Hannah Lee

I think it might be a probability/risk calculation. Sure, it's *possible* the baby can travel through the stones, maybe even probable. But the only way to find out is to try it and if it turns out he can't they risk Bree and the baby being separated, with the baby left in the 1700's and no guarantee Bree can get back, or even worse, Bree going back to the 1970's and the baby winding up alone who knows where (or when) with no way ever for them to find him. If it was my child, grandchild, there is no way on God's green earth I would risk it.

Did Roger even ever say "Is Brianna alright?" He was all 'furrowed brow' about paternity, but it played like "I love her, she's my wife, where is she?" "BTW, she was brutally attacked, is pregnant, and the child might not be yours" straight to "...hmmm, I'm not sure if I want to take this on" without so much as a "oh, poor Brianna, how is she? how is she coping with all this?"

I'm beginning to agree with most of this. Though, TBH, that scene was one of the few where I started to feel some emotion for the two of them together, and get swept up in it even though my logical brain had all kinds of questions. And then what marred it for me is the fact that in the background of those reunion shots, there were slaves clearly visible, working. So just when I was starting to feel a little tug of my heartstrings for this couple I was like, "Do any of these people care about the slavery all around them?" And it made me think how Brianna has never been shown to be even the least bit uncomfortable with that....no, her warmly grabbing Phaedra's forearm like they are dear friends doesn't really count. And that completely pulled me out of the moment. On a side note, while I know they were pressed for time this episode, but the episode would have been stronger if they had added quick scenes, or even a line of dialogue to indicate what happened to the Mohawk who was banished (or even that Claire and Jamie felt any guilt that their actions had led to that), where Roger has been (book readers know, but non-book readers don't) how he knew to go to River Run, that Jamie got to hold his grandson, that Brianna had forgiven Jamie and come to understand him more. Those were all emotional beats that were missing, or niggling "wait, what?" moments that didn't have to be there. Also, I hope in Season 5, the show doesn't limit the time-travel aspects of the show to events when characters are actively traveling or thinking about it. Little things like Claire and Brianna reminiscing about indoor plumbing were good, but there were many opportunities for Murtaugh and Jamie to be conferring with Claire and Brianna about events or experiences.

I remember hearing somewhere...one of the after episode blurbs, or an article? ...that they originally were aiming for more authentic Colonial interiors for River Run, but that it didn't work well on screen. Something about the colors being too dark or not enough contrast to show well, so they went with a lighter interior design, though still sumptuous with great attention to de. Oh you are so right about that. "Transporting" is the perfect word for it. There was such a fantastic sense of place and time that just sang from the screen, and really highlighted the difference in Claire's two worlds. And the shots in the opening, especially the shot of them riding across the land, shot from above, are a great example of that. When they changed the opening as the show moved out of the Scottish Highlands, that was the part I missed the most. Brianna dipping a bucket in a stream or people walking up to River Run just are no comparison. And there were many other sequences like that that really contributed to the whole aura of the show back in S1. Though I guess it is a bit meta in a way - the 1700's Scottish highlands that were depicted in S1 no longer existed after Culloden. The Clearances and continued British rule changed all that, and the Highland culture was pretty much gone. Even if the plot somehow brought Jamie and Claire across the ocean back to where they started, things would never be as they were back in S1, that way of life is gone., many of the homes, the people, the traditions, are gone or driven underground. So our longing for it, nostalgia for it...maybe it puts us a bit in Jamie's frame of mind, and that of the other displaced Highlanders. We all just have to enjoy what we've got now, even though it pales in comparison to what we had before.

Add me to those who think Fergus and Marsali are more compelling to watch than Brianna and Roger. They are just delightful. I know they had more of the 'caper' plot line this episode, but all through this season they have been one of the highlights for me. Roger's scenes were well shot and acted and I loved seeing more of the Mohawk at home, I would have rather spent more time there, then multiple episodes of Roger's walk through the Eastern US. But it was tragic how people clinging to dogmatic approaches, or inserting themselves into other's business, led to so much unnecessary pain and suffering. Brianna's scenes were the low spot of the episode for me, not sure whether it was the acting (Sophie seemed very flat again after doing much better last episode), or my distaste for the whole "have to face my attacker/inadvertently let him escape" plot. I know people process trauma differently, and some people may benefit from that kind of confrontation, but that situation/scene just didn't work for me for a whole host of reasons.

