SassAndSnacks

I sincerely feel that there should be an Ian(s) (both Young and otherwise) and Murtaugh spinoff. I know Sam and Graham did the whole Men in Kilts thing, but it's these 3 that I really love. And I agree, I absolutely LOVE the homesteading bits. I want so much more of that. I would watch hours of Ian and Murtaugh distilling liquor. This was completely brutal. I have always appreciated how this show doesn't shy away from things - miscarriage, ptsd, etc. Each rape is different, and I appreciate that, too. But, there's something extra horrific about this one, and it makes me so sad. I don't often care for this actress and her delivery, but I thought she nailed this. Me too. I was so disappointed upon my first watch and have felt even less moved with each subsequent viewing. There's something missing. I don't even care about the pissing (I like to think that Claire developed some early hand-sanitizer and Jamie quickly used it before he turned around and then lovingly touched his daughter's face...LET ME BELIEVE IT!). Her putting her hand on him as he tried to walk away from her really bothers me. It's like the script says "Brianna puts her hand on Jamie's shoulder to stop him" and so that's what they did. It feels forced and very intentioned. I think the ages of the actors makes it hard too. They look too close in age, even though Jamie should be 26 years older than Bri.

YESSSSSSSS!!!!! I'm willing to hand wave A LOT of things with this show, and I have to just to make it through sometimes, but this one...c'mon. Really appreciate your analysis in the two comments above. In reading it, it helped me fully understand by feelings for Brianna in this situation. I also think her youth played a part - young 20s, you're invincible, right. You can do anything. I did things in my 20s that I find to be so foolish now. Even though Claire was only slightly older than Bri when she first came through the stones, she had a lot more life experience and knew boundaries more (as much as Claire can know boundaries, that is).

I second this!! Hear hear!! YES! Them shacking up in a smithy in broad daylight and then into the night made zero sense. Was no one working? Was it Murtaugh's place and since he was out rebel-rousing he wasn't around to break up the love nest? I'd also like to add that George Washington should always be played by Ian Kahn from Turn. There should be an index somewhere that outlines which historical/literary figures can only be played by specific actors. This Washington is wrong, and I won't stand for it. This is interesting. Were Healers more respected than surgeons at the time?

Absolutely, yes. I've never met a carb I didn't like.

Confession - This is my least favorite episode of the entire Outlander canon. I never rewatch this one. Disclaimer - My comments here are completely objective and most likely of the "unpopular opinion" type. Love that you caught on to this and that you framed it in the way you did. I maintain that he isn't. Yes, girl, yes. I refuse to participate in the Frank redemption arc. I just won't do it. Reading these words is like listening to my favorite song on the radio, whilst in the car, breezing down the interstate with the windows down. Bliss. All of this. Brianna was absolving herself for looking for Jamie. Random Things I Hate About This Episode: - Brianna - Frank - Brianna and Frank's relationship - Brianna, a former history major and daughter of a history professor, traveling back in time so woefully underdressed and under-equipped. - Roger, a history professor, traveling back in time so woefully underdressed and under-equipped. WTF is up with the shpants, Rog? - Stephen Bonnet - Diseased ships and being captive at sea - The return of the Hosebeast - Piss-poor storytelling excuses for not being able to secure Laura Donnelly to return as Jenny Murray for this episode - The casting for the Lizzie Wemyss character - The glossing over of time-travel Random Things I Liked About this Episode: - Ian Murray, Sr. - Joanie - Brianna fixing the kitchen cabinet - Brianna wearing Claire's gorgeous green coat from Season I (but seriously, how many trunks of clothes did she have at Lallybroch? She already took one with her on the Artemis and Marsali apparently altered several of the garments before Claire came back through the stones). - PBJ Being Completely Honest: As a book reader first, I mostly don't like this episode because it is completely off-book, and the "Brianna goes to Lallybroch" section of Book 4 is a huge highlight in the story. Show didn't do it justice. And now I will go petulantly to the corner.

