be back wandering around a foreign country in her underclothes. Just like in S01E01.

** I started this reply in First Wife but it ended up referring to this episode, so I've moved it here in order to avoid having to spoiler tag those bits. So the quotes above are from First Wife.** Right. So the show has pretty much let us know that Claire and Jamie, BOTH, were unable to live a full life without the other. I'm finding it interesting that the portrayal of Claire's experience of this came from her daughter (my mother lives in another world) while Jamie appears to be more self aware because he states it himself. I'll give them both credit for "accustom(ing) themselves to live in the bit that's left.."—mostly because of a phenomena I've had experience with during a relatively short bout of chronic pain. When the issue was resolved and the pain went away it was only then that I recognized the impact the underlying pain had on my daily life. So, I'll extrapolate that was true on an emotional level for both of them as well. Still, the show gives Jamie the credit for that realization and (kinda) gives the equally true realization to Claire that twenty years of a life (half) lived is still your life. And it has value and it helped form who you are now. (Why does it annoy when they have Claire say it?) So Claire is starting to face what she couldn't imagine when she decided to return to find Jamie—and it's bound to take time to sort through what she's lost and what she's gained. Jamie seems to be willing to accept whatever he has to (regarding who Claire is now) because he spent most of his life painfully aware of Claire's absence and only recently has attempted to move beyond that stagnation—however unsuccessfully. That doesn't make his loneliness worse than Claire's. She was just a bit more successful in coping with it—possibly because of the sage advice of Mrs. Graham to not spend the rest of her life chasing ghosts. I'm now thinking the broader point of the Saga-of-Willoughby's-Life-in-China story was not just to save one man from a watery grave, but to give Claire and Jamie a reminder... Willoughby: I've been scribing the story of my life in China, so that it... will not be forgotten. A story told is... a life lived. Claire: Would you tell it to me? Willoughby: Not yet. Once I tell it, I have to let it go. Everything that happened to them in the 20 years they were apart was the story of their lives to that point; and should not be forgotten. But—as @gingerella keeps stressing—they need to TELL it in order to let it go. So that they can actually begin a new life together again. Neither of them has told the other the story of their life so far.

I frequently skip the previouslies—old habit formed due to the marathon that was GoT—so I had to go back to see what you were referring to. I think you're on to something. The "previously" for First Wife showed the old fellow who John Grey had Jamie interpret for—and who spoke of la Dame Blanche only he used the Gaelic term meaning the same—speaking of gold and the Silkie from the sea*. The addition of the snippet of John Grey's minion telling/showing him the last place they saw Jamie wasn't necessary unless there is a tie-in. Jamie gave John Grey the sapphire claiming he found a box on the island that was empty except for it. So, Lord John Grey knew where the island was and that Jamie got a sapphire there. It's not a far leap for him to suspect Jamie was not telling the whole truth. It's a long time since that conversation (more than 7 years for sure which only takes us to when Jamie left Helwater), but John Grey may have a reason for searching again now. OR—John may have told the story to someone else who's willing to mount a search. OMG! John Grey may have told this story to wee Willie, bastard son of... uh... Alexander MacKenzie! He should be a young man now, no? Still, that ship must have already been sitting behind the island when Jamie, Claire and Ian arrived in order for them to launch a skiff so quickly to capture Ian. Otherwise the coincidence is just too much. * There is an old Scottish song (maybe not as old as the 1800s, but folk-song old) about the Silkie/ Selkie (both spellings used)—which is someone who is a man when on land and a seal when in water. I am most familiar with the version sung by Joan Baez. Here is a link to her version:

At least she explained about her (Hippocratic) oath this time! Last time her insistance on saving the life of the man who tried to kill her came across as bonkers. Jamie, of all people, certainly understands the imperative of swearing an oath! He swears an oath almost as often as other men just swear! I'd like to hear how Claire would explain the origins of the Hippocratic oath to Jamie. At least he would understand. Given Claire's reaction to Jamie lying to Ian in Edinburgh I think the exchange referencing writing to Jenny and Ian was to tell the truth—AFTER they'd left. Claire mentioned that J & I still thought they were headed to France so they wouldn't be worried—yet. That's when sending a letter to explain everything came up. So I think he did tell the truth, just ducked out of facing Jenny's wrath. And Claire seemed on board with that approach! Well, at least that explains the constant use of them. Doesn't make it a good plan, nor good for character building. But you're probably right. One other recurring theme—that fits well for those of us viewing during a Pandemic—is the recurrence of Claire's vaccinations. Smallpox in S01 and this Season—Typhoid.

