S04.E03: The False Bride

[Nidratime]

I was just reading a review of this episode in Variety and there's a nice little paragraph that touches on this discussion about Roger and Bree:

Quote

One thing to keep in mind — not only is this storyline set almost 50 years in the past when women’s liberation was still kind of in its infancy, but Roger was raised by a Scottish reverend and Brianna was raised by Claire in America. Those are two very different perspectives in regards to sex and intimacy. That does not in any way excuse Roger’s behavior here, but it does provide a little context.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/recaps/outlander-season-4-episode-3-false-bride-recap-brianna-roger-1203028319/

[Megan]

3 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I’m watching the show now and had I been in Brianna’s shoes I would’ve wanted to slap Roger too. (Violence isn’t okay so I’m not condoning what she did). 

What a “slut shaming” PRICK! They BARELY just started dating, and he thinks she owes him a commitment to marry?! Had he said that he wasn’t comfortable having sex unless they were committed that would’ve been one thing, but he was a total ass in that scene. Because he loves HER he has to have his way or they cannot be together at all. 

Nothing she said to him was out of line. He’s acting like a pouting child. Why can’t they just date for a while. People dated in 1970!

All of this! I have always disliked Roger and never understood how anyone could like his dumbass. Imo, he doesn't improve during the series. He sucks.

[Hyla]

1 hour ago, Megan said:

All of this! I have always disliked Roger and never understood how anyone could like his dumbass. Imo, he doesn't improve during the series. He sucks.

I hated Roger soooooooo much when I read Voyager last fall and Drums of Autumn did not redeem him for me. He's such a controlling, condescending, self-centered bastard and I did not care for his relationship with Brianna most of the time. (He has some redeeming moments - but, overall Brianna needs to get away from him immediately!)

The only thing that kept me interested in the character was that the author must be characterizing him that way on purpose since he is supposed to be Dougal Mackenzie's 7 times great-grandson or something. He's just as bone-headed, impulsive and dismissive as his ancestor and seems to bring back the foil to Jaimie that was lost when he killed his uncle.

I really, really like Richard Rankin's portrayal though and think they'll go with a softer, more likable version for the show. 

I am glad they kept in the conflict brought on by the different backgrounds. The minister's son from more conservative Scotland versus Brianna's Civil Rights Era university student raised by progressive parents in the U.S.

It will be interesting to see how they resolve their relationship issues as the story progresses.

What I most want to see going into this season (other than Brianna and Jamie meeting) is Brianna's attitudes to 18th century realities contrasted against those of her WWII era mother and biological father. I thought she adapted way too easily in the book.

I found Brianna and Roger's scenes in the show more engaging than Claire and Jamie's peril of the week.

As always the costumes, sets, props and scenery were top notch!

[Biggie B]

What I found odd was that Claire took her boots off at all. I thought perhaps she'd hurt one or both of her ankles in the fall off the horse and wanted to give herself some relief, but apparently not, since the next morning, she woke up and stood up and walked just fine. What truly was odd was that after taking her boots off, she left them right side up. Although she was slightly sheltered, it was pouring rain. Why not turn the boots over so that the insides wouldn't get wet? That bothered me more than the zippers - which I noticed immediately and thought was completely out of whack, since it would have been very easy for others to notice. I know the boots were a plot device but it just struck me as completely idiotic that Claire would take them off in the midst of a very heavy rain.

Brianna was my least favorite character in the entire series, so I tend to do other things when her scenes are on, like fold the laundry. I'm still listening but half-heartedly. I like the actor who's playing Roger, but his character also leaves me lukewarm. I know they end up together and have children, so I was bored during their fighting.

[AheadofStraight]

I guess Terry was getting a lot of tweets about the boots...

[MV713]

I was bored with this episode.  Looking forward to some excitement ahead.

[Nidratime]

I was thrown off by the boots as well. But, when I thought about it, it seemed fitting that the "time traveling ghost" would use such an anachronistic item to guide Claire towards Jamie and that the boots, left for Jamie to find, would leave no doubt that they were Claire's ... although I suspect there aren't tons of people leaving boots all over the woods in 1700's North Carolina. 

