Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

fishpan

Member
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

Reputation

37 Excellent
  1. Exactly! I know that when Claire turned up in the 1948 it was a time when something like that was harder to imagine or voice, but considering the nature of her disappearance, her state, her story and more importantly her dress to have no-one say that kidnapping and being held hostage by a complete nut job was not a possibility? If they had played it that they don't want to voice it and stick to the idea that Claire ran off with someone because it down plays their guilt about not looking hard enough for her fine in the face of that possibility then fine but it was never even really worked through in 1948, unless I missed swathes of story. But then when Bree finds out in 1968 and not to have her even consider something like that when her mother starts going on about time travel in the face of the other facts? Just because Bree was upset, is very strange. As having Bree take a breath, listening and then entertaining that Claire may have been held against her will and then suffered Stockholm syndrome makes a lot of sense, especially in the face of the time travel story and how Bree said Claire lived in another world and why her parents marriage was the way it was. It's a lot better than Bree going on about Claire having delusions. Now, I know they were playing the idea that Roger was pulling the idea at that point that Jamie and time travel was a story that Claire 'believed' but come out, say it at some point and not have the only way the idea is played with is a sketch of Jamie on a police notice board in 1945 is kind of silly. We aren't idiots, its a show with violence and we are still watching so we can take that until they saw Gellis went through the stones that those around Claire (outside Mrs Graham) could have believed that that a possible logical explanation wasn't time travel but a mad Scot out on the moors outside Inverness who was living a life like something akin to the 18th century version of the hills have eyes.
  2. Really? Nothing to do with Jamie? I've seen a lot of people go on about Roger being pathetic. He's a character who we are seeing growing and changing in a sort of relatable way. So we will see how he goes and no he's never going to be the Indiana Jones of Inverness but has the potential to learn with bumps and scraps. But who is his comparable in the show - Jamie. Jamie is so wonderful in ways that you kind of feel that Jamie's mistakes are also the fault of the other side, in this case Roger has his part in the Great Misunderstanding because in the show he didn't open his mouth and protest his innocence to a crime he didn't know had happened. His actions at the Mohawk village, well Roger is injured in the gauntlet which is just 'pathetic' as Jamie and party go to rescue him. And he is sitting in the hut when Claire and Jamie comes for him - well he's injured, isn't fluent in the language and he's just basically killed 2 people. Escape, logistically isn't going to happen at that point. Roger doesn't jump and go straight back to Bree. He has been hit with a shower of anvils and Jamie acting like a bullying ass. Even if he was completely together, pride and distrust in the face of Jamie may have caused Roger to not want to head back with Jamie and Claire. But it is easier to say Roger is simply weak than say Roger is emotionally done at that point and Jamie isn't helping the situation in any way shape or form by channeling Dougal and Colum. Also that doesn't change the fact that Claire and Jamie left an injured man in a dangerous environment,. Now I've seen folk go on about Roger not choosing to go back straight away and that is weak - but really Claire and Jamie didn't have to leave the guy in the woods. Although we did see Roger make it to River Run on his own. A place he doesn't know if Bree will still be and where he has never been before. Also ready to face Jamie again but more able to deal with the bull headed Fraser, which in a lot of ways does take skill, especially considering for a lot of that ride Roger would have been one handed and he's riding a bloody big horse and not driving his wee Morris Minor. He isn't perfect but he's doing okay considering he's a 20th century man in an environment he never expected to find himself.
