S05.E03: Free Will

[Athena]

Quote

The growing Regulator threat forces Jamie, Claire and Roger to embark on a mission to raise a militia.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[areca]

That was a great episode.   Loved it.

[unlfan03]

I wasn't sure what to expect with this episode given the events that were coming up. I like that they gave the episode time to breath, they really could have rushed through things but instead sufficiently built the story and let it tell itself fairly well. I was looking forward to meeting our second Beardsley twin, and I'm happy that he is here. I did like the suspense that was built up as Jamie and Claire searched the homestead for people and thought that it was just creepy enough. You really felt like there may be ghosts of the previous Beardsley wives hanging around the property. But a lot of the creep factor went away with the discovery of Beardsley upstairs and it felt like that was where the episode began to drag just a bit. 

The writers did something I wouldn't have expected by keeping the episode contained in the house, I actually felt a lot of sympathy for Fanny Beardsley. She went from being a of a slovenly back woods wife with broken teeth and crazy ghost stories, to a beaten woman. It was much easier to empathize with her and her plight, and i think part of it was because though she abandon's the baby it is in a house, not out in the middle of a the coldest spring. I could have done without the body horror as they focused on with Mr. Beardsley, he was much less sympathetic of a character and the writers did a good job of keeping him less redeemable, it was still a mercy killing on Jamie's part but one death that was well deserved for his past actions if one believes in capital punishment. 

Other comments for the episode. I'm glad that they showed that Claire doesn't find the penicillin bacteria right away, and they had her using scraps of other food as well, though where they are going to get a cantaloupe is beyond me (per Wikipedia a moldy cantaloupe produced the best penicillin bacteria in the 1940's that allowed for mass production when combined with corn liquor, which could be on the ridge at this point). And as  someone in the non-books section noted that Fergus used the back of Claire's notes to write up the notice the militia call up. That could be good or bad depending on where the writers decide to go with things, but I have a feeling it will be important either way., if nothing else it will prevent Marsili from learning something important about doctoring. I also thought it was interesting the continued dichotomy of the way Jamie treats Fergus and Roger. It felt like the writers are highlighting that particularly this episode. As well as having the distance between Jamie and Roger to continue to grow and I have a feeling will also play into events further in the season. 

I am not surprised that we are getting a full episode of the Brownsville incidents, it is important for set up for further episodes and seasons to allow that storyline to grow as well. I think if they had included it in this episode it would have rushed both story lines too much. 

 

[nodorothyparker]

Wow.  That's quite a note to end on.  Mercy killings for everybody if it comes to it, I guess.

All in all this was a pretty good adaptation of this chunk of the book.  It felt fairly haunted and atmospheric while reminding us of some hard truths that for all the romance of pretty dresses and flowing hair, this is also a world where a hard man could transactionally run through a series of wives and 2-year-olds could be sold for 30-year terms of indenture because somebody was going to get their money for passage to America whether passengers survived the trip or not.  Of course Claire being Claire is going to go charging up into the smelly dark to see what's up there without waiting for Jamie as backup.  Jamie was showing incredible restraint as Claire was nattering on about needing to stay to doctor and then make care arrangements and what about the baby and the goats.  She's talking about amputations and convalescent time and he's like you do remember that we were on our way to a war and left our time traveling son-in-law who barely knows which end of a musket is which in charge, don't you?  But kudos to Bronwyn James, who went from playing Fannie the good-hearted harlot who outlasted everybody in Harlots to a fairly sympathetic turn as a beaten down Fannie Beardsley here.  I agree that it helped keeping all the action indoors and not having the character abandoning her newborn in the middle of the night in the freezing woods.  

Jamie wisely didn't overreact to Claire suddenly blurting out her desire for Roger and Bree to go back to their own time, but he also immediately pegged that Roger is the one who wants to go.  That's unlikely to endear him to him any further.  Jamie also didn't agree that it's the only correct choice, pointing out that while sure, they'd probably be safer than in the middle of the war they know is coming, they'd also be cut off from any blood relation.  That feels almost like a fight to be named later.  You do have to wonder if Jamie ever has any feelings about the time traveling members of his family regarding the only time and space he has as if they're living like cave people who can't ever hope for anything better because they're too busy fighting off sabertooth tigers and random plagues.  Jamie was clearly feeling pretty content and pleased with the life they had built when he returned home to the ridge in the beginning, and here's Claire telling him that they're all talking about how awful and backward it is that they need to get away from it.