I actually relaxed into this episode because it wasn't quite as incomprehensible to me as the two previous ones. (And I have to acknowledge that the discussions from you folks has improved my POV concerning some of the crazy-making behaviours of our main characters. So thank you all.) Without a doubt—Willoughby was the highlight of the episode. He actually knows Jamie better than Claire at this point, but then so did his counterpart, Murtagh. I often think that Jamie would have been lost without Claire, but he had Murtagh at Ardsmuir prison and Willoughby from whenever. After he returned home from Helswater anyway. Neither of these men would have challenged him the way Claire was able to, but Willoughby—and his "foreign" POV would have come closest. (Claire did bring a "foreign" POV from the future as well as a female one.) I was delighted to see cousin Jared as well—once I figured out why I should know who he was. Even then, I wondered what he was doing in Scotland? That might have been helpful info. I guess the Jacobite cause was deemed to be so truly lost—at least by the English—that is was safe for him to be back home. The Fergus story? Yeah. Not worth the screen time at this point. I hope it goes somewhere later. We did see that Fergus still admires Jamie and tries to emulate him. That's all I got. I did like New!Angus and New!Rupert—for what is was worth. I was happy with ANYTHING that wasn't Claire and Jamie talking at cross purposes to each other. When on a long sea voyage? Distraction is the key. The story presented filled the bill for me. Willoughby's life story! And letting it go... Riveting. What a smart man—to figure out what would keep the crew distracted long enough to save the life of New!Angus. And once the wind was revealed? Jamie knew exactly what his friend had done. Agreed. And such a needed departure from the Claire-or-Jamie-in-Peril storylines. Ha! Ha! I wondered about that statement as well. But with a bit of time to think about it—and because Jared is a businessman in the 18th century and thinks like a businessman—he probably meant that whoever took Young Ian wouldn't do anything to "damage the goods" given how much they could get for a prime specimen. So he'd be fed well enough, and likely not abused. A distasteful truth—but a truth no less. There was a recurring theme in this show—regarding relaying important information—that made me laugh: Jamie told Claire that he'd written a letter to Jenny and Ian to explain about young Ian; Fergus' girlfriend told Jamie that she will write her mother a letter letting her know she was "hand-fast" wed with Fergus; and lastly Captain Thomas Leonard, of His Majesty's ship, the Porpoise, sailing away with Claire and telling her he'd sent a message to the captain of the Artemis explaining his actions and promising to provide accommodation for Claire until she could return to the Artemis. He also mentioned that both ships were headed to Jamaica. Act first. Explain later. Everybody's doing it. The duh, Duh, DUH ending-look on Claire's face seemed out of place to me because I thought the youthful Captain had made the only rational decision of the episode. (aside from Willoughby that is)

I don't think Claire ever told Jamie that Frank looked just like Black Jack Randall. THAT is who Jamie was sending her home to FFS! Of course Frank was not BJR, but he appeared to be the spitting image of him. Claire had been very careful not to give Jamie that information and good thing she didn't. He could console himself that she would be well cared for—but if he kept seeing her with BJR in his mind's eye? 🤯 OMG. Thank YOU for that.

Ha Ha. It is quite possible to hold contradictory emotions in the same head. I'd already quoted Jamie as affirming that Claire going back to the future—(will I have to pay royalties for that phrase?)—was the right thing to do. But when he came up with the plan he also expected to be dead. Having to live with the consequences of his brilliant plan, to quote Claire—was so much harder than he thought. And especially since she's now back and his feelings of loneliness are brought sharply front and centre. The regret is that he has passed 20 years without her and lived a shadow of a life that he is not proud of and shrinks from telling her about. Everyone is their own worst critic. My comment was that he doesn't see himself worthy of her—because he lived, and lived without her. He'd never been a coward when she knew him, but now he has things he hides about himself to avoid hearing the judgements that are already in his own head.