I agree the timeline is confusing, but say it took the Mohawks 5 weeks to get to where 3 Fingers died, and Team Find Roger left a week later and it took 4 weeks (give or take a day) for them to reach that spot, they would be 1 week or so behind the Mohawk and reach the guy about a month after he died. Add to that Jamie & Co may be all on horseback, but they have never traveled this route before, may not be taking the easiest/fastest route, whereas the Mohawk may be familiar with the route (where to cross streams/chasms, which trails are faster for where they are headed), if this is a known trade route they've used before. The timelines in Outlander have always been a bit wibbly wobbly hand wavy even if you ignore the magic stones. There are big events nailed down, but the passage of time is always a bit confusing.

OMGosh, they are hysterical. I was laughing so hard at all the "Trip Advisor" style reviews from Roger. "Much walking. Dead travel companion. Still in culottes. No stars."

The cold open fooled me too. I'm trying to think, now, was the man he saw over his shoulder in the mirror the same man Claire saw (the fellow traveler)? Or was it the Mohawk who he was actually with? I'm wondering about that guy from the episode Claire found the skull...is he a spirit who somehow helps all the time travelers? I wish they had showed us whether Roger backed away from the stones himself, or if he was caught by the Mohawk as he was going through (like Claire was dragged away from the stones by the Redcoats back when she was trying to return to Frank right after marrying Jamie.) Loved all the scenes with Fergus, Murtagh, and Marsali...while she's her mother's daughter, she fits right in with the Fraser/Mackenszie's knowing when/how to speak frankly to people and when to just pull strings around them. Not happy to have Murtagh back in custody, but I wonder if Brianna's new connection with Lord John, and Lord John's old connection with Murtagh from their prison days post-Culloden will help team-Fraser get out of this particular mess unscathed. Hated the way Brianna threatened Lord John, telling him she'd expose his sexuality. Even though she tried to back out of the threat later, it was a lousy thing to do. And the way the actress played it, there was no sense in the moment IMO that it was a bluff from Brianna. She seemed like she meant everything she was saying. I did like Brianna and Jocasta's relationship and hope we see that developed more. I love that Jocasta has a very clear understanding of who she is, what her family is like and the realities of the world she operates in - She's a blind Scotswoman who has survived several husbands and thrived in Colonial America, retaining property, status, power...she's a Mackensie and a survivor through and through. (I think that's why Jamie just leveled with her in the letter of introduction he sent with Brianna; he knows who/what his aunt is) She's willing to speak hard truths to Brianna, even though she doesn't know her personally, because she is family and Bree has been entrusted to her care. I'm sure having another Claire-like woman in her midst wouldn't be her choice, but she just goes with it. And when she realizes that Bree had out-Mackensie'd her, by wrangling an engagement to a Lord instead of the Hobbit, she not only admires it, but she's happy to ride the wave, because for her having a connection to Lord John is way better than a connection to Pip or the Judge whatever guy. I was happy to see Bree finally smarten up when she deferred comment about the stones to the Judge's mother - a Beauchamp-Randall woman finally read the room correctly, but then when she launched into the "Truth or Dare" psychology game at dinner* my stomach just sank - 'this won't end well for someone'. *did she learn nothing after launching into her "I can't tell you how I know this, but something awful is going to happen" shtick with Laoghaire? Don't try to be smarter than the room, Bree, it won't end well in the 1700's. Also, completely unrelated, but PBS has just started a new season of Victoria, and was rerunning episodes, including one where Prince Albert and Queen Victoria traveled to Scotland, and it was nice to finally understand all the references to the Stuart kings, and Jacobites. It was an interesting snapshot 100 years later.

She went to school in Boston were there most definitely was good college radio.