Fergus grabbing up Claire's notes to use the back to write the militia notice feels like it could turn into something or not.  

 

[Quickbeam]

This was my least favorite book so I was just hoping they’d fast forward through a lot of the tangential plot lines. This did so as well as could be expected. I really like the actress playing Marsali so I am glad her role has expanded. I hope the actor playing the deaf twin is hearing impaired otherwise there will be a lot of blow back.

 

ETA: nope, same actor plays both. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Quickbeam
Update

[The Ringo Kidd]

I don’t know the books but I thought this was very self indulgent and the waste of an episode. I would much rather see the conflict with the Crown and regulators instead of an ersatz horror movie.

[Scarlett45]

7 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

But kudos to Bronwyn James, who went from playing Fannie the good-hearted harlot who outlasted everybody in Harlots to a fairly sympathetic turn as a beaten down Fannie Beardsley here. 

I knew that was her!!

Fannie obviously suffered from battered persons syndrome and severe PTSD from what that asshole did to her, but something broke inside of her to want to torture him for as long as she did. I am NOT blaming her, but it takes a certain shift in your psyche and moral bearings to torture someone for that long. It would’ve been “normal” to just leave him to die and bury his body, or smother him and bury him (a mercy killing). However she still has her true self down inside because she left the deed to the house AND the indentured papers for the boys, she wanted her daughter and those boys to have a better life but she had to get out of there. I don’t think she had it in her to be anyone’s mother. I hope she could go home to Baltimore back to her kin. 
 

That baby was so cute. Although I’m terrified someone is going to take the deed to that land and sell the infant into slavery. Or raise her for a while and sell her when she’s older for a much better price. 😢

[nodorothyparker]

Isn't that a point Jaime makes in the book though?  Jamie tells us that regardless of what the reality may be, under English law the baby is legally Mr. Beardsley's daughter and thus heir to the property and all of its contents.  That gives her a certain amount of protection in making her an attractive ward/adoptive child to somebody who probably isn't going to be super keen to run afoul of Jamie, who I think we're meant to think is the largest local landowner in the area who just happens to be colonel of the local militia and has the ear of the governor.

[Scarlett45]

11 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Isn't that a point Jaime makes in the book though?  Jamie tells us that regardless of what the reality may be, under English law the baby is legally Mr. Beardsley's daughter and thus heir to the property and all of its contents.  That gives her a certain amount of protection in making her an attractive ward/adoptive child to somebody who probably isn't going to be super keen to run afoul of Jamie, who I think we're meant to think is the largest local landowner in the area who just happens to be colonel of the local militia and has the ear of the governor.

No I understand what you’re saying, but this is a helpless infant- ANYTHING could happen to it. And what if something happens to Jaime- who’s going to give two hoots about the baby? What’s to stop anyone from making this baby their slave and keeping the property for themselves down the line (a much harsher Cinderella for example)? Or switching their (white) infant out for the baby to claim the Beardsley estate? It’s not as if the deed to the property is tattooed on her forehead. 
 

[Haleth]

It surprised me in the book that they didn't keep the baby, adding her to their growing, unusual family.  I suppose if Claire and Jamie had been on their way back home they might have.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Haleth

[nodorothyparker]

Fair point.  And other than a brief blink and you'll miss it woods meetup with her bio father, we just kind of never hear about her or this situation again after a certain point on the page.  So it's anybody's guess how it actually turned out.  I think there's an assumption that that it would have been a continuing plot point had it not worked out with whoever ended up taking the baby. (Mind's blanking on that right now.)  But as Gabaldon frames it, it seems less about the baby herself and more about whether Claire and Jamie could have another child or even wanted to raise another child, this time together.

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Fair point.  And other than a brief blink and you'll miss it woods meetup with her bio father, we just kind of never hear about her or this situation again after a certain point on the page.  So it's anybody's guess how it actually turned out.  I think there's an assumption that that it would have been a continuing plot point had it not worked out with whoever ended up taking the baby. (Mind's blanking on that right now.)  But as Gabaldon frames it, it seems less about the baby herself and more about whether Claire and Jamie could have another child or even wanted to raise another child, this time together.