Interesting that I had just revisited this episode to remind myself of the part where Jamie had told Claire she had done the right thing—going back through the stones. The conversation sounds different with a few more episodes under our belt. Your explanation of Jamie's feelings does explain that statement I couldn't make sense of: (gingerella wrote:) Jamie: I never thought I'd laugh in a woman's bed again, Sassenach, or even come to one, save as a brute, blind with need. Jamie always did have the heart of a poet when he speaks the depth of his feelings to Claire. Thanks to Diana Gabaldon. 😉

That "you left me!" is the most inexplicable thing that's come out of his mouth. Curiosity made me go back and check the three-part expositional sex scenes we were treated to in the A. Malcolm episode. It helped make a bit more sense of Jamie's actions (as has @gingerella's post on Jamie's fear of losing Claire again.) Here are the bits of dialogue that helped me out: Jamie: Do ye want to leave now? Claire: I did not come here to make love to you once. I came back to be with you. Jamie: I canna tell ye... What it felt like when I touched ye today... And knew you to be real. To find you again... And to lose you... Claire: You won't lose me... Not unless you do something immoral. So Jamie's cowardice and obfuscation regarding his illegal activities and his marriage come from his confession that he could not stand to lose her again and her off-hand remark that only if he did something immoral would she leave. (immorality is incredibly subjective) In a followup scene Jamie clearly and calmly reminded Claire that she had to go back through the stones to save Brianna. (although he thought it was baby William at the time). Claire: I will never leave you again. Jamie: Ye were right to leave. Ye did it for Brianna. Ye were a wonderful mother, Claire. I know it. Ye gave me a child, Claire. She is alive... safe. Because of her... We will live forever... You and I. Claire was the first to describe the parting at the Stones as her leaving him (and I believe she felt that agreeing to his—possibly dying— wish was in fact her decision to leave him.) Both of them describe—what we saw as Claire actually obeying Jamie for a change!—as her decision. Of course, both of them knew he was right and he did have to "make" her go by putting her hands on the stone, but they both processed it differently. I'm beginning to see Jamie's self opinion—that he is now a coward—as regret for sending Claire away. Plus, Jamie's never been good at winning arguments with Claire, so he falls back on old favourite tropes. "You made me do it. Your actions made me marry Leery. I didn't leave you, you left ME! I stayed... and lived. How did that happen? It wasn't part of the plan."

You need to take this on a stand-up tour! Hilarious! And—after the 2nd bit—I couldn't help thinking "We were on a BREAK!!!" Interesting. I think I had lost interest by then, but you may have a point. The show did make a big deal of the scene (back when they visited the old Fox grandsire) where Claire sends Jamie to thank Leery for her help (but he knew not what help and thanked her grudgingly) and then the pause after Leery's "humble" reply followed by her whisper to herself that she still hoped to get him to love her. I can now see that was a foreshadowing of this storyline. For my part, I grudgingly appreciate the seeds the show attempts to sow in previous episodes in hopes of bearing fruit in later episodes—much later—and possibly too late for most of us. He kept telling himself (and Fergus) that wouldn't be possible so he lied to himself as much as to Claire. He kept saying how far it was to where his second wife lived and yet it took her and two children one afternoon—if that! After reading other's comments, I'm starting to feel for Jenny. Yes! I said that. When we 1st meet her she is angry with Jamie for never sending word—for four years!—that he was still alive after BJR took him away. And then Claire shows up after 20 years having done the same thing to her. Of course Jenny is going to be irrational. That's proven to be who she is and how she reacts—and it might explain why Claire acted so guilty when Jenny confronted her. Thank God Jenny married the right man. If given time, she'd probably come around. Will the show give us that time with her, or will it send us off in search of Young Ian, never to return—and let us believe Jenny dies of a broken heart—one she's smashed to pieces in her rage!

Good catch. I hadn't thought about that and the fact that Jamie not only took Claire's point regarding what he did to her, but also broadened to a more general view on the-punishment-should-suit-the-crime. If Young Ian acts like a child... Can I give you an **AMEN** One of the highlights of the past two episodes for me was that older, mature Ian is actually looking handsome. At least I think so. And he's still the best man in any room he inhabits. Yep. Take note! One of the (few) highlights. Ned Gowan was another. Another head scratcher - among many. I even paused to see if it was the same room. But later, when Jenny was cleaning up the room a bit later, it looked like it was Jenny and Ian's room and they hadn't given it up. I was certainly wondering the same thing. WTF is going on with this story. So much doesn't make sense. Well, I can muster up a bit of sympathy for her. No one deserves an abusive husband—or two. But I harken back to Murtagh's conversation with Claire when Claire was teasing Jamie about seeing him kissing Leery. Murtagh told her 1) not to make fun of him, and 2) Leery was not for Jamie because even 50 years from then she would still be a girl and Jamie needed a woman. This scene proved that Murtagh ( 😢 ) is a good judge of character. My best stab at why Jamie decided to marry her was that he knew he'd never love anyone again, so why NOT? He had been happy—when dancing with them—for the first time in years and thought he might be able to do some good for the girls—who he clearly liked and who had not taken after their mother. It would have been a selfless act as far as he was concerned. BUT where does the mention of "(going) to a woman's bed as a brute blind with need" fit into this scenario? Or are there others we get to learn about bit by bit? The only way that statement makes sense in the context of marrying Leery is that his "need" was to have people to take care of. But the blindness related to how badly suited they were—and always had been—to each other. (Throws hands in the air and gives up.)