  3. I don't find him pathetic, I actually find Roger the most relatable time travelling character in the show actually because he isn't so sodding perfect and he cops it from his own and other mistakes. With Claire, well she just happened to know all the healing plants in the world before she fell through the stones and lucks out by having Dougal, a man with major influence, save her ass from Jack Randall and is completely incapable of getting herself to Inverness. What would have happened to her if she hadn't been a nurse with a sideline in herbology? Gellis is nuttier than a homicidal fruitloop. But she prepared and knew what skills she would need to survive and knows she has to get in the bed of a well connected man. Bree lucks out when she goes through by encountering Loaghaire and then is ferried and given money to travel by Ian who just takes her word who she is. If Jenny had been there in the show, well can she her going mental about who, what, where and when considering I can't mind in the show that Jamie and Claire telling her that Bree existed. Roger, sure he isn't as handy as Jamie and Murtagh but has the sense about when to push things unlike Ottertooth. Who thought he would just come back and the Mohawk would just do as they were told. But out of the two which is still alive - Roger. In the end Ottertooth came back and didn't save his people, but Roger he had the sense to not only get himself passage by himself but kept himself, Morag and wee Jemmy were alive. Because what else did you expect Roger to do? Take the ship? Claire can't save slaves in the face of a mob, but we expect Roger to take on a whole ship? Hell even Jamie couldn't take a ship by himself and found himself confined when Clarie got pressganged. Or do you want him to take on a Mohawk village who are probably guarding him more over his actions with the pyre? He had one good arm and a water bucket not a 50 calibre machine gun. Because in the end we see Roger in a bad way - which is what most likely would happen to people with little to no money and no connections and little to no skills that would be marketable in that time zone. So what he seems depressed when Claire and Jamie find him. He's not long after witnessing the horrific deaths of 2 people which he faciliated, he caused a baby to become an orphan. So what do you expect from him - to brush off what would probably be the first time he witnessed violent deaths? Especially when he was involved. Claire is allowed to have PTSD, Jamie is allowed to break at the hand of Jack Randall so isn't Roger allowed to have something similar after he helps burn someone alive? We do see him stand up to Jamie, even though he is in no fit state to do much when Jamie is being a testosterone filled bully. Hell Jamie in parts was being as bad as both his uncles in that scene and guess what it backfired - Roger didn't tuck in his tail and do what he was told and in the end he didn't piss off either. Also we see Claire and Jamie in the show abandon Roger in the middle of nowhere with a busted arm and them having little real knowledge if he has the skills to survive considering he is a history lecturer in Oxford from 200 years in the future. That's nice isn't it. No-one comes out clean in that situation and Roger may come off pathetic to you because you don't want Jamie to look bad because when you unpack things Jamie's actions with Roger cost Bree her shot on going backbecause if Jamie hadn't beaten Roger then Roger and Bree would have had met at Fraser's Ridge and decided if they were to be together and even if they hadn't they had time to get Bree back to the 20th century. But Jamie beat a man half to death without the man in question knowing why and kept quiet about it. Jamie cost Bree her shot at going home and when he found out his mistake he slut shamed her infront of her mother those actions are on Jamie, not because Roger not being a manly 18th century man.
  4. Yes I really agree and you put it so much better than I can. Part of me hopes that the show does explore that aspect because it could be an interesting side aspect because Roger does face a completely different set of issues than Claire and Bree faced, with less reason for people not to cause him harm - he doesn't have someone from that time to act as a buffer sololy on his behalf as Jamie would put Claire and Bree before Roger and Roger, unlike Claire doesn't have a real practical skill to trade to get in people's good graces apart from his singing which he loses because of how he interacts with people innocently. Yet as Jamie is Bree's father and Roger has sort of already brushed off the tactics Jamie usually uses when dealing with younger or more inexperienced men it is possible the show may take it slow in that regard. Remember when Roger replied 'What?'in the show to Jamie going on about Bree not needing a coward. Sort of a 20th century response to an 18th century male goad. Plus in the books Jamie does mention that Roger has the baggage of being descended from Dougal and Gellis, which may also cloud their dealings in the show. If anything Murtagh maybe more sympathetic to Roger than Jamie, if they don't just use him in just the regulator plot. He too came to North Carolina alone, has spent time as an indentured servant (so sort of like Roger with the Mohawk), had to build his own reputation after that, didn't have really a family until he bumped back into Jamie (who has never been without his family in North Carolina) and in a lot of ways Murtagh has spent more time with Bree than Jamie has. He's the grandpa that Bree never had and possible a better mentor for Roger than Jamie at first as he navigates all the issues he would face.
  5. I kind of think that is how things are headed. So instead of them sticking completely to what they had in the books about the hanging they may have use that. Have Roger being caught between Murtagh's regulators and Jamie's obligations to Tryon due to Jamie dismissing Roger because he doesn't think Roger is cut out for the 18th century. As for having Richard Rankin croak his way through the rest of the show, its possible. Look at Christian Bale and half the cast of Supernatural - how long have those guys been croaking through roles?