I was surprised they didn't immediately decide to keep her. But I made the comment when Jamie & Claire were leaving on their mission, & all other women were staying behind, that Claire is best beside Jamie, doing her job, & she gets to do it now, just like in season 2 (when she didn't yet have have children), because her child is now grown up. 

Just now, Cdh20 said:

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Cdh20

[SassAndSnacks]

21 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

I was surprised they didn't immediately decide to keep her. But I made the comment when Jamie & Claire were leaving on their mission, & all other women were staying behind, that Claire is best beside Jamie, doing her job, & she gets to do it now, just like in season 2 (when she didn't yet have have children), because her child is now grown up. 

 

I believe when they get to Brownsville in the book, they have the discussion about whether or not they should keep the baby, which leads to the discussion of them having another baby themselves.  Jamie says something to the effect of "I have bairns a'plenty, but I only have one you." (swoon) And, basically they decide that at this point in their lives, they have the family they want and will focus on them.  It's a really beautiful moment with the two of them, and based on the previews for next week, I'm hopeful we get to see it.  

I really enjoyed this episode, much to my surprise because this wasn't my favorite part of the book.  I was pretty much WTF, the whole time while reading it.  I get the importance of this event in the grand scheme of their lives moving forward, but I was still bug-eyed over it when I went through the book on subsequent readings.

Jamie and Claire are at their best when they are working together, and this episode showcased it so well.  

[Scarlett45]

59 minutes ago, Cdh20 said:

I was surprised they didn't immediately decide to keep her. But I made the comment when Jamie & Claire were leaving on their mission, & all other women were staying behind, that Claire is best beside Jamie, doing her job, & she gets to do it now, just like in season 2 (when she didn't yet have have children), because her child is now grown up. 

 

Yes I do understand why Claire wouldn’t be interested in raising a baby from infancy again, especially when her skills are so needed as a physician. 

[ctlady]

I have to watch the replay of it to see if my eyes/ears were playing tricks on me, but the scene where Fergus goes inside to get paper and pen - did anyone else hear a 'click' when he picked up the pen, as if it was a retractable?  Was that a faux pas?  I thought they wrote with quill and ink - he only took paper and a pen to write down what Jamie was saying.  How was he able to write all that without dipping into ink?

[Haleth]

57 minutes ago, ctlady said:

I have to watch the replay of it to see if my eyes/ears were playing tricks on me, but the scene where Fergus goes inside to get paper and pen - did anyone else hear a 'click' when he picked up the pen, as if it was a retractable?  Was that a faux pas?  I thought they wrote with quill and ink - he only took paper and a pen to write down what Jamie was saying.  How was he able to write all that without dipping into ink?

Claire invented the ball point pen during her free time. 😄

[Cdh20]

16 minutes ago, Haleth said:

Claire invented the ball point pen during her free time. 😄

I have been waiting for Claire to invent something for a long time!!

4 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

No I understand what you’re saying, but this is a helpless infant- ANYTHING could happen to it. And what if something happens to Jaime- who’s going to give two hoots about the baby? What’s to stop anyone from making this baby their slave and keeping the property for themselves down the line (a much harsher Cinderella for example)? Or switching their (white) infant out for the baby to claim the Beardsley estate? It’s not as if the deed to the property is tattooed on her forehead. 
 

I do understand your concern for that baby girl, especially because she is of mixed race. Surely Jamie & Claire will make sure she is well taken care of!

[iMonrey]

Wow, that was a lot of birds. 

[Ziggy]

6 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I was surprised they didn't immediately decide to keep her. But I made the comment when Jamie & Claire were leaving on their mission, & all other women were staying behind, that Claire is best beside Jamie, doing her job, & she gets to do it now, just like in season 2 (when she didn't yet have have children), because her child is now grown up. 

 

When I first read the book, I thought they were going to give her to Bree & Roger 🙂

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

When I first read the book, I thought they were going to give her to Bree & Roger 🙂

That would make sense if Rodger hadn’t expressed a desire to go back to the 20th century. 

 

4 hours ago, Cdh20 said:

I do understand your concern for that baby girl, especially because she is of mixed race. Surely Jamie & Claire will make sure she is well taken care of!