Good catch @Camera One. Although last time we had a similar one-off scene (John Grey as a boy) I think it took until the following season—and a few episodes into it too boot—for that cameo to be returned to. But I like your idea! That would at least give those characters a reason-for-being beyond reminding Claire that she still wants to do doctoring. Sorry to say that I don't have a lot to contribute to this episode because it's left me feeling exasperated. Two episodes and Jamie's life as a printer is over. The pamphlets in his shop WERE treasonous and calling for the true King to be returned. Previously apolitical Jamie Fraser now appears to be a convert to the Jacobite cause and I've wasted my own time trying to make sense of what we were shown before in relation to what they show us now. I'm packing up and moving to the couch that Camera One and @gingerella were posting from last episode! However, I'm wondering if Jamie was not the writer of those pamphlets—just the printer as he was listed on the "Roger" pamphlet? Printing treason is equally seditious behaviour though. But the printing press is done. Tally Ho to some other crisis. Exactly! I'm exhausted just reading that line. Nor this viewer. Unless it's because she wants to see just how much complex surgery she can accomplish in this century? Like Survivor: Surgery Edition. I agree about Mr. Willoughby. He's the new Murtagh (sob) but with the tables turned. Murtagh got Jamie out of scrapes and Jamie gets Mr. Willoughby out of scrapes. Otherwise they seem to fulfill the same function. (except Willoughby's speech is easier to understand.) 🤣 Yes! I was scratching my head at this one. Where is it coming from? But then, Jamie seems to be a different man in this episode. He lied to Claire about marrying again since she left. Fine he didn't love ANY of the other woman he was with. Standard response of many men except the Jamie of S01 who's now MIA. I guess that's why I can't get into discussing this episode. Claire is annoying, Jamie is annoying. The constant "PERIL" is annoying. Gah!

I'm a little slow on the uptake, but now I understand where you were coming from. Think we'll get a flashback to fill that in? I'm not sure that the "Roger" pamphlet was one of Jamie's seditious ones, but it could have been. I wasn't able to see much of it except something about restricting trade and the "freedom and whisky" quote. Anything else I could see was the kind of circumlocution that could mean one thing to Scots reading the pamphlet and something quite different from a legal standpoint. Jamie seems to have learned how to dance around a topic in such a way as to speak to those who follow him without using the words the English would find legally chargeable. That particular topic appears to have a direct tie-in to the smuggling sideline that must pay for the print house. Always the razor's edge with this guy! Yes indeed. I wondered about that interchange as well. Was it about Mary McNabb and Geneva or something else even more difficult to talk about? Inquiring minds would like to know more and soon!