[rxpert14]

5 hours ago, Biggie B said:

What I found odd was that Claire took her boots off at all. I thought perhaps she'd hurt one or both of her ankles in the fall off the horse and wanted to give herself some relief, but apparently not, since the next morning, she woke up and stood up and walked just fine. What truly was odd was that after taking her boots off, she left them right side up. Although she was slightly sheltered, it was pouring rain. Why not turn the boots over so that the insides wouldn't get wet? That bothered me more than the zippers - which I noticed immediately and thought was completely out of whack, since it would have been very easy for others to notice. 

This is a complete guess on my part. Back in episode 209 when Claire was having flashbacks of her days on the front lines of WWII, there's a scene of her speaking with the soldiers where she tells them not to sleep in wet boots. I guess they're just shooting for character continuity and assuring Claire practices what she preaches.  She took them off for a completely different reason in the book (to cross the stream I think?).

[Biggie B]

@rxpert14, that makes total sense. Still, if she wanted to keep her boots dry, she should've turned them over!

[Hannah Lee]

23 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

 The country is beautiful and that's enough for me for now, even with my husband sitting next to me furiously googling whether they have bald eagles in Scotland. 

I was so happy that the bird sound they went with was actual Bald Eagle sound.  Usually tv/movies use a red tailed hawk sound which sounds nothing like it.

[Ziggy]

16 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Perhaps I wasn’t watching closely enough, but what did Brianna say to Rodger than was hurtful? I only heard him try to slut shame her for initiating sex but dare not wanting to commit to marriage when they JUST got together. I sensed SO much misogyny and sexism is that scene, I appreciated Brianna calling him out on it. 

 

I know it’s 1970 not 2018 but Brianna, being raised by both Claire and Frank grew up in a pretty progressive household, I’m glad he couldn’t bully her into accepting his proposal. 

I'd have to watch again, but I think he was hurt that she didn't want to marry him. 

[Scarlett45]

6 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I'd have to watch again, but I think he was hurt that she didn't want to marry him. 

Ah thank you. I still think Roger was in the wrong and a sexist prick. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to agree to marry you when you’ve been a couple for two seconds. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Scarlett45

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

Ah thank you. I still think Roger was in the wrong and a sexist prick. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to agree to marry you when you’ve been a couple for two seconds. 

Yep.  He was genuinely disappointed when he realized Brianna was not there anymore but I probably would have done the same.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The only thing that kept me interested in the character was that the author must be characterizing him that way on purpose since he is supposed to be Dougal Mackenzie's 7 times great-grandson or something.

Can somebody help me remember how Claire was able to discover this? I mean, Geillis and Dougal's child would have been a secret, and Roger had no idea he was descended from a Mackenzie so how did Claire find out about it? 

I was kind of annoyed with the timeline switching back and forth but I'm not sure why - I would not have preferred an entire episode of Roger and Brianna. And I did enjoy the transition between the road trip R&B were taking to the same road 200 years earlier when Jamie and Claire are riding along it. 

I feel two ways about Jocasta's dressing down of Claire. On the one hand, she kind of right. On the other hand, Jamie had already shown a proclivity for getting into trouble long before he ever even met Claire. So we really have no way of knowing if he'd be better off or worse off without her.

[Hyla]

16 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Can somebody help me remember how Claire was able to discover this? I mean, Geillis and Dougal's child would have been a secret, and Roger had no idea he was descended from a Mackenzie so how did Claire find out about it? 

I have a clearer memory of the book than the show. But, I'm fairly sure Roger in the show talks about being adopted by Reverend Wakefield but going back to his birth father's surname MacKenzie. I can't recall a particular scene where Claire realizes he's Dougal MacKenzie's great-grandson. Was the conundrum where they have to stop Geillis Duncan from going through the stones so she isn't burnt as a witch - but if they do prevent her then Roger will never be born brought up in the show?

