S01.E15: Wentworth Prison

[annlaw78]

Scotland was an independent nation until 1707, when the United Kingdom was formed. That's not even a generation before the time period of this story. For the Highlanders, the English are very much an occupying force.

Except the UK came about after the Scots king became king of England, not the other way around. England didn't conquer or invade Scotland, or otherwise annex it by the tip of the spear. Scotland wasn't 1939 Poland.

I realize I'm grossly oversimplifying a swath of history, but it's not as though the English decided one day to march north and conquer a sovereign nation. If you believe in the monarchical right of kings, then when James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603, his heirs inherited a joined kingdom. The political union that followed in 1707 didn't come out of nowhere.

Edited May 19, 2015 by annlaw78

[magdalene]

 

I just really don't get why no one hasn't offed BJR before.

I think it's because he has a powerful protector in the Duke of Sandringham. Though I have a hard time believing that with his penchant for  preying on young men - I doubt Jamie was the first - he wouldn't have encountered somebody eventually who just said enough is enough.

Edited May 19, 2015 by magdalene

[ganesh]

It's partly a tv cheat, but it's what I call a fair cheat.

I can buy that Randall would have powerful backing, and I can buy that maybe some of the English officers might know and are just like, "I don't have to deal with this guy so it's not my problem." That's not too much. I've already bought in that two women have literally traveled through time by a bunch of stones.

Clearly, if Randall just got offed it would not have the dramatic impact that we like when we watch TV. Either Claire has to do or Jamie. I mean, that's tv.

I figure if some random highlander killed him, the English would probably lay waste to the Scots for killing an officer. Everyone gets severely punished until they find him.

It's a smidge much, but not egregious. Any tv show can completely unravel if you pick at it enough. Everyone has a buy in line. I don't think this one is that bad.

[attica]

I just really don't get why no one hasn't offed BJR before.

 

Because then the story would be over. Which goes to my point about bad writing. They have to spare him just to maintain the story's need for antagonistic tension. S The show really doesn't have any other developed Bad Guy, other than the vague "them there redcoats", so nobody else can serve that role. BJR has to live, regardless of how little sense it makes in the narrative.

[terrymct]

I figure if some random highlander killed him, the English would probably lay waste to the Scots for killing an officer. Everyone gets severely punished until they find him.

 

That's why you weigh his body down and throw him in a loch.  Then tell anyone who asked questions that he was talking about the colonies and headed out toward Inverness.

[iMonrey]

 

I realize I'm grossly oversimplifying a swath of history, but it's not as though the English decided one day to march north and conquer a sovereign nation. If you believe in the monarchical right of kings, then when James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603, his heirs inherited a joined kingdom. The political union that followed in 1707 didn't come out of nowhere.

 

And also wasn't really a problem until the Hanoverian dynasty was named successors to Queen Anne. The Scots were OK with the unified kingdom so long as the Stuarts reigned which was the whole point of the Jacobite uprisings. But that's perhaps a bit off-topic.

[taanja]

late to the game but I'll add my two cents worth:

Maybe I'm morbid? maybe watching violent television has turned me into a cynic? Whatever. But I liked this episode.

From the moment we met Jack Randall he has been a sadistic bastard. The show I have been watching has made it clear that this man has a weird unhealthy obsession for Jamie Fraser. I didn't even close my eyes when he hammered the nail into Jamie's hand--I was like --Cool. That is gross. But as somebody pointed out up-thread a bit --- this time and place is brutal and violent. Ergo I expect to see brutality and violence on a regular basis.

I didn't start watching this show for the romance. That shit bores me.

I actually thought as I was watching this episode---all of this is happening to Jamie because Claire time traveled. Would he have even survived his initial injury? (that we were shown when we were first introduced to the character) If he had never met Claire, would Jamie have been so gun-ho to go back home to a place he knew was dangerous for him to be? Which then led to the situation where he was ambushed. Which led to his "escape" where he was on the run.

And it was certainly Clair's fault that he was captured because of the play she was preforming in made him risk coming out of hiding.

Something to ponder anyway.

[nara]

Part of the challenge of this story appears to be the repetitive nature of Blackjack's brutality towards one family--Jenny, Jamie, and Claire.  His obsession with this group of people forces us to see over and over again his sadistic behavior.  If it were just a matter of characterization, we would just have needed a couple of instances to get the point, "yes, Blackjack is pure evil" and they could stop showing it. 