  6. I didn't take that as really slut shaming in the sense as it was he is as bad as everyone else in the show - crap at communication. Plus it is Bree who brings up virginity and the fact he's had a few women when Roger knows he doesn't have to propose to have her to consent to sex. So if I am expected to give everyone else a pass then I have to give Roger one too. Considering that alcohol, embarrassment at being rejected over trying to make a big commitment and Bree trying to paper over them needing to talk about where both of them are in the relationship by coming on to him straight after turning him down. And that scene set in 1970, not 2019 so as he doesn't push any of that BS of thinking a woman needs or desires a man's protection and doesn't turn into anything close to a stalker until he finds out she's run off into the past, well for me I have to say for Dougal and Gellis' get, well the MacKenzie's have come a long way to come even with what happened to Bree. Plus her leaving at the calling of the clans, well suppose the show it is forshadowing the show possibly doing the bit in the book when it comes to the calling in the 18th century when it Bree who leads the MacKenzie's call when Claire and Jamie see she has chosen to stay with Roger. Also another way to look at the whole mess in America between them it is probably the quickest way to show that they are in very different places and have very different support in their relationship because of the distance and cultures involved. Roger having traditional Scottish Fiona going on about him going and getting the girl and Bree having college student Gayle making googoo faces when Roger does call after their bust up. But as I said, Jamie, Claire and Bree are just as bad through their complete disregard at actually getting the need to get their communication straight. Jamie accusing Bree of lying about her rape and justifying beating a man to an inch of his life because of Lizzie when Claire told him that the rape happened after Roger left? What you screw up to the point an innocent is almost dead and justify it by blaming others? And we won't go on about the slight hesitation that Claire and co had about going after Roger when his captivity was squarely a result of Fraser actions - the Mohawk's are in upstate New York 700 miles away. Sorry you lot chased young Ian over an ocean with even less info you had about his end destination and you knew Ian was healthy physically when he got grabbed. Because mentally this is a young Ian who then sells someone into slavery and justifies it by saying the tribe are honourable and adopt people - so lets unpack that one. Ian knows what Claire and Jamie's thoughts about slavery, even so called benevolent slavery practised by Jocasta. But he sells Roger because he wants him gone and likes native americans? But at that point he thought Roger was a rapist and he sold him to people who he thinks would be honourable and sort of nice to the rapist? What? If Roger had turned out to be the rapist Ian had just sold him to people who would make them a member of their tribe - well they didn't know they were getting a man who would be a danger to their women and children because we know Ian didn't tell them. But Roger not being a rapist - well selling anyone into slavery is a dick move even if you think going native is the best thing ever. But even after the discovery of the great miscommunication Ian then to goes off and puts on the necklace he got in payment when Bree has already shown her disgust over the selling of the guy who was innocent of the crime? What? But we also Claire going off about Jamie being with Loaghaire (what did you expect you were gone for 20 years, the woman was crackers but Claire doesn't get to judge), Lord John telling Bree on her using his homosexuality to blackmail him that if he were to marry her he'd preform his husbandly duties even if she didn't like it. Jocasta trying to marry her niece off to a slimy lawyer who Bree would basically have to service even though Bree doesn't want to get married to the guy (something Bree got hence the blackmailing of the gay guy). And we also have Bree going off about Frank not being her biological father. Sorry girl you know something caused a rift between your parents and they moved to a new continent afterwards and you find a newspaper clipping stating your mother disappeared for three years, with no sight or sound of her to and then was found wandering in the middle of nowhere dressed like Laura Doon and wittering on about a battle from 200 years ago, 6 months before you were born. Well you thinking you are the result of a grand whirlwind affair should not be your first thought. Thinking your mother may have been held hostage and raped for three years by a mad man who brainwashed her and your parents trying their best afterwards may have been your first. I know 1968 was pre Patty Hearst but Bree was a college student. Basically the gender politics of everyone in Outlander are very screwed!
  7. They've played up Roger's singing in the show too much for them not to have the hanging in the show. Though I think they'll change the primary cause of it, even if he does bump into Morag and her Jem again, to make it more about the politics of regulators and militia. Then they could have Roger cop it as he tries to either prove himself or due to Jamie not having his back completely because Jamie doesn't think Roger is capable. As for the differences between Roger in the book and show - suppose they actually want to show us him growing into a badass who can cope in the 18th century while being the one hit with the biggest culture clash out of Claire, Bree and him. I say that seeing how a lot of Claire's foibles at first could be dismissed by the Mackenzies' due to the' fact she is a woman and English then because she is Jamie's wife. Bree gets a pass with her parents because she is their child. Roger should experience something different. It is in shown in part in the books as Jocasta telling him that she's leaving River Run to Jemmy instead of Bree as he is basically penniless and no-one can really vouch for him, (something no one complains to Claire about once she is married to Jamie considering everyone else has designs on Lallybroch). But Roger is a Scot, living with Scots and he can't really fight, shoot, farm, butcher meat or basically do a lot of the tasks that men in that time, men like Jamie and even Fergus would have done since a young age. Also in the books he has no idea if he killed the mohawk in the village, he supposes he did but he doesn't actually remember the details. But in the show he knows he killed Alexander and by doing so a woman also killed herself. I guess that is why in the show he is still sitting in the long house, depressed and no longer trying to save himself because those would be Roger's first kills. Even if the first was out of mercy and the second was not directly his fault it has to screw with his head more than it the killing in the book did. Though Roger becoming a minister is something I wonder if they will do. They haven't played up faith on the show as much as the books
  8. Though am waiting for when they do stick him in 18th century garb him commenting in missing proper long trousers and Jamie being confused about it.