In the book Claire and Dougal have a conversation and he tells her he placed his and Geillis's son with a couple with the surname MacKenzie who had just lost their baby less than a year previously. Claire refers to that child as the Changling - since he was switched into the new identity.

Reverend Wakefield has a family tree he made for Roger that Claire sees and recognizes the couple's name and the date is about right - so that and Roger's having Geillis Duncan's intense green eyes clues her in to who he is.

[Eureka]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Can somebody help me remember how Claire was able to discover this? I mean, Geillis and Dougal's child would have been a secret, and Roger had no idea he was descended from a Mackenzie so how did Claire find out about it? 

 

I can't remember the ultimate reason but I seem to remember her recognizing something in his eyes when she met Roger. A familiar resemblance to Geillis I think? It's been a long time since I've read those earlier books.

[Nidratime]

Quote

Was the conundrum where they have to stop Geillis Duncan from going through the stones so she isn't burnt as a witch - but if they do prevent her then Roger will never be born brought up in the show?

Yes, I believe it was. When they were rerunning the old episodes before the new season started, I'm pretty sure Roger said something about it.

[FnkyChkn34]

4 hours ago, Eureka said:

I can't remember the ultimate reason but I seem to remember her recognizing something in his eyes when she met Roger. A familiar resemblance to Geillis I think? It's been a long time since I've read those earlier books.

I forget when it's revealed or realized in the books, but the green eyes, the family tree, the Mackenzie name, and the obvious - (checks again to make sure I'm in the book thread... yep) he's a time traveler.  Time traveling is genetic.  If that's not specifically said somewhere, it's heavily implied, so Claire knows that way too.  In the books, both Brianna and Roger can hear the buzzing at the stones when Claire goes back, just like Claire and unlike someone who can't time travel.  I don't think that point was obvious in the show.

8 hours ago, rxpert14 said:

This is a guess on my part. Back in episode 209 when Claire was having flashbacks of her days on the front lines of WWII, there's a scene of her speaking with the soldiers where she tells them not to sleep in wet boots. I guess they're just shooting for character continuity and assuring Claire practices what she preaches.  She took them off for a completely different reason in the book (to cross the stream I think?).

That's a great catch.  She has an angry PTSD moment with Angus, too, where she yells at him about his moldy feet.  She makes them promise to take better care of their boots and feet, I think.  Rupert and Angus are dumbfounded by her angry outburst, but reluctantly agree.

[Cdh20]

18 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I forget when it's revealed or realized in the books, but the green eyes, the family tree, the Mackenzie name, and the obvious - (checks again to make sure I'm in the book thread... yep) he's a time traveler.  Time traveling is genetic.  If that's not specifically said somewhere, it's heavily implied, so Claire knows that way too.  In the books, both Brianna and Roger can hear the buzzing at the stones when Claire goes back, just like Claire and unlike someone who can't time travel.  I don't think that point was obvious in the show.

That's a great catch.  She has an angry PTSD moment with Angus, too, where she yells at him about his moldy feet.  She makes them promise to take better care of their boots and feet, I think.  Rupert and Angus are dumbfounded by her angry outburst, but reluctantly agree.

The night when they all saw Geillis go through the stones,  Roger & Brianna said they could hear the buzzing to each other, so hopefully show only people caught that! I don’t think that Claire knows that about them though, that it is inherited.

[WatchrTina]

On 11/18/2018 at 4:12 PM, Squirrely said:

Jocasta is pissy that she didn't get her way despite her Mackenzian method of naming Jamie in front of all those people without so much as a prior discussion. 

I am still a but confused as to why they changed things so much with Jamie and Claire's decisions on where to live, and with regards to Ian. We still got to Fraser's Ridge with the same outcome. Why make it so muddled? I'm hoping there is an actual reason for that. 

I love "The Mackenzian Method."  This needs to become a common expression for manipulative people.