People do have Ah Hah! moments in their lives when they stop complaining about inequities and start doing something about them. In Jamie's case I think it was that he always tried to correct inequities when he saw them and just fell into being the one who was expected to lead the way. I don't disagree that Jamie was not particularly political in the first two Seasons, but by Season Two he had taken on a position of leadership—whether he wanted it or not—and it shaped him. He spent a lot of post-Culloden time not involved in any political activity while he was evading capture, but even then he'd acquired a reputation (Dunn Bonnet and Mac Duhb) amongst his countrymen as one who opposed how the English ruled. He understood that his fellow Scots had lost much of their pride and self-worth and were stripped of opportunities to rebuild—even just as families—after the English won or "put them down". All of that would also shape him—along with being looked to by many countrymen to DO SOMETHING about it. So I wasn't claiming Jamie had "gone political"—as in wanting a Papist King—which he'd never espoused before (he was tricked into openly supporting BPC). What he wanted was to improve his fellow Scot's lives. When Jamie uses the word "seditious" he is speaking of how the English see what he is doing and recognizing the seriousness of his undertaking. HE is just trying to do something about getting back what was taken from them—their self worth and basic rights. The following was gotten from googling the topic of the pamphlet mentioned so I'll spoiler it just in case. *That pamphlet he wrote—and that Roger found— He was opposing a British Law and that was defacto political. The English takeover of his country was—for him—about how Scots lived their lives and what they could do (or not be allowed to do) to better themselves. Not about who was King. To me, that is a political cause because it challenged the decisions the English made that impacted Scots. In Jamie's time there was no concept of ordinary people being allowed a say over their lives, nor the right to try to change unfair laws. * I looked up this issue after the episode it appeared in. So that is information from outside of the show. However, we were told during the show—by Roger—that given the timeline they had worked out back in Scotland Jamie must have written it the year before Roger came to tell Claire about it. It tells us what kind of "sedition" Jamie was engaged in.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I thought he'd answered that this episode. He is still engaged with fighting the British takeover of his country. They took away his weapons but he found a different one in the form of the printing press. I hope we get to see how he acquired both the business and the skill. I wonder if Mr. Willoughby might be a link to this? Pretty sure China had printing methods long before Europeans did. And I'm equally sure that the basic methods weren't that different until machinery was introduced into the process.

My first thought was something Jamie says after one of their lovemaking sessions this episode. Something about Claire giving him a child—one who is alive and safe—and because of her (the child) they both will live forever. Jamie has his (papist) faith and he believes in a duty to continue his father and mother's line. For him? That is thinking about the future. I thought—when Jamie said the above—that he was signalling that he had unfinished business—pressing unfinished business—that he could not leave. He knew he needed to keep Claire safe and that if she remained in Scotland she would not be safe. He also knew where she would be safe—Where she came from. But he had a duty to all the men who joined the rebellion and would not save himself and leave them to die–especially given he KNEW they would not win and most would be massacred. This was a dept of honour to him. The other was that he hoped he'd find and kill BJR in that battle. A dept he owed himself. He could not walk away from those imperatives. In his mind he would not be able to protect Claire after Culloden—he believed he'd die at Culloden but (hopefully) not until he'd fulfilled his duties. It wasn't the choice he wanted to make. Just the only one he had left. He had no space in his mind to be curious about the future. What kind of future would it be for him if he arrived there a coward and oath-breaker—not only to others, but to himself? What kind of father would he make with that on his conscience? Of course he was insistent that he could not go through the stones with her. I don't think he knew whether or not he could go through the stones. Keep in mind I subscribe to the idea that his spirit was freed on that night in Inverness when Claire happened to be there, rather than the idea that he time travelled. Heh, heh—time will tell. But as I ponder what it would be like for Jamie to be plunked into Claire's world I don't see it being viable for him. He would not know any of the history that occurred between the time-he-came-from and the time-he-arrived-in—or the complete change in lifestyle (think Claire being unable to cook using a gas range!). But everyone else would. He'd be dependant on Claire completely—an almost childlike dependency. He'd feel stupid and useless. She'd be the breadwinner and the protector. Everything we know now is an accumulation of knowledge, not an info dump. He wouldn't even speak the same language as other Scots in the 20th century much less English or French which had changed a great deal over 200 centuries. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I wondered about that too, but it could be that he is not "married" yet but contracted to marry someone? For whatever reason. But if it's not for love then it's for money, or connections... or under threat? If Jamie had "promised" himself to a woman for some reason (can't see it being completely voluntary) he could be sued for breach of promise which would definitely require the services of Ned Gowan! When I googled this legality I learned that Britain didn't take away the right to sue for breach of promise until 1970! 😲 Thanks for raising this because that explains the two drunken-cohorts we met in the printshop backroom. They were tied in with young Ian (he told them they could stay the night at the printshop when they were turfed from their boarding house)—so they likely come from Lallybroch—and they call him Mac Dubh which indicates they known him from the rebellion where he earned that name. Ergo, they must be from the men that Jamie saved by sending them home from Culloden. What do you think @gingerella? I don't actually think it was super cheesy but I feel too much like an involuntary voyeur in these scenes to want to sit through long detailed ones. Give them some privacy! I say. They haven't been together for 20 years!!! ^^ THIS bit!^^. I really appreciated it. 😁