 

However, it appears to be an essential part of the story that he is drawn to this group of people.  I think it's no coincidence that Frank married Claire--perhaps the point of the story is that this connection continues over generations and time (like in the movie Dead Again, but over a broader span of time).  (I think I've mentioned this theory before, so sorry if it seems repetitive.)  I wonder if we'll see marriages or other interaction between the Randalls and the Frasers, MacKenzies, Beauchamps in future generations.  (Whether or not this is a "thing" in the books, it might be a fun way to keep Frank in the story--researching these repeated interactions.)

 

If the point of the story is, in fact, this eternal bond, then I'm afraid we'll continue to see Blackjack doing monstrous things.  However, I would be very okay if they choose to show it in a less graphic fashion. 

[psychoticstate]

Because then the story would be over. Which goes to my point about bad writing. They have to spare him just to maintain the story's need for antagonistic tension. S The show really doesn't have any other developed Bad Guy, other than the vague "them there redcoats", so nobody else can serve that role. BJR has to live, regardless of how little sense it makes in the narrative.

 

Which I think is exactly why Claire needs to tell Jamie of Frank's relation to BJR.  It would serve to explain why, maybe, no one is offing him and then would certainly put tension in their relationship.  (And maybe too Claire would remember Frank)

[attica]

I mean, in that regard, the show is showing its soapiness. How many years did Stefano DiMera terrorize the nice people of Salem? Same with Erica Kane (before she morphed into leading lady).

 

Which is fine, if that's your jam.

[taanja]

People from this era didn't travel much -- if at all. They lived and died in a five mile radius from where they were born. So Jack Randall obsessing over members of one family makes perfect sense. They are right there-- just a horse ride a way---easy pickings. He gets off on their fear and loathing. It makes him feel alive.

[ganesh]

I guess if one tuned in to watch a soapy romance then one is put off. I came in with no pre conceived notions. I think the very first episode lays out what kind of show this was going to be from what I watched.

I totally laughed when Randall growls out, "now kiss me!" I mean, the guy is nuts.

I'm way more invested in the meta physics, for lack of a better word. For me, it's of Claire tries to stop Culloden, but this whole idea of Claire inadvertently ruining Jamie's life versus them "meant to be" is super cool.

[bearcatfan]

I believe BJR is obsessed with Jamie because he was unable to break him when he was whipped, twice. He focused on that when relaying the story to Claire, how Jamie didn't make a sound during the whipping. That seemed to infuriate him, which is why he wasn't pacing himself any longer. It just so happens that the attempted rape of Jenny occurred at Jamie's first whipping. He hasn't seemed to focus on her since that time. At first, his interest in Claire was because he was trying to get dirt on Dougal and the gang raising funds for the Jacobite army. If she had ratted them out, it's likely that he wouldn't have tried anything further with her. Then when BJR found out her husband was Jamie, well, that changed matters.

 

I'm not saying there isn't an element of sexual obsession there, but I think the bigger part is wanting to break this man who wouldn't be broken.

[annlaw78]

I guess if one tuned in to watch a soapy romance then one is put off. I came in with no pre conceived notions. I think the very first episode lays out what kind of show this was going to be from what I watched.

I totally laughed when Randall growls out, "now kiss me!" I mean, the guy is nuts.

I'm way more invested in the meta physics, for lack of a better word. For me, it's of Claire tries to stop Culloden, but this whole idea of Claire inadvertently ruining Jamie's life versus them "meant to be" is super cool.

I think it would have been much cooler for Claire to have had a weapon and an opportunity to kill BJR once and for all. She would have had to choose which husband to save: sacrifice Jamie to preserve The possibility of Frank, or sacrifice Frank to save Jamie. That would have given her more agency, rather than being the weeping damsel, and would have made the torture porn less pointless: it's there to make Claire choose, really choose.

Instead, it appears she dumbly wandered into the prison to save Jamie completely unarmed. Great plan!

[areca]

And also wasn't really a problem until the Hanoverian dynasty was named successors to Queen Anne. 

That's actually exactly the point.  As for the whole killing BJR thing - if she does, she never marries Frank, and if she never marries Frank and she doesn't honeymoon her way through the stones and...I'm not sure I could do it either...  It's losing both of her loves, for certain.  And maybe dying in the war herself since her path would have to be rewritten (assuming she doesn't just go up in a paradoxical poof of smoke.)