As for the rest . . . I suspect the writers were trying to address the question of why Jamie & Claire -- who do not wish to be slave-holders -- chose to settle in a part of the country where slave-holding was common.  Why not go north where the economy was less agricultural and thus, less dependent on slaves?  Claire's desire to not be in Boston and her point that they might want to avoid those cities that will be flash points in the coming revolution are compelling arguments in support of their ultimate decision to accept the Governor's offer.

Overall my reaction to this episode is kind of . . . meh.  It ticks a lot of required boxes to move the plot along to Jamie & Claire's decision to take up the Governor's offer and settle in North Carolina but it just didn't grab me the way this show usually does.  They're having to speed through quite a lot of plot and -- remembering the books -- it make me sad that everything feels so rushed.

As for Brianna and Roger . . . oh dear.  I love, love, LOVE Rik Rankin in this role but, alas, in this episode he was called upon to play a fairly unreasonable character.  It made more sense in the book . . . he proposed after Christmas mass, in the falling snow, right?  It was something he'd been thinking about and planning for a while.  TV!Roger just spontaneously proposed in the middle of coitus interruptus.  Oh Roger.  I will say that the writers did a good job of giving the audience a reason to sympathize with TV!Brianna.  In the book I'm totally TeamRoger.  It's probably a good thing that they made him a wee bit less perfect in the show.

Edited November 21, 2018 by WatchrTina

[tennisgurl]

I mean, I do get the differences between how Roger and Bree were raised, and how that affects how they see relationships. She was raised in an academic by her liberal parents in a major American city, while Roger was raised in a little town in Scotland by a Reverend, so, especially in 1970, that is going to affect them and how they see sex and romance. However, I am totally on Brees side, Roger was a major asshole in how he handled that. No one likes to get rejected, but Christ, Roger! Instead, its all slut shamming and yelling and acting like because they dated, they are now promised to each other like its 1400 and you can to get married if you made eye contact or something. I know that we have a lot more of them coming up, and I think the show will tone down some of his more controlling tendencies, and the actor is really great, but I am wary about how this will come across. I do think that seeing it out loud did kind of help my understanding of the fight, but its super unpleasant. I mean, when Jamie, a guy from the colonial era, seems more progressive than you, a guy from the 60s, you know things are bad. Although, smacking him in the face wasn't the right way to respond to that. I mean, she drew BLOOD! 

The Highland festival in the 70s part was great, it was such a lovely look at that time and place, and I love Roger going to the US from Scotland...to go to a Scottish festival. It was really beautiful, and I love seeing how the Scottish roots from the Jamie and Claire period will continue on into the 20th century. The scenery in both periods were perfect, and really set the mood properly. 

Rollo is a good doggie. 

Jocasta really told Claire off, didnt she? I mean, I do love when people tell Claire that she needs to chill out with butting into everything and dragging Jamie into stuff, but I miss the relationship they had on page. It was more like the later relationship Claire had with Jenny, where she called Claire on her crap, but still clearly cared about her, and appreciated her convictions and love for Jamie.

[Pestilentia]

Roger was just majorly hurt by her rejection and lashed out at her- people do that when they are wounded. He had set himself up to expect an entirely different scenario are was knocked completely off balance.

All sorts of stupid things fall out of people's mouths when they open themselves up to this degree only to be met with a refusal. He got defensive and attacked- it's a very human reaction.  When things calm down a bit he'll rethink his feelings on the matter.

[Haleth]

The way their relationship plays out in the coming episodes makes me handwave away this argument. 

Spoiler

I hate Bree for what she does to Roger by not speaking up.

[Hannah Lee]

17 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I forget when it's revealed or realized in the books, but the green eyes, the family tree, the Mackenzie name, and the obvious - (checks again to make sure I'm in the book thread... yep) he's a time traveler.  Time traveling is genetic.  If that's not specifically said somewhere, it's heavily implied, so Claire knows that way too.  In the books, both Brianna and Roger can hear the buzzing at the stones when Claire goes back, just like Claire and unlike someone who can't time travel.  I don't think that point was obvious in the show.