Me too! This warmed my heart. Love me some Clairtaugh. I noticed it with this episode especially. I chalked it up to him being feverish and sick. I actually really feel for Claire here (I know, I'm a Claire fangirl, but still). Twenty years is impossible to get back. And then to make it worse, Jamie went through some really terrible things without her, and no matter how much he talks about what happened with her (off screen, apparently), she wasn't there through it with him. For a good chunk of those years, John was. I think it would be difficult to not have some pangs of jealously where John is concerned. He knows a facet of Jamie's life that she never will, and it just so happens that those years produced his son (and yes, I still freaking hate that he has a son...but I digress...) I also think the jolt was due to Claire knowing what happened to Jamie in Wentworth. John doesn't know about BJR, and so he couldn't truly have known the gravity of the situation when Jamie offered himself for Willie's care. That statement had to have been shocking to Claire on two fronts - bringing up Jamie's torture and recovery and then his desperation of even making an offer like that to John. Yes, a not so slick plot device to get Jamie to "confess" that Willie is his son.

When he popped on the screen, I thought of you and your reaction. As a farm kid, this urked me. You don't give the good stuff to the pigs, which will happily eat just about anything. Further, I would imagine any good homesteader would have used those "scraps" (which didn't look too scrap-ish) to make stew or broth or something else edible for the people. As for the slop bucket, my grandparents definitely had one and it sat by the sink. When you would take your plate to the sink after your meal, you would scrape the remnant produce into the bucket. At the end of the day, the bucket would be dumped into the pig trough.

Ah, me too. Why can't we see more of this? I want to see the cabin being built and them breaking all of that virgin ground for crops (the work of that!). Jamie making a table, a bed frame, laying stone for and blessing the hearth...sigh. I like to think that Auntie Jo sent some first-world provisions to the Back Country. She wouldna want them to rough it too much, ya ken? Jamie is a man of worth. Sounds like a perfectly practical, reasonable request. Perhaps Ian does a lot of hanging out with JQM? Between your britches and backing her up against a tree comment last week and now this one, I'm seeing you in a whole new light. Day-um! I feel like I need a drink and I didn't even see anything (or do anything dammit!). Can we talk about Murts for a second? The colonial air clearly agrees with him. He turned around from that forge like a freaking boss. His joy over Jamie's joy made my heart so happy, and let's be honest we could all use some of that these days. Finally, I wasn't a fan of the Get In My Pantaloons Jamie Fraser Silversmith Wife subplot. We get it, JAMMF is a HAMF. He's a fine looking "45" year old. The whole context of that just seemed to be so pointless. How about skip that and show me more cabin building?!

I really like this one, mostly because I could watch Jamie, Claire, and Ian build a home all day. Like, in person. I want to sit there and watch them split logs and clear trees in person and just hang out with them. Anywaaaayyyyy... Me too! I enjoyed the interactions. And it was so interesting watching them make a home and how they did it. It was my interpretation that they were staking the perimeter of the treaty line with the Cherokee? Didn't Gov. Tryon give Jamie land adjacent to the treaty line? I caught just a quick peak at the map. Also, Claire's breeches = A+. They did not get enough attention in this episode.

I'm a little behind on the forum thanks to a few tumultuous weeks, so I won't weigh in on all of the things mentioned so far. Two things that did bug me about this one - 1. Why was Roger selected to call Clan MacKenzie at the Gathering? Yeah, he's truly Scottish, but it makes no sense otherwise. He isn't American, and this is a heritage festival for Americans. Surely there were other MacKenzies? 2. I think this was mentioned. Why were there no Frasers? I feel like there were a few continuity errors in this one. Overall, I enjoyed the segues from past to present. Lovely.

Agree 100%. I think that is troubling, though. As a history enthusiast, it irks me we when we apply modern social norms to historical situations. In doing that, I think we miss out on the context and the true lesson to be learned from it. But I'll step down from my soapbox now... I didn't like this choice from Show. I think it would have been much more powerful to have swapped it - Jamie absolutely cannot own slaves because of everything he's been through, everything he knows from Claire, and knowing that owning people is flat-out wrong. Instead they made it seem almost juvenile. "Welp! Let's try to make these slaves lives better!" It feels shallow. Perfect point. I feel like the characters are actually characters now, whereas before they were believable in their faults and their intentions.