Edited May 21, 2015 by areca

[ganesh]

That would have given her more agency, rather than being the weeping damsel, and would have made the torture porn less pointless: it's there to make Claire choose, really choose.

 

That could very well happen next week. Claire and Jamie bought fought Randall fiercely, and she even said, "I should have killed you." Not "you're lucky I didn't kill you." There's been no mention of whether he has children or not. We don't know if Claire told Jamie about Frank's heritage either. And, mouthy Claire admitted to Randall that she's a witch, so that could have complications if they break out of this prison, since Gellis revealed she has  "mark."

[crowswork]

That would have given her more agency, rather than being the weeping damsel, and would have made the torture porn less pointless: it's there to make Claire choose, really choose.

 

It would be very unlikely that BJR wouldn't have children already - things were different then. By twenty he could have been married a couple times and lost wives in childbirth. Marriages were arranged in childhood and consummated at puberty. At 35 or 40 he is old...past middle age. He could have a wife somewhere who's probably very glad he's not around.

[ganesh]

It's likely that Randall has kids, but still unconfirmed. Claire doesn't know that for sure. That's a big plot point within the context of the show just to assume. Given Frank's heritage and Claire running into Randall like every week, the show wouldn't be playing fair with the audience not to address this at some point. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Did Frank specify how he is related to BJR? I can't remember if he mentioned that detail in the first episode. If not, it's possible that Frank is a direct descendent of one of BJR's family members (brother, cousin, etc) so BJR wouldn't necessarily have children.

[ganesh]

No, I think Frank is directly descended. Kind of removes the dramatic impact otherwise, no?

Edited May 22, 2015 by ganesh

[Glade]

I agree that BJR probably already has children by now.  Personally, I'm fine with that and don't think we actually need to see him cradling an infant child before he dies on the show.  I certainly hope this story won't go into the dumb cliche of having Claire be the mother of his child.  Claire knows his date of death and apparently it wasn't "tomorrow" so I take it that she doesn't feel like she could just kill him.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Glade

[ganesh]

While Claire might not set out and plot to kill him because she knows when he dies, either she or Jamie might be put in a position where they get backed into a corner and might have to kill him. Claire not knowing for sure whether he's got kids or not would be quite a big deal. Or, if Claire hasn't revealed Frank's heritage to Jamie, and Jamie is forced to kill him to save Claire, which I don't think anyone doesn't think he wouldn't. It's a legit plot point that I think should be addressed even in a line of dialogue. I'm surprised Claire never thought about that in a VO.

[ihartcoffee]

Because then the story would be over. Which goes to my point about bad writing. They have to spare him just to maintain the story's need for antagonistic tension. S The show really doesn't have any other developed Bad Guy, other than the vague "them there redcoats", so nobody else can serve that role. BJR has to live, regardless of how little sense it makes in the narrative.

Which I think is exactly why Claire needs to tell Jamie of Frank's relation to BJR.  It would serve to explain why, maybe, no one is offing him and then would certainly put tension in their relationship.  (And maybe too Claire would remember Frank)

 

Exactly!!!  Show is failing in this area to explain well. 

 

No, I think Frank is directly descended. Kind of removes the dramatic impact otherwise, no?

I'm amazed too that the show has not addressed this more.  Unless they think that the discussion in the early episodes of Frank being a direct descendant of JBR is enough to explain? I don't recall Claire telling Jaime that he's a relative of her husband.  

They are glossing over the awareness that changing history can have long lasting, sometimes good, sometimes bad affects.  Gellis mentions quicky "you're not here to change anything", like what a waste.  Oh, and was she not afraid to die because she'll be born again in the future?  Time travel is confusing and the show is not helping much. 

 

 

My husband chose THIS episode to watch with me, he was freaking out.  He still mentioned it days later.  He said that guy is going to F him in the ass, with his hand nailed to the table!! And not a nice F in the ass!   His reaction made me crack up for some reason.  I just remind myself (repeatedly) they are acting.  

[ganesh]

I think that since Frank was in Scotland researching his ancestors and Claire said, "Frank?" when she first met Randall, then that's fair for TBTPs to assume we can infer Frank is a direct descendant. It never occurred to me otherwise.