Jamie being a man of his time, for me, accounts for why he beat up Roger before trying to confirm who Roger was or why he was there, or telling him who he was. But as for the rest, I'd argue that the problems of this episode were mostly as a result of people not sharing information with each other, all the way back to Brianna not telling Lizzie that she was leaving the tavern with someone she knew and trusted...her friend Roger, back when she first took off with him in Wilmington. (I still can't wrap my head around that. Yes, yes I know she was excited to see Roger, and probably not thinking clearly. But Brianna and Lizzie had just traveled across the ocean together, Bree knows how dangerous the 1700's can be (between her own experiences and stories Claire told her) and they were basically alone in this place neither of them knew, where neither of them personally knew a soul. Whether or not Bree felt OK leaving with Roger, you'd think for a second she might say "oh, wait, I've just left a woman alone in a tavern, an ocean away from her home, and I'm the only person she knows here. We've had each other's backs for weeks, and technically, she's charged with, responsible for, looking after me...hmm maybe it might be kind to mention to her that I won't be back for a while so she doesn't worry/go wandering around looking for me, putting herself at risk") So Brianna not telling Lizzie she'd run into her on again, off again boyfriend, now hand-fast husband, and not sharing she'd had wildly different encounters with two men that day (that part's understandable given her trauma)l Brianna not telling anyone for months about Stephen Bonnet; Claire not telling Jamie about Bonnet; Jamie, Ian, Lizzie not mentioning to Claire or Brianna that they'd seen the man from Wilmington at Fraser's Ridge - before taking action, and then not mentioning it soon after they'd gotten rid of Roger, when it would have been more feasible that they could go get him without traveling months, Jamie not correcting Claire's assumption that he'd hurt his hand on a tree ... lack of sharing information made things worse. It was just bad communication. Maybe Claire and Jamie's "we can have secrets, but never lies" promise needs to be updated now that their in the new world? On a different subject, I'm guessing that Roger is not going through the stones, partially because he won't decide to leave Brianna (for all he knows, there are violent maniacs roaming around near Fraser's Ridge, randomly and brutally attacking strangers and selling them into slavery, he'd want to find Bree and make sure she's safe) But also, I can't imagine that Roger, being exhausted, injured, disoriented, unfamiliar with the territory or landscape, not used to traveling unnoticed in the woods, would be able to completely evade a group of non-exhausted, highly motivated Mohawk searching for him on foot and horseback, even if they are out of their home territory. It will probably be like Claire trying to go back to Frank through the stones....just as she's standing there, someone comes up and captures her, dragging her away.

I was oddly OK with the slapping. Was it the "best" most mature reaction? no. But it fits Brianna being Jamie's daughter and just one generation removed from Scottish Highlanders - how many times was there violence or threats of violence among the Frasers and Mackensies? Their family crests should probably just be pictures of impulsive hotheads who resort to smacking someone when angered/betrayed. Also given the epic love story that Claire and Jamie have experienced, and that Jamie would do just about anything for Claire or to get back to Claire if they were separated, he, of all people, could understand someone being devastatingly angry that someone had harmed and banished their partner, the person they've mourned being separated from. Sure, it was a case of mistaken identity, but even understanding that, I could still see how Brianna was that angry - Jamie deciding for himself what should happen to her rapist, without consulting her, was yet another case of some guy who supposedly cares for her taking it upon himself to make important decisions that concern her (like Roger withholding the information that Brianna's parents die(d) in a fire) . It's one of her hot-button issues; we even see a hint of it in her relationship with Frank, when she was upset that Frank and Claire decided to divorce without consulting her. Fortunately, in that case she just stomped off in a huff without slapping him. (Unfortunately she was way out of line with that one, and, oh yeah, how he died shortly after) As far as how Bree learned about Jamie's experiences with Black Jack, and what went on at Wentworth Prison, while that might have been more satisfying to see, I can understand why Claire told Brianna first. It sounds like that story came out when Claire was telling Bree about her experiences in the 1700's. It was Jamie's story, true, but it was also integral to Claire's story - how Randall threatened her, the sacrifice Jamie made to save her, and how she helped him recover and move forward. If I were changing how that reveal came out to Bree, I don't think I'd change that Claire told her, but I would have pushed back Jamie's conversation with Bree about it, and his attempt to help her truly understand the rape was not her fault, back into last episode...before he attacked Roger.

There were some good parts of this episode, but the scene with Brianna and Jamie walking and talking about her rape, and how she felt responsible for it bugged me. While there was so much good it it a) I hated the accusations that Jamie threw at her her and how he physically overpowered her. Yes, I know it was in service of getting her to understand, really understand, that she was not at fault for getting raped, but it seemed a horrible thing to do with someone who had just gone through a physically and emotionally violent traumatic experience and b) the entire time the were talking, all I could think was how Jamie had, just 1-2 days previously, nearly beaten to death the man he thought raped her and then had him "disappeared", all his talk about how a revenge killing doesn't matter and with time you just learn to live with it, along with his attempts to comfort her just seemed at odds with his self-righteous violence in the previous episode. He might be able to compartmentalize those two experiences, but I couldn't.