Agree. Perhaps this is strange or even wrong, but I think it is important to see it so that we don't forget previous mistakes and have a deeper appreciation for sentiments that exist today. We still have a long way to go. I don't like the sanitization of history, no matter how hard it is to watch. I'm so glad you brought this up, because it has always fascinated me. Basically, I think that in Phaedre's case, she was born in NC at River Run, and so she would have picked up the Scottish of the Camerons. Rufus was born in Africa, so he carried an accent. In general, I think that colonists carried their home accents with them and then as immigrants from different countries mingled together, the language and accent changed. Southern accents, though, are so distinct, and yes...where did that come from? Let's do a research project! I think this is correct, and she has been openly critical of some episodes and/or various plot adaptations. This is a really important consideration. Something to note too, many Scottish colonists did not join the other colonists in rebelling from Britain during the Revolution. Many were Loyalists - they had already lost one war against Britain, causing them to lose everything including their homeland. They weren't about to go down that path again. Claire and Jamie know the Revolution is coming, and she cautioned him about choosing the right side in the last episode. I really try not to bring up book content (though it seems like I've been doing it a lot lately), but the show missed an important opportunity to further develop Jamie's character. It in the book, he gives this brilliant speech about why he could never own slaves...because he has been enslaved himself. It's a very moving scene. Claire is adamant that they cannot take over River Run and she is panicking a bit because she simply cannot be a slaveholder. It is flat-out wrong for them to do. She can't own people. Jamie allays her fears and is basically like, well duh, neither can I and here's why. But it is much more emotional than that.

Wilmington, North Carolina is at the base of the Cape Fear River. Me too! I think you hit what’s missing right on the head, and that’s why the first season was so strong. Claire was trying to figure out her place in the past and how she got there, as well as the differences between past and present. We’ve lost that thread, aside from some throw-away lines here and there. Which is why you may enjoy the books more (not to keep harping on it) because the time travel aspect is a stronger theme running through them. I’m also a little critical of the writing in this episode. It seemed a bit disjointed or clunky to me. It was a whole lot of exposition and explanation, which felt a little cheap. While I typically don’t mind Claire’s voice-overs, there seemed to be a lot in this episode, which took the place of actual scenes we should have seen.

I believe they said they were in Wilmington. I definitely recommend them with the caveat that her writing style isn’t for everyone. There is a lot of minutia, and some people don’t like what seems to be inconsequential information. I find that I miss that level detail when I read other authors now, but everyone’s mileage varies.

Yes, as far as season premieres go...yawn. Not the quality we're used to. I don't follow this type of thing like the die-hard die-hards, but I think Ron Moore stopped being the main show runner this season, and you could tell that here. Think back to Jamie gasping on a battlefield or Claire running from the stones in a panic, this doesn't even come close to that. I'm going to defend her. I'm not saying she doesn't deserve some criticism for the incessant violence in the story; however, the books are freaking enormous and so much content in them gets cut out in the show. There's a lot more time in the books for the story to breathe, and there is A LOT more joy and humor mixed in with the sadness and misery. Plot points like the Bonnet attack don't come out and slap you in the face as much in the books. Aaaaannnnnddd, you don't have Ray Charles singing over it either. Yes, and I love it! Bring it! Give me liberty, or give me death Outlander style. I. Am. Here. For. This. Now. Me too, for all of the reasons you stated. I do also appreciate how she is always trying to provide Jamie with context, because how could you possibly envision or believe what she is telling you about the future? Me too. Even though they were with other people, the real marriage and partnership in their lives remained with each other. Honestly, he makes the show for me now. He steals every scene. Love his character in the book, and this actor so convincingly brings Young Ian to life. I want more. Can he have a spin off? Other Things I liked - - Jamie's description of the Regulators. A group never covered in American history, and their contributions to our freedom were so important. Plus, as someone who's formative years were in the 90's, when Claire asks, "Who are the Regulators?" My immediate thought is "Well, Warren G of course." Reeeeeggguuuuuuulatorrrrrrs, mount up! - "Bees with honey in their mouths, have stingers in their tails." Words to freaking live by. -

Thought of you upon my rewatch of this one. There is also a mirror scene with Claire in the coach bustling to Rose Hall to find/save Young Ian. This is similar to the scene in Season II where she is racing to Bois de Boulogne to stop Jamie's duel. That's actually my favorite part of the entire episode. Which I guess says how weak I feel this season FINALE (ya know, usually the episode in a series that is typically very strong and keeps people wanting more so they tune in next season) really was. Show did a very bad job at explaining this plot point. In the full story, Jamie is desperate to know where they landed because he is uncertain if he can give his real name. When he finds out they are in Georgia, he is able to say that he is Jamie Fraser, not Alexander Malcolm or Alexander MacKenzie or Jamie Roy or Mac Dubh or any of his other aliases. In America, he can safely be Jamie Fraser and not live in fear of a price on his head or the uncertainty of a pardon. His name is so important to him and he can be Jamie Fraser again. I think this is a really good observation. I feel like the show lost its point of view and forgot what story they were telling us in Season 3. The first half, the Scotland part anyway, was so strong, and then we had this great reunion, and then it really sputtered. There was so much filler - Claire doing a lobotomy, Claire traipsing around a desert isle, the whole plague ship - that I'm sure I could have lived without. Trust me, as an ardent book reader, there is A LOT of content and not all of it is good (see list immediately preceding), but there is a firm weave on the narrative throughout. The show has typically done a good job of narrowing things and focusing points that contribute to the larger story, but they really lost it here. Agree, and it is so disappointing to me. Overall, I love that they are in America now, but I'm not a fan of the route they took to get there.