[VartanFan]

I'm just catching up on this episode and will watch the (now-spoiled) finale in the next couple of days.  I'm not looking forward to it.

 

I understand the motivation for including the violence in the books and show because I'm guessing it shapes Jamie in the coming seasons/books/years.  So, I get why he'd allow BJR to have his way with him, but I think of the whipping episode.  They did show the whipping and stripping away of the skin but I thought the visual of his shoes slipping on his own blood as he drifted in/out of consciousness to be far more powerful than the gore of showing the whipping.  I feel like they could have done something like that in this episode with the hand-smashing and nailing.

 

BJR licking Jamie's scarred back was chill-inducing. 

[applecrisp]

I've been wondering why Claire doesn't have more issues with a super evil villain who seems to specifically be out to hurt her and her new/second/simultaneous husband looking exactly like her old/first/simultaneous husband.  She had a little of that in the pilot and early on, but you'd think in addition to everything else having someone who looks just like your old/first/simultaneous husband torturing and raping your new/second/simultaneous husband would be a major mind f#$k.

 I could not separate he two.  How could she go back to Frank?

 

There is no question I would prefer the modern era, yet Claire has just been an active part in one of the most horrific wars ever.  The brutality, the constant bombing of England  and the evil that was the nazis.  Brutality still exists in modern times as does rape and sadism.  1945 offers more creature comforts and women in Europe and America are treated better.  There are still places where women are not treated well.

Edited February 28, 2016 by applecrisp

[TaurusRose]

I remember when the first book was being promoted. I decided against reading it because it sounded like a romance novel and I had moved passed those a while back. When the series was being promoted and I was exposed to random comments about the various episodes, I became curious and wanted to watch, but I didn't have Starz. The only thing I knew about Outlander was that the woman traveled back in time to find her true love, and I accepted the premise of present husband was a dud, past love was to die for. That being said, I now have Starz and binge watched S1. I never had any loyalty to Frank. He seemed okay, by that I mean a nice enough guy, but there was something inherently weak about him, needy, and that didn't appeal to me. When Claire and Jamie met, I knew this was the OTP. I waited for them to come together while enjoying the journey getting them there. Now, it was established right away (at least for me)--when Jamie refused to roll over during their first encounter--that BJR had a sick fascination for Jamie. While there are important events taking place alongside Jamie & Claire's romance, and we meet a lot of people in Jamie's life along the way, it was obvious to me that the main conflict J&C would have to deal with was Jamie's outlaw status and BJR. This was going to be the focus no matter how many other characters came into their lives. If people allowed their expectations to ignore this foundation, then yes, they're going to feel upset. However, to call Episode 15 torture porn is, IMO, unfairly dismissive and ignores everything that put Jamie, BJR and Claire on this collision course.

Wentworth Prison was hard to watch. There was horror, fear, resignation, brutality and precious little pity. But England had been raining destruction and degradation on the people of Scotland for centuries; what takes place in 1743 is merely a continuation of what began in 1296. The idea that a person as depraved and dark as BJR being in a position to abuse his authority and individuals is not a plot device or "because." BJR should never have been sent to Scotland in a zillion years. He, quite frankly, is an animal...worse than an animal, cut from the same cloth as some of the men and women serving as police officers in 2016 are. They think their job is to mete out punishment and abuse to those they feel are inferior, blights on society if you will, rather than serving and protecting all the people in their communities. BJR feels it's his purpose, perhaps his defining glory, to crush the spirit and will of a man he couldn't break with 200 lashes. He admires Jamie's physical beauty and lusts after him in a sadistic, sexual way. His work won't be complete, he won't be satisfied, until he breaks Jamie in the most vile way possible. I can't think of a death gruesome enough for BJR, but I would love to see him tormented for eternity in the fiery pits of hell.

I am not even going to entertain the GOT/Outlander comparison because IMO, it isn't relevant. I don't like rape or abuse of any kind any more than the next person, but I'm not going to complain about every instance of it when watching shows that are clearly not set in the 21st century and bound to our standards of morality, justice and equality such as they are. Until people reach a level of consciousness that is perfection, there is always going to be despicable treatment towards a group of people from another group of people. We don't seem to be able to rise above it.