  9. See I took Jamie getting land from Tryion in Roger's name was Jamie trying to give Roger something as restitution for the hanging and Jamie being okay with Roger going out with the astrolab was Jamie figuring that Roger would bond to his land. But as Roger said what the hell is he going to do with the land, and what he was going to do end of. Though I get the feeling that they may change the semantics about hanging comes about (dropping the grandmother thing) and make it more about Murtagh's regulators.
  10. See I took it that he meant Jamie, because Jamie when he told Roger and then started ordering him around in the show 'NOT HELPFUL'. Even if Roger had been absolutely perfect, Jamie was not being helpful. Don't get me wrong, I got that Jamie changed tact after he learned that Roger left Bree because in a way Roger thought she sort of wanted him to go. Instead of half minding to drag the guy back even if he didn't want to come after that lumping him 'that last unanswered blow' he started taking the same tact he would with Fergus or Ian on Roger when he started going on about if Roger 'could you go back to her, live with her'. Basically when he uses reverse psychology on the boys to manipulate them into doing what they have had half a mind to do in the first place, then telling Roger by that Bree doesn't need a coward. And I got completely Roger's 'What?' in response or as in 21st century terms 'What the fuck are you on pal?' Because to Roger what had Jamie losing Ian or Jamie's view of cowardice to do with his decision about giving up everything he ever knew to live in an era a couple of hundred years before he was born? There could have been a line about Bree saying Jamie had said Roger didn't say he was coming back, or them taking out the stubborn part and made their reunion just about them. But I suppose they are trying to set up Roger's side over him and Jamie butting heads a bit next season what with I can't see Jamie not being pissed over Ian still.
  11. True in the books you have Claire essentially inventing antibiotics and anaesthetic and Bree building kilns and talking about getting plumbing into Frazer's ridge and that is on top of the skills that Frank ensured she had. Roger in the books, well he had summers on trawlers, that is how he can speak Gaelic if I remember correctly. But they were 1950's trawlers so sailing/fishing 18th century style wouldn't be something he's an expert in. So yes his usefulness is more intagable. But in a way that is why Roger in the books is more relateable to me. He isn't able to master shooting, farming, hunting and all the other skills that everyone else seems to bring to the table straight off the bat. And he isn't reinventing the wheel, like Claire. He tries and stumbles a lot but he still seems like a guy who in the 20th century would be a good crack down the pub if not a little staid.
  12. Isn't that said at one point tho in the books or implied. When Jamie is talking to Claire and Bree the future and what is going to happen sounds vague in a way and like fairytales. But when he talks to Roger about it, because of the manner he speaks about 'history' it all seems more real and unable to be changed. Suppose it is in part that Claire and Bree are remembering what Frank told them and what they learned at school, where are Roger was a historian.
  13. Yeah but in Roger's defence he wasn't getting 2+ months to get to make that decision if he went back with Claire and Jamie. He was getting 30 seconds because if he went with Jamie at that moment he was going back to stay. There was no - you can have a think about it on the way back, it was 'decide now because I'm not having you break her heart even if she hate ME for it. And this was all minutes after finding everything else out. So probably in Roger's head, a) he's an emotional mess, b) in lots of pain c) just found out all of this d) got the guy who got him injured and enslaved infront of him basically saying 'I've now made that all alright now. So you now do as you are told and walk away from everything you know or piss off because this is about my daughter, my family and my relationship with them.' Even if he was prepared to say he'd stay in the face of Jamie's semi ultimatium, well can you blame anyone with regards to hesitating because Roger wouldn't just be going back to stay with Bree and the baby and dumping everything he's ever known, at that point it also looks like if he goes back to Bree he's doing so on the understanding Jamie will be always breathing down his neck and judging his every move. At least Ian said a real sorry and well he got what he wanted, as that boy was disappearing into the woods at some point to go native and we all knew it. So saying that all I can say is next season we need Murtagh to stay alive and more Marsali because they are the only two who could legit sort this mess out, without it descending into more miscommunication. Murtagh to give Roger an 18th century Scottish ear non bias ear to bend as he gets use to the past and grows into the man he need to be to survive there and Marsali to kick Jamie up the arse when need be about when to butt in and when not to. Because you know Marsali would be better at doing that then Claire would.
  14. Okay quick continuity question. I know this was all about them averting Jack's death and focusing on what Jack meant to everyone but....where are Maggie and the nameless minions? You know the ones that depended on Jack to help them fight the angel war in their dimension. Did I miss them all moving out of the bunker? And where was Mary? Did they call her? You know seeing how she supposedly got her mothering groove back last season by becoming 'apoco' mom to Jack.
×
×
  • Create New...