Re-watching has given me such a fresh perspective. I feel like I dislike the past 4 episodes more than I dislike the Paris episodes. These last few just seem so chaotic and thrown together. Apparently, I had repressed that knowledge.

There are several contraception conversations throughout the books, and they ARE fascinating. I never got the "mother" vibe from Geillis. I've felt the baby was a device to hold onto Dougal, and not even in a romantic way, but more of a way of keeping him close for the sake of the uprising and the advantages to her situation that he could bring. Yes!

As I said, getting to the end involves a lot of stupidity. A freaking lot of stupidity. Who the F are these people? These are not my loves from Seasons 1, 2 and early 3. Highlanders of the Caribbean is no fun. Ugh, you sadly raise some very strong points. Fash, Claire. You should definitely fash. I think I timed it once, and she spends a full quarter of the episode traipsing around the island. I get it already. It's hot and desolate and she's stranded. That time could have been much better spent telling us something else. I don't know...maybe we could have witnessed the terrible storm that just happened to wash Jamie and Co. to the EXACT same island. I think I said that Creme de Menthe is the weakest of the season and the series as a whole. Was I wrong? Is it this one? LOVE this observation and commentary. They are doing my girl a serious disservice. Very first episode, they set the tone with her being resourceful, using what is on hand, adapting to situations, etc. And now that woman is gone? Is she too far removed now from her upbringing and war years to call back on those skills? Were the 60s too cushy for her? Agree. The Fergus/Marsali wedding could have been given more time, as well as the Jamie/Claire reunion. I didn't feel invested in either, which is contrary to how I've felt about their other reunions and other weddings that have occurred on the show. When Jamie told Father Fogden that Fergus' last name was Fraser, I was kind like "meh."

They didn’t become producers until Season 5. Slip that into your back pocket for later. Otherwise, yes to all of the things you all are mentioning. To be fair to the show, this source material is also rather WTF-esque at this point. Also, I figured Mr. Pound was a goner the minute he licked his finger.

I agree with you to a point. A person can seemingly have it all - the job, the family, the friends and connections, the house, etc. - and still feel wrong or as though they are living half a life. While she wasn’t living in a cave, or prison, or in constant danger, Claire never did fully devote herself to her life in Boston or fully feel the joy that should have come from it. Her pain was her pain, and I’m glad she had least made a point to tell him that it wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops. And my point above is why this line bothers me and I feel it doesn’t fit in the context of the story. The show makes a point of showing us that Claire wasn’t entirely present in her Boston life. Joe and Bri both say it outright, and we see it for ourselves in her interactions with Frank and her less vibrant personality. I understand that she would have SOME doubts in going back to Jamie, but for her vocalize it like that and in those terms feels wrong to me.

Sorry! I’m on vacation! And I hate responding to posts on my phone because I’m a bad phone typer. I will say this - I’m not a fan of Highlanders of the Caribbean. I approve of the outcome but the getting there is stupid.