Having said ALL of that, I am a visual person. I hate it when the decision is made to linger on a reaction shot rather than show me what the hell is going on. So, while people are upset about Jamie's hand being nailed to the table, as was I, it made all the difference in the world for me to actually see it. I don't want to see someone else's reaction, I want to experience my own reaction. Ditto for BJR fondling his shriveled little penis when trying to assault Jenny. That painted all kinds of horrible, sad little pictures of this demon and let me know exactly what kind of sadistic bully we were dealing with.

[John Potts]

OK, maybe I'm just inured to seeing torture onscreen (partly in some of Ron Moore's other works - I was strongly reminded of Star Trek's The Chain of Command and Battlestar Galactica) or perhaps I'm just dead inside, but I was far more bothered by Claire's stupidity here than Black Jack Randall's torture. The only thing she did right was bluff her way in to scout the prison, everything else she did made things worse. And maybe she could show a little gratitude to the people who are risking their lives to help her - I'm sure sitting in the tavern looking disapproving was really helpful while your men were actually getting hold of useful information. And if that wasn't bad enough, she then wonders around YELLING after being kicked out. You do realise that a jailbreak generally requires stealth, right?

On ‎17‎/‎05‎/‎2015 at 1:56 PM, terrymct said:

 I wish we could learn more about the secret efforts going on to restore a Stuart to the throne.  I wish we could learn more about what the heck the Guard is really up to.   I wish we could learn more about life in the villages and around the castles.   What I don't want to know more about is the psycho-sexual love triangle that is Jamie, Claire, and Black Jack.   Honestly, why haven't some group of highlanders or another ambushed Jack when he does all this traveling around?

Still don't get why BJR is so obsessed with Jamie to the extent of pulling favours (presumably) to get him a temporary reprieve. But if he's only still alive because "Good guys don't do that", then that's a terrible reason to leave your Nemesis alive. Is Claire worried about the butterfly effects (on Frank, principally)? Does she actually know when he will die and/or when he sires Frank's Great(*X) Grandfather? I'd be far more interesting to me to see her doing her best to learn about her Nemesis (and what's going on with the Stuart cause & the Duke of Sandringham et al) than blundering into situations and making them worse.

Quote

Donna Dickens After who knows how many months in this time period, and with the sheer number of times her life has been in mortal danger, I cannot believe Claire wouldn”t come to this battle better prepared.

Exactly! She HAD a gun last episode or (if that's too risky) she could strap a dagger under her dress.

On ‎17‎/‎05‎/‎2015 at 9:02 PM, nara said:

However, I don't blame Claire for not thinking about it.  She's been in survival mode since she arrived "in time", so hasn't had a lot of time to think about the impact of her actions.

That's an exaggeration. She's had plenty of "downtime" to consider this stuff (eg, wondering around with the rent party) and now she can even discuss it with Jamie (well, obviously not right at this point), so why HASN'T she considered what impact her actions might have on the timeline? She has already done some interfering by telling Jenny to plant potatoes, so she is trying to make small changes (I'll forgive her for not considering the Butterfly Effect since it hadn't been formulated by her time).

On ‎19‎/‎05‎/‎2015 at 2:44 PM, Archery said:

Scotland was an independent nation until 1707, when the United Kingdom was formed.  That's not even a generation before the time period of this story. 

Well... not really. Aside from the fact that 1707 is 36 years before the "present" (so a bit more than a generation, if still in living memory of some of the characters) England was taken over by the Scottish King in 1603 (James VI of Scotland became James I of England) and the Scottish Parliament voted itself out of existence in 1707 (partly in exchange for a bailout over the failed Darien Colony). Yes, the Highlanders considered themselves (perhaps correctly) as an oppressed minority, but they were a minority within Scotland. Had it come to a vote (not that it was ever going to) the majority of Scottish voters (probably the Scottish people too, though that's harder to say) would probably have chosen King George over King James

[Camera One]

I was dreading this episode, and it pretty much played out how I expected, albeit with even more gore and violence and rape.  I'm finding the constant peril and rescues/near escapes to be tiresome and tedious.  Even though I want him to be rescued, the coincidence and luck is just not believable.  With gore, I can look away, but if the story is so repetitive, it's hard to find motivation to continue.  What's the payoff if every third episode, Jaime and/or Claire would be captured and tortured and threatened with rape?

[Mezzaluna]

Just discovered this show and binge-watched season 1 - 4. I found this particular episode  (alos 16) to be so disturbing that I had to look away a great deal. The images were so horrific that I did not sleep well that night.