I admit ever since they came to the American colonies I have been constantly reminded that no I would have never gone back to the 18th century. I know Claire is white (obviously) but MY fear of being sold into slavery would’ve been too great, as fine as Jaime is-HELL NO. My Mommy says I never would’ve made it to the slave auction because once they heard me speak they would’ve burned me as a witch. 
 

Also those poor boys, I understand why the other brother took the Thief branding for his twin who was deaf, I know how deaf and hard of hearing people were treated in this time and he wanted to spare him the additional stigma. He’s a good brother. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

SIIIIIIIIIIGH!!!!!!🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰

Jamie said “Mo Neean Down”!!!! Haven’t heard that since season one! And what’s with Starz resorting to the laziness of having “speaking Gaelic”  in the closed captions instead of actually, you know, showing what Jamie, or any of the Scots speaking in Gaelic?😒😒😒😒

I live for all scenes of 🥰❤️🥰Jamie🥰❤️🥰&🥰❤️🥰Claire🥰❤️🥰

I giggled when Fanny thought Claire’s name was Sassenach. And Claire’s response that’s who she is to her husband.

SIIIGH...🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰

[Ziggy]

15 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

That would make sense if Rodger hadn’t expressed a desire to go back to the 20th century.

It's been a few years since I read the book, but I didn't remember book Roger expressing a desire to return to the 20th century.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Maril and Matt didn't discuss this, but can someone who's recently read buik Five, confirm if Jamie's request to Claire about if he ever suffers an apoplexy, that Claire wouldn't let suffer and would put him out of his misery (paraphrasing here). I zipped through all the buiks right after the first season, so my memory's fuzzy at best.

[nodorothyparker]

Jaime's request, and his wondering if his father went like that and whether Jenny would have told him the truth of it, was lifted almost word for word from the book.  

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

It's been a few years since I read the book, but I didn't remember book Roger expressing a desire to return to the 20th century.

The show is different from the book in that book Claire hasn't come up with any genetic theory about time travel yet.  So the book characters at this point are assuming they're stuck where they are and aren't really thinking about it beyond an occasional sort of wistfulness.  Roger's definitely feeling out of his element though.

[Cdh20]

35 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Jaime's request, and his wondering if his father went like that and whether Jenny would have told him the truth of it, was lifted almost word for word from the book.  

The show is different from the book in that book Claire hasn't come up with any genetic theory about time travel yet.  So the book characters at this point are assuming they're stuck where they are and aren't really thinking about it beyond an occasional sort of wistfulness.  Roger's definitely feeling out of his element though.

It doesn't seem that hard to figure out that Roger & Bree can time travel because of their genetics/parentage/heritage, but do they assume it might be random selection?

[nodorothyparker]

The book versions of the characters curiously seem to have very little opinion on how it happens.  I don't think Claire ever once wonders where she got it from.  But they're also still taking Geillis's notes pretty much as gospel at that point, even though she's the same person who thought she needed to use her husband as a blood sacrifice to go through the stones.  It's not until Claire spells it out for them that they all collectively go "oh, well of course."  Wasn't genetics still kind of an evolving field at the time the "modern" story takes place?  

[SassAndSnacks]

I believe it's this book where Jem is playing with the raw sapphire that Claire has tucked away in her surgery when it bursts in his hand.  He cries out, and everyone runs into the room.  It dawns on them that he must also be special, and they start giving him other stones to hold, which feel hot to him.  He also hears the stones making sounds.  This makes Claire, Jamie, Bree, and Roger certain that he can travel through.  

[Cdh20]

I was suspecting that eventually he can say he hears the stones, & they will know then. I haven't read ahead so don't know this for sure.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Cdh20

[Ziggy]

2 hours ago, SassAndSnacks said:

I believe it's this book where Jem is playing with the raw sapphire that Claire has tucked away in her surgery when it bursts in his hand.  He cries out, and everyone runs into the room.  It dawns on them that he must also be special, and they start giving him other stones to hold, which feel hot to him.  He also hears the stones making sounds.  This makes Claire, Jamie, Bree, and Roger certain that he can travel through.  

I believe you are thinking of two different scenes, but I'm not sure.  I just read Ch. 78, where Jem makes a mess in Clair's surgery and swallows a sapphire.  When Bree & Clair are trying to figure out whether or not he swallowed it, he mentions that it was hot.  I don't know if I even noticed that comment the first time I read the book, but I definitely noticed it this time.