I liked that they showed us the reunion from Jamie's view. And I liked that they showed us a certain level of uncertainty and wariness. They have lived 2 decades of life without each other. There are bound to be things about each of them that the other doesn't know nor would have imagined. (Not that they showed much of that but perhaps later?) Things I liked: I did laugh at Jamie brushing off Claire become a surgeon with “you've always been that, but now you have the title.” He might be shocked at what surgeons do in the 20th century—not the rudimentary blood and guts he would be familiar with. Another new character in the form of Geordie who looks like he's always smelling something sour. Goiter, you say? Wonder if Claire can fix that? (I mean that seriously. I know nothing of goiter except that it is thyroid related.) Still. I think I might like this strange fellow. Had another chuckle at Jamie's reaction to Brianna's name—until he understood it was his father's name made to fit a girl. Then, being Jamie, he has to tell Claire that he sired a son. Not telling would be a sin of omission and he couldn't do that. I noticed, however, that he said he hadn't told anyone before her—which was true—but two other people know even though he didn't tell them. He's also kept his son's status from her and I can't believe it won't come back to bite him at some point. It definitely looks like Jamie is living on the edge still. Printing and distributing seditious material instead of leading armies. At least there are laws that can protect him a bit now. Apparently there is a concept “proof” that didn't exist in the highlands—at least not for the British soldiers charged with “keeping the peace” out there. But smuggling whiskey and the like? A bit more dodgy and dangerous I'll wager. And he's engaged with shady characters as well. i.e. The pompous guy in the wine cellar. Looks like his article—the one Roger showed Claire to prove that Jamie was still alive—didn't change the laws against distilling whiskey. Heh, heh. As if he thought it would! But Fergus!!!!! New!Fergus. And as charming as the old Fergus. Loved that reunion. But what was with that brief exchange between him and Jamie as they head into the tavern to deal with Mr. Willoughby? This one: Fergus: Is milady staying? - With you? Jamie: Oh, I dinna ken yet. Hope so. Fergus: What about...? Jamie: Aye. Aye, I havena had time to think it through. With Claire back, I'm... I'm not sure it's even a concern. I need to consult Ned Gowan, have him advise me on the law. Seems mighty suspicious to me. Wonder if the brothel owner is the subject of this interaction? It relates to Claire being back so that is a possibility. I'm looking forward to seeing Ned Gowan again (or hoping to see him) and also to see more of Mr. Willoughby. What's with Jamie's facility with languages? I know some people have a knack with picking up languages, but he's a whiz kid at it. And Claire too! It was nice that Claire and Jamie spent the time needed to fill in as much of their lives as they could in one night, but I found this part of the show dragged. I would have appreciated a voice over like they gave for Claire telling Frank about her 3 years in the past and Jamie telling Murtagh about Claire. I, personally, didn't need proof that they were still capable of long, drawn-out love making sessions. Just me? Oh well. Garçon! Table for one. Happy to have young Ian join the known characters. Last time we saw him? His mother claimed he'd died in childbirth to keep the newest set of Redcoats from finding Jamie. And I noted—when I replayed the beginning sequence—that his name was dropped when Jamie spoke with the drunkards-come-cohorts in his back of shop living quarters. They mentioned that “young Ian” had said they could sleep there last night because they'd lost their beds at the boarding house (either from lack of payment or drunkenness I'll wager.) And finally... You know you are back in Scotland when there's a nasty character threatening Claire within less than a day.

I did notice that Claire looked older in 1968 than she did in 1766. In the 1960s there was an article about Jane Fonda that declared women as old as 30 could now be considered sexy! Yet, that look still comes across as older looking than less heavily made up women. So Claire would have looked younger even in 1968/69 if she stopped wearing that makeup! But, a google search of life expectancies for men and women in the 1700s gives men an average lifespan of 49.4 years (average explains those who lived much longer). It was harder to find similar info for Scottish women but— given the hard life and lack of effective medical care—I would have to assume women's average life span was even shorter. Claire had just spent 20 years in an era with ever-improving medical treatments, so I don't doubt that she looked a lot younger than people in the 1700s. I tend to agree that was part of what was being conveyed. He even said so. That and the fact that the women around him would have looked so much older at her age. 😆

Looks like an amethyst to me? (the light was better on screen. This is a little dark.)