Agree, entirely. Sure there is the whole romantic setting where they met - the time travel, the wild Scottish Highlands and rough living, the slow reveal to each other of who they were while the audience knew more (she thought he was a stable hand, he thought she was just a meandering Englishwoman - she didn't realize he was a Laird and nephew of the MacKenzie, an educated enlightened nature-sensible soldier, he didn't know she was a time traveling, stone hopping out of time healer/nurse/doctor with a mind and goals of her own.) But the appeal of Jamie, for me, was always that he paid attention to Claire, not just seeing her as an attractive woman, but seeing HER, in her entirety, including her mind, her thoughts, her words, her experiences and her body/enjoyment of him. And after the time she bolted for the stones and he gave her a beating, and she pushed back, he agreed to partner WITH her - not above her, not for her, not at her as an object, but WITH her. IIRC, the big friction between Claire and Frank in S1 E1 is that Frank couldn't (or wouldn't) see Claire, and acknowledge her, interact with her, as who she was, who she had become while they were apart during the war (and probably, she couldn't see him, either, though the show didn't explore that.) and her interactions with Jamie stood in contrast to that. What's amazing to me is how much people struggle with that, because in some ways, it's an easy thing for someone to do, anyone, man or woman : Just pay attention to the person in front of you no matter WHO they are: listen to them, respect them, talk to them - even if you disagree with them or don't understand them entirely. THAT's the thing that sparks the connection and romance. THAT's the fantasy. But that it has to be a fantasy is a sad thing, because it's something more people could actually do for the people who are important in their lives. The muscles, the kilt, the accent, the dirt and the dirks, the eyes and the whatever, the objectifying ....that's just the trappings! It's the SEEING and the LISTENING and the PARTNERING between Jamie and Claire that's the real appealing, sexy thing and that thing that for me, causes me to want to keep watching.

Yeah, I can imagine Jamie confessing to Claire what he did. Jamie: "The man who raped Brianna came to Fraser's Ridge, so I beat the crap out of him. I dinna kill him though, even though I wanted to." Claire: "Wait, what?! Stephen Bonnet came here?" Jamie: "Who said anything about Stephen Bonnet?" I keep thinking that a big part of the issue stems from Brianna's behavior. Lass, if you're traveling to the new world with a lady's maid, and you're leaving your lodging for the evening, wouldn't it be smart AND kind to let her know that you've run into an old friend and you'll be away for a couple of hours catching up with him? I know you were surprised to see him, and Roger did sort of drag you out of the place, but it would have taken 30 seconds to leave word with the bar keep. At least then Lizzie wouldn't have stayed up all night worried sick, and she might have the possibility of figuring out that the man Brianna left with was probably not the man who brutally raped her. I was irritated with Roger after his behavior in the last episode (and at the gathering in NC previously) and while I may have thought he deserved a good smack down, I didn't think he deserved anywhere near what Jamie dished out to him. All that being said, it makes be think less of DG and the Outlander PTB that, given ALL the interesting stories that could have been told about Brianna traveling back in time to 1760's North Carolina, they thought that sex/rape/paternity drama was the most interesting story to tell. Seriously. There are more interesting stories to be told about women than what goes on in their vagina/wombs y'all. See the first seasons of Claire's journey for some examples. Yeah, this show tends to be particularly rapey, but since they've already had the assault/rape of men (eg Jamie, twice), women (Mary, almost Claire, almost Jenny) tweens/teens (Ian and all the boys who didn't survive Geillis) AND children (Fergus), plus probably more examples I've forgotten, and we've already been shown, repeatedly, that S Bonnet is an evil cruel dude, this just seems unnecessary and a bit lazy. On another note, the scenes of life at the homestead, and the knitting together of Brianna with the Fraser family was lovely. I would seriously watch two or three episodes of just that, with no manufactured drama (hey, maybe a webisode or two?) And I really liked that she noticed the warmth/bond between her mother and Jamie (for example she said "I know why she had to come back") even if it provided an uncomfortable contrast with what she remembers of the relationship between Claire and Frank. And I like that Jamie was so open about his awareness of Frank's role in Bree and Claire's lives, and how much he owes him for caring for them so much. Though he can be impulsive and a hothead, Jamie is emotionally mature enough to know that his jealously of Frank's relationship with Bree, while understandable, doesn't need to be front and center if he wants to build a relationship with his daughter.

Did you see the SNL monologue with Saoirse Ronan? Cute and funny. After spelling out those two names and thinking about it a bit, I feel like I've almost got a handle on it - everything up until the last 2 letters blends into one syllable, and the last two letter add kind of a clip to end end it - Ree for Laoghaire and sh for Saoirse. It's a bit tricky if you're used to a language where all of the vowels get pronounced. IIRC the only successful travel we've seen is at Craigh Na Dun. Claire 1940's > 1740's and back again, Geillis 1968 > 1740's, Claire back to the 1700's, Brianna 1970's > 1770's, Roger 1970's > 1770's . Geillis was attempted to jump into the portal pool, but she didna make it, so we don't know where she would have ended up.