That's a great catch.  She has an angry PTSD moment with Angus, too, where she yells at him about his moldy feet.  She makes them promise to take better care of their boots and feet, I think.  Rupert and Angus are dumbfounded by her angry outburst, but reluctantly agree.

 

 

 

Anyway, in the show, they definitely had both Brianna and Roger reacting to the noise and vibrations at the stones.  And in the episode where Jaime and Claire at the the stones before the battle at Colloden, she hears and feels the humming and he doesn't hear it at all (or so he says)   So show did portray different reactions, and they were obvious enough for "show only" people to pick up.  (I'm a show only person, haven't read the books but don't mind book spoilers, so I hang in both threads")

[fresiaa]

Maybe it shows my age, but I didn't object to Rogers logic. It takes a while to understand each other. To understand yourself too. You won't believe what stupidity comes out of my mouth.

 

Did anyone notice the intro showing a women with pearl on her wrist? Must be Brianna.

 

Would Otter tooth wear a cotton shirt in 1710? Have I ever in my real life seen a man with bangs? Why leave after just two days (not in the book)? If they didn't want to ask for anything, why did they make the journey from Georgia to River Run in the first place? Can you really take a cart into unspoiled mountains? That finishing shot of Frasers Ridge looked so fake to me. Is it real? Wouldn't there be a stand on the festival about local history/family trees? Nobody bothers to ask about local Frasers? Will the festival drawing return as Jamie's "oops" moment?

Too many questions are bugging me. Is it me or is it the show?

[Nidratime]

Quote

Have I ever in my real life seen a man with bangs?

The Beatles?! Jamie is a hip man way before his time! ;-)

 

Quote

Why leave after just two days (not in the book)? If they didn't want to ask for anything, why did they make the journey from Georgia to River Run in the first place?

Well, they didn't know beforehand that they were only going to spend a few days at River Run (on the show). And, they didn't know exactly what they were going to find when they got there. It would've been strange if they got all the way to the southern, east coast of America and not checked in with Aunt Jocasta, especially since they might need her connections and influence. And, of course, after they were brutally robbed, they definitely needed to go there and seek assistance, even though Jamie was embarrassed to do so. And, for a brief five minutes, Jamie was considering Jocasta's offer -- signified by his announcing that he wanted to free the slaves -- which was quickly shot down by Jocasta and her neighbors.

 

Quote

That finishing shot of Frasers Ridge looked so fake to me. Is it real?

It could be a real shot of North Carolina that Matt Roberts might have taken when he visited but who knows.

 

Quote

Wouldn't there be a stand on the festival about local history/family trees? Nobody bothers to ask about local Frasers? Will the festival drawing return as Jamie's "oops" moment?

I don't understand your last question, but we have to remember that *at this time* Brianna and Roger know nothing about where Claire and Jamie are. As I understand it, they still think Claire and Jamie -- if Claire made it back, found Jamie, and they're together -- are in Scotland. They have no reason to believe that Brianna's parents, through the most bizarre circumstances, happened to have ended up in North Carolina, even traveling over the same geography. So, I'm not sure looking up local Frasers would've occurred to Brianna, although she might've been shocked if she had. Remember though, she gave Roger that book on Scottish history, so....

[WatchrTina]

For those of you who don't Facebook, Diana posted a link to this funny recap of the episode there so I thought I'd post it here.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/tv/19-11-2018/outlander-recap-the-american-dream-and-also-second-wave-feminism/?fbclid=IwAR3mmdH6j6pZahglQusWWSgqF7beyuJNtw7wjjHatY1tUiwQnj_36blGPe4

[Cdh20]

23 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

For those of you who don't Facebook, Diana posted a link to this funny recap of the episode there so I thought I'd post it here.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/tv/19-11-2018/outlander-recap-the-american-dream-and-also-second-wave-feminism/?fbclid=IwAR3mmdH6j6pZahglQusWWSgqF7beyuJNtw7wjjHatY1tUiwQnj_36blGPe4

That recap had me laughing so loud I woke up my sleeping kid! 