Exceedingly glad to be back out from behind the looking glass. Time is back to progressing at it's normal pace. We get very little of Jamie but that's fine because we get enough to keep us up to date since he left Helwater. But when they rushed through Claire's life experiences the last couple of episodes I ended up being annoyed with her. No. Make that with the story tellers. There has got to be a better way to deal with long-but-non-plot-related passages of time . (OK. I'll quit carping about that. This is a new, improved episode we are dealing with now.) I like that it is set just a short time after Claire and Brianna returned from Inverness—or within the same year at least. And that Roger arriving with the news that Jamie is alive—and working as a printer in Edinburgh—sets off the important (as well as trivial) issues that are addressed in this show. Good on you, Roger, for risking the trip. You're right up there with Murtagh in my books right now. (Please, show, bring Murtagh back!) I loved that Claire worried about how she looked and if she would still be attractive to Jamie. (Even if that falls under my idea of trivial issues.) At the start, I'd thought the show had gotten rid of the grey in her hair—that was so prominent at Rev Wakefield's funeral—because I couldn't see it, but then we got a scene where Claire exposed it by taking out the clip and then dyed it! (What is she going to use in 1765? Bootblack?) Under the heading of important issues: Brianna's difficulty processing the information about her real father that she had been dumped with in a very short space of time—and the concerned History Professor who had unwittingly fuelled Brianna's newly skeptical view of written history and further de-stabilized her world. But, perhaps my favourite scene with respect to Brianna, was the tour she gave Roger of the Robinson Cloisters. He was all about the history the walls had been party to while Brianna was all about the architecture and the physics and the math that go into creating it. She did not get that from Frank! But we also saw her torn between her love for Frank based on her lived experience of him and the reality of his relationship with her mother—and not being her biological father. This scene showed me that Brianna took history because of Frank—despite her more mechanical inclinations (which we first saw when she fixed the car problem in Scotland). My next favourite scene was between Brianna and Claire. Brianna expressed the very real confusion between her place in her own life before knowing about Jamie and what her place is now that she does know. Did Frank not really love her?—because she looked like his rival? Did Claire not love her because Brianna was the reason she had to leave Jamie? Those fears needed to be addressed and I am satisfied with how they handled that. (Even at twenty, there is still a small child in all of us.) I also appreciated using the first moon orbit (Apollo 8) as a touchstone for Claire to view her own travel to another world and back. You can not be unchanged! Nicely done! And along the same lines, I appreciated the time given to Professor Sandy Travers to tell Claire the effect she had on Sandy's own great love story—just as Claire was given the opportunity to re-join her own. I hope Claire experienced just a little of Jamie's trademark empathy when/if she thought about Sandy after that. Also interesting was the difference between how Sandy Travers viewed Frank—he would have hated all the fuss—and Claire's—he would have quite enjoyed it. I don't see one being wrong and one right. It just shows the difference in their experience of him. Sandy's research subject sounded very contemporary for 1968—the effect of Colonial english on autochthonous languages—AKA indigenous languages. Frank had reason to be proud of her. She was no bimbo. Other stuff: We finally know what happened to Claire's watch—the jewelled watch—that Claire was wearing when she first went through the stones. And to the gem in Jamie's father's ring as well. (Two more milk-carton-search campaigns wrapped up successfully!) The depth of the friendship between Claire and Joe—even if we don't know how it came to be formed. Still to learn? Why Joe calls Claire “Lady Jane”? The mystery of the skeleton of the white woman murdered in a cave in the Caribbean. And will I remember this episode when it becomes relevant again? The lovely, precise timing of the sounds of Claire's sewing <snip, scissors drop> with the beginning instrumental lines of the Batman theme. The echo of Jamie's plan for keeping his loved ones safe after Culloden in Claire's plan for Brianna after she returns to Jamie through the stones. Deed to house? - check. Bank Accounts? - check. Resignation? - check. Appropriate clothes? - check. (It's almost as if they took my advice from the preceding episodes. 😉 The gift of Jamie's mother's pearls to Brianna as the final touch of the plan. In case they never see each other again. The callback to a step initiated in the present ending in a landing in the past just like in Season Two. (first one being a plane to a boat, second from a taxi into a puddle to a horse drawn coach into another puddle!) And lastly? If somebody's got to faint from surprise? I'm glad they switched the trope about and made it Jamie. Sent me off from this episode with a chuckle.