I wonder if she felt it was distasteful for Jamie. The Jamie she knows wouldn't have done that, but this Jamie...who is this Jamie? She's trying to figure that out at that point. Oh, wow...interesting. To me, it's almost as though Claire is of the mind that Frank didn't want to hear the gritty details about Jamie, Jamie likely wouldn't want to go there about Frank. It reminds me of what Jamie said to her when they parted just before Culloden, about her telling Frank whatever she wanted about him (Jamie) but that he (Frank) probably wouldn't want to hear it. But yeah, she's leaving out some very important details about how shitty Frank was to her. Just want to take a moment to point out that similar to what @Cdh20 told you about the lines you love the most coming directly from the books, the lines you hate the most are not in the books. Period. Glean from that what you will. Agree, and I think more should have been made of this. She was out there with him rallying troops and raising a militia. She treated rebel soldiers. She was on the scene of a suspicious death of a notable Duke. She leaves a wake, this one does. She was just as notorious. She would have captured and imprisoned, and who knows what would have happened to the baby. YESSSSSSS!!!! Though, to be fair, it's not as though Jamie could look for her. Or did he.... Yay!!! Join my club, please!!! We can order jackets!!! I HATE THAT ENTIRE SUBPLOT. Well, when you put it THAT way... I agree with you on all fronts. This episode stands out to me because of the fantastic dialogue during their fight after Hosie and littles show up. However, you are touching on all of the frustrations that just don't make sense. The justification to Jenny and Fam and to each other was right there, and they didn't say it.

Ok, ok. Making rational points again... I see your point, and I'm stifling my Jenny rage for a minute. Thank you! I DO actually like this episode. It frustrates me, yes, but I most appreciate that the big secret is out in the open, and I love me a good J&C argument. Plus, it has Ian, and I love Ian so much. I would watch an entire series that featured this character making wise quips to people. What I don't appreciate are all of the silly plot points, which ok, that's DG's fault, but the show somehow managed to make these even sillier. Yes, I had also forgotten, mostly because I try not ever think about her or this subplot, that Laoghaire was running fast and loose with some clansmen before she started to make a move on Jamie, thus the beating he took for her. In modern times, I don't care about that, in 1743, not a good look, methinks. I absolutely agree with this. If we hadn't already seen the things she's done - the love spell, the witch trial, muttering under her breath after he thanked her, setting her girls upon him - I might be a little more sympathetic to her and understanding of his decision. We have to suspend disbelief often as Outlander viewers, but for me, this is one point that I struggle to wrap my brain around.

Sadly, no. The Hosebeast is no joke. Blech. YESSSSSSS!!!!!!! There are sooooo many Jenny fans, and I am not among them. I can understand her being miffed at Claire never communicating with them from Boston TO A POINT. And maybe Claire could have soothed that by explaining herself more, ie - THIS and THIS. Again, people are not communicating here! I also get annoyed that Claire just stands there and continues to take shit from Jamie about leaving ("You left me!") and then Jenny ("Family writes a letter.") and then doesn't defend herself. She did nothing wrong in regards to leaving and then coming back to find Jamie, and yet she is the one faced with the finger-pointing and blame. YES!! I have formally incorporated this line into my daily lexicon. Reason #57 that I'm no Jenny fan. (Please refer to the initial statement above.) Yes, this was actually gag worthy. I have friends who have close, loving relationship with their stepdads, who have raised them from a young age, and they still do not refer to them as 'Daddy." Fergus, for example, does not refer to Jamie in any title connotating a paternal relationship and Jamie IS his adopted father. To be honest, no I have no sympathy or empathy for Leery so I cannot relate to her at all. Not.one iota. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Null. The empty set. Me neither, and maybe that makes me a cruel, unempathetic person, but so be it. Oooh, yes. I'm ashamed to admit that sometimes I forget about this. Diana gave us the clues to this relationship all along. Had Murtagh been around, he would have countered Jenny and this wouldn't have happened. I think had he gotten the chance to go past that second sentence, Claire would have been pissed and a little hurt, but she would have understood. He didn't get that chance and all she got was "Daddy" and being called a huir by the Hosebeast. I've always felt that having a little girl with red hair come into the room was the real blow here. The red hair and the "Daddy" had to have evoked so many emotions in her - Faith and Brianna never knowing their father, Jamie never raising them, picturing Brianna as a young girl with red hair and not saying "Daddy" to Jamie. That was the real gut check. Then, Hosebeast storms in with insults flaring, it was a lot to process immediately. Had it come calmly, as the William reveal did, I think Claire would have digested it all much better. But was it a lie by omission? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think it is a little gray. Claire certainly felt that he lied. And I know she gave him an out several times, but this is a pretty big deal. He should have forced the story with her, whether she had given him the out or not. PFTTT!!!! I just spat coffee all over my screen. BEST JENNY SYNOPSIS EVER. Agree. None of the ladies - Hosie, Claire, or Jenny came out of this one looking great. And Jamie, wow...really not great. All hail Ian Murray, Sr. - the victor of Outlander characters!!