[PotterOtherP]

My issue with this violence was that I was only able to see it as a set of choices made by the writers, and thus it ruined my immersion and suspension of disbelief. It's also kind of disturbing that Jamie's depiction as a sex object is so closely connected to the ridiculous amount of torture and mutilation he has been subjected to.

It will be impossible to believe that Jamie will be able to go on adventuring and having a functional intimate relationship without years of therapy and physical recovery. I started watching this show for the scenery and because I thought it was nice that the author had created a decade-spanning epic about a fantasy of going back in time and meeting a hunky Scottish guy in a kilt. Not sure how much more enjoyment like that this show has to offfer.

[gingerella]

Okay, so this opening scene has me in very deep dread already...

Like I said before, this has to get better soon, I cannot take episode after episode of this black doom with BJR and all the other heinous beings. I have to say that I watched this and the next episode back to back because I needed to know that Jamie would be saved. I don’t have a lot to say other than Jamie is lucky to have Claire and Murtagh on his team. I didn’t sign up for another GoT level of violence and torture and if that is a continuing theme I don’t know if I can continue with this series.

Edited March 22, 2021 by gingerella

[SassAndSnacks]

7 hours ago, gingerella said:

I don’t have a lot to say other than Jamie is lucky to have Claire and Murtagh on his team.

Yes.

The only encouragement I have is to hang in there.  

[Camera One]

I didn't remember that this episode opened with hangings, and that was really disturbing to watch.  I know this was what history was like, but it's hard to voluntarily view it.  

I was impressed at Claire and Murtagh's persistence too, and Claire did a good job... up until she was caught, and then it got brutal to watch again.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Camera One

[Anothermi]

I don't have much to say about this episode. Mostly because it pretty much continues into the next episode.

But once again, Claire's stupidity astounds me. Sure, she figures her way out of the dead body pit and heads off to the forest. But what does she do there? This military nurse, quite recently home from the dangers of France? And now located very close to an enemy prison? She calls out Scottish names at the top of her lungs. I just shook my head in despair.

That was offset by her telling BJR the hour of his death—even if we don't get to hear it. 

But there were unique bits of information I gleaned:

- Jamie's mother's name was Ellen

- She seemed to have more admirers than Murtagh and Jamie's dad. This final guy, Sir Marcus MacRannoch, gave Ellen the special set of pearls that Jamie gave to Claire. At least we can take them out of the milk carton campaign of lost things. 

 That's all I can remember that I want to talk about. Nuff said. 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Anothermi

[Beeyago]

11 hours ago, Anothermi said:

I don't have much to say about this episode. Mostly because it pretty much continues into the next episode.

But once again, Claire's stupidity astounds me. Sure, she figures her way out of the dead body pit and heads off to the forest. But what does she do there? This military nurse, quite recently home from the dangers of France? And now located very close to an enemy prison? She calls out Scottish names at the top of her lungs. I just shook my head in despair.

That was offset by her telling BJR the hour of his death—even if we don't get to hear it. 

But there were unique bits of information I gleaned:

- Jamie's mother's name was Ellen

- She seemed to have more admirers than Murtagh and Jamie's dad. This final guy, Sir Marcus MacRannoch, gave Ellen the special set of pearls that Jamie gave to Claire. At least we can take them out of the milk carton campaign of lost things. 

 That's all I can remember that I want to talk about. Nuff said. 

 

 

Completely agree. 

[Cdh20]

@Beeyago, @Anothermi, 

Nope, This epi put me on the Claire fan girl train, nothing will stop her from rescuing her husband, she is bold, & brave, & determined! 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Cdh20

[Anothermi]

@Cdh20

😊 I am more than good with different opinions on characters. We all come from different places. If we all felt the same these threads would be very boring. I love getting other peoples perspectives. 

 

[Cdh20]

10 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

@Cdh20

😊 I am more than good with different opinions on characters. We all come from different places. If we all felt the same these threads would be very boring. I love getting other peoples perspectives. 

 

Agreed, what I love is seeing a different perspective especially with motivation in a character! 

[mythoughtis]

Every Moment of Claire’s time changes the future- big or small.  She has no way of deciding which action is the least harmful - even taking an extra plate of food might leave someone  else hungry.  Other than going back to her time, there’s nothing she can do about it