Even though I am one who is not as taken with Jamie and Claire's love story as you folks—I can't say Jamie should sympathize with Geneva. But what makes him Jamie; what made him so special to Claire; is that he is someone who can and does find it within himself to feel empathy. Not so much sympathy—empathy. He can imagine how others might feel. It was one of his main personality traits that won Claire over. When his did something that was perfectly normal in his world and she got really angry and upset with him, he worked through it by using his empathy and found the way to let her know he understood and would make changes. He wasn't doing it just for her. It was Jamie being Jamie. We've seen him do it for others—like John Grey—and we've seen John go from hating him to being his BFF. This quality is rare and totally unusual in any one, but it's what makes Jamie compelling. He always tries to do the right thing.

But in this case—when I was looking for any sign of Jamie overhearing Lady Dunsany and friend discussing how Willie is beginning to look like Jamie—I also rewatched that scene and Jamie did have stirrups riding out with Geneva. (continuity error?) I also found what I was looking for: Jamie gave Lady Dunsany a "look" after her comment and when he had Willie inside the coach helping him wipe the windows he took a long look at the boy and then at his own reflection. Next scene he tells Willie that he is going home. Willie is still dressed in the same clothes he'd been riding and cleaning in. I didn't think Jamie could hear Lady Dunsany—who was deliberately speaking sotto voce. But the clues were present (the two of them)—following on the heels of each other. Cause>effect. Jamie asked John Grey to watch over Willie for him before he knew John was going to marry Isobel. That was why he offered his body in payment. This was also when John Grey confirmed that he 1) knew that Jamie was leaving, and 2) that he knew he had to leave because—although everyone has secrets—Jamie's was walking around for everyone to see. John said he had seen it already in the way Willie cocked his head and set his shoulders. I was caught off guard because far from the resemblance being repeated often, it was just Lady Dunsany noticing it the made up Jamie's mind and I didn't see his "look" because I was focused on the boy. John Grey's comment was just confirmation. That's my story anyway. 😉 And just for you, @gingerella, the translation of what Jamie said to Willie after he'd called him a wee bastard and then apologized was: Don’t cry, my lad. It’ll be quite (i.e. all) right. (from the same site I told you of before).

I've had time to read through the prior discussions and there were some replies relevant to your point, so I'm posting them to save myself trying to say it better (not possible me thinks). This exchange gave me a new perspective on that scene. Good Point! I briefly reviewed the 1st episode where we see this spirit (I was searching for dates, heh, heh.) So, I got reminded that this was the time of Samhain (which was described as the origin of Halloween), and the lady who owned the place where Frank and Claire stayed said they would be welcomed at the Festival—but warned that this was a time when spirits were "freed" and wander about doing good or ill as they please. So I think you've hit the nail on the head. It would be just like Jamie to do neither good nor ill, but to stand there—transfixed by Claire in the window. (And plodding old pedant Frank was totally sensitive to the vibe spirit-Jamie was sending out!) Yeah. That was my main complaint about this Episode (and last one too, I guess). Just feels unbalanced. I can understand why they might have done it, but I still don't like it. "Stinking Papist". Loved that little interaction—not least because it illustrated how a child parrots the words he's heard without any idea of the meaning. The rest of the scene was equally fine. Passing on a family tradition—carving a snake for his young never-to-be-acknowledged-son the way his beloved bother carved one for him. This was just one of many scenes in Jamie's era that added to his character. I can't remember anything like that for Claire this episode. I agree with you about it being heartbreaking, and about the 1st two children, but what is it that "forced" him to leave Willie? Just that he couldn't be his father in name? He was certainly being a father by his actions. And all I got from the show was that he decided it was time to go home—knowing full well that he was leaving Willie without expectation of seeing him again. That's choice in my books, not being forced. He could have said he's leaving temporarily—just to check in on his family—but as far as we know there is nothing to keep him from staying near Willie. I suspect all will be revealed—at some point. Both Jamie and Claire make the decision to "go home" without any recognizable reason being given. (well, Claire had Mrs. Graham's warning to not spend her life chasing ghosts, but it was both abrupt and arbitrary—as was Jamie's decision.) I expect a bit more complexity from this show. Do we know who gave Roger the plane? Rev Wakefield? And does the above mean the snake is a symbol of the connection between Jamie and Willie and may—in his future—bring back the fond memories for Willie the way the plane did for Roger?