There was another scene where the family was sitting around the table.  Might have been shortly after

Spoiler

Ian returned.

  Clair, Bree, Roger and Jem all agree that the stone(s) feel hot, but everyone else in the room (possibly just Jamie and

Spoiler

Ian)

 don't notice.  That might be the time when they really start talking about whether or not time travel is genetic.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Ziggy

[SassAndSnacks]

21 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I believe you are thinking of two different scenes, but I'm not sure.  I just read Ch. 78, where Jem makes a mess in Clair's surgery and swallows a sapphire.  When Bree & Clair are trying to figure out whether or not he swallowed it, he mentions that it was hot.  I don't know if I even noticed that comment the first time I read the book, but I definitely noticed it this time.

I think you're right.  Guess I'll just have to force myself to go back through and read this one again.  Malva Christie aside (she makes me say ALL of the bad words), I absolutely love Book 6.    

[tennisgurl]

Meanwhile this week, Jamie and Claire stumble into the plot of a horror movie, or an ever darker Bluebeard adaptation. I know that this guy was a horrible person, but...those maggots! Maggots! Ugh! 

I cant blame Claire for wanting to send the baby to the future. There is a lot about this time period that is really cool and lovely and romantic...but there is a whole lot that really sucks. Its also a world where hard cruel men can keep buying and killing wives, where people try and treat illness by cutting people up, where a two year old can be sold into servitude for thirty years. I love a flowing dress, but no thank you!

Edited March 8, 2020 by tennisgurl

[WatchrTina]

On 3/1/2020 at 10:16 PM, Scarlett45 said:

However she still has her true self down inside because she left the deed to the house AND the indentured papers for the boys, she wanted her daughter and those boys to have a better life but she had to get out of there.

Alas she left those papers underneath an infant who is NOT wearing 21st century Huggies so all I could think about was that those papers were likely to be drenched in baby urine (or worse) by the time Claire found them.

 

On 3/2/2020 at 11:45 AM, iMonrey said:

Wow, that was a lot of birds. 

Did you see the "After the episode" video?  (It auto-plays after the credits when you watch the episode on demand.) Those were supposed to be passenger pigeons.  They were said to darken the sky when they flew over in the 18th century . . . but no more (they were hunted to extinction.)

 

8 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I know that this guy was a horrible person, but...those maggots! Maggots! Ugh! 

They must be making up for having deleted the Claire-treats-Roger's-gnarley-foot-wound-with-maggots book scene from last season.)

 

Well, this is yet another episode that I can't say I enjoyed or ever want to watch again.  Is that house of horrors where the Beardsley twins lived in the book?  I thought this sequence of events took place at a trading post deep in the woods and that the place that mistreated the twins was a different, horrible place (though if so I can't now recall how Jamie obtained their freedom.)  But if I'm right and this episode is the conflation of two horrific story-lines, I applaud them condensing the misery into only one episode.  Now enough with the "gothic" story-telling.  Let's get back to the action/adventure/romance I turn in for.

Edited March 9, 2020 by WatchrTina

[lightninggirl]

On 3/1/2020 at 8:44 AM, unlfan03 said:

though where they are going to get a cantaloupe is beyond me (per Wikipedia a moldy cantaloupe produced the best penicillin bacteria in the 1940's that allowed for mass production when combined with corn liquor, which could be on the ridge at this point). 

 

Canteloupe was on the East Coast by the mid-1700s, so by 1771 she would have been able to access it. Or, at least recognize/describe it if she or one of her team came across it.

[toolazy]

On 3/8/2020 at 3:10 PM, WatchrTina said:

Well, this is yet another episode that I can't say I enjoyed or ever want to watch again.  Is that house of horrors where the Beardsley twins lived in the book?  I thought this sequence of events took place at a trading post deep in the woods and that the place that mistreated the twins was a different, horrible place (though if so I can't now recall how Jamie obtained their freedom.)  But if I'm right and this episode is the conflation of two horrific story-lines, I applaud them condensing the misery into only one episode.  Now enough with the "gothic" story-telling.  Let's get back to the action/adventure/romance I turn in for.

 

Oh, good question.  I looked it up and isn't two different things.  Kezzie & Jo were indentured at the Beardsley's.  It doesn't look like Jamie bothered to get them freed legally - he just counted on no one ever coming looking for them.