[Atlanta]

Roger was hurting and lashed out. Bree is having to work through a TON of issues. In the book, they had visited each other more and the relationship was more nurtured. I get they have to condense a lot of stuff here though.

And Clarence! Love those Outlander animals.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Atlanta

[Cloudberryjam]

Hi all!  Loved Jamie and Claires “normal” conversation (as normal as it can be when discussing your daughter 200 years in the future) and togetherness in this ep

Roger’s song gave me the nerd chills. I liked him last season! Now not so sure.  I amone who felt Sophie was much better acting wise in this ep than last season. That odd monotone seems to be mostly gone!

Can someone remind me: in the book did Roger sell the rev’s house to Fiona? Are we meant to understand he is moving to the US? I thought he went back to Scotland.  Why would he sell his (adoptive) family home? Downsizing :) ? Where was he planning on putting the 4 or 5 bairns he expected Brianna to be ready to bear? Oh Roger, I am so confused!

[Nidratime]

Quote

Can someone remind me: in the book did Roger sell the rev’s house to Fiona? Are we meant to understand he is moving to the US? I thought he went back to Scotland.  Why would he sell his (adoptive) family home? Downsizing :) ? Where was he planning on putting the 4 or 5 bairns he expected Brianna to be ready to bear? Oh Roger, I am so confused!

Roger can't sell the house. It's a parish house. It belongs to whomever is the reverend for that parish. As I recall, the new reverend and his family had their own accommodations and didn't need the house. Roger is a professor at Oxford University, which is in England, and so he spends most of his time there. He has a flat (apartment) there. Since Roger wasn't going to live there because 1) he isn't a minister and 2) he works at Oxford and 3) the new reverend didn't need the home, the parish was allowing Fiona and her new husband to rent it, especially as they intended to raise a family in the community, and I suspect, especially since she and her mother had given so much service to the previous reverend and to the parish.

ETA: Now that I think of it, Mrs. Graham might have been Fiona's grandmother. Mother? Grandmother? I can't remember, but the explanation still stands.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Nidratime

[Cdh20]

59 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

Roger can't sell the house. It's a parish house. It belongs to whomever is the reverend for that parish. As I recall, the new reverend and his family had their own accommodations and didn't need the house. Roger is a professor at Oxford University, which is in England, and so he spends most of his time there. He has a flat (apartment) there. Since Roger wasn't going to live there because 1) he isn't a minister and 2) he works at Oxford and 3) the new reverend didn't need the home, the parish was allowing Fiona and her new husband to rent it, especially as they intended to raise a family in the community, and I suspect, especially since she and her mother had given so much service to the previous reverend and to the parish.

ETA: Now that I think of it, Mrs. Graham might have been Fiona's grandmother. Mother? Grandmother? I can't remember, but the explanation still stands.

Mrs. Graham was Fiona's grandmother, at least she said so when she gave those pearls back to Claire in season 3.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Mrs. Graham was Fiona’s grandmother.

[MedievalGirl]

Finding the right shoes for my Claire cosplay has been a pain in the neck. I could have been wearing my modern ankle boots this whole time!

 

[areca]

Sophie is still soooo bad.  I can't for the life of me believe they couldn't have found an appropriate UK citizen who grew up in America and could slap on a damn wig.  Still, she's marginally better.  As was Jamie's wig.  Looking forward to tomorrow's episode, maybe they can finally slow down and enjoy the story some...

[LoveLeigh]

Can somebody please refresh my memory? Where in the show did we last see Fergus? 

[Atlanta]

16 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

Can somebody please refresh my memory? Where in the show did we last see Fergus? 

It may have been the first ep of the season.

[LoveLeigh]

1 hour ago, Atlanta said:

It may have been the first ep of the season.

But where was he geographically? In Jamaica or North Carolina? 

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, DakotaLavender said:

But where was he geographically? In Jamaica or North Carolina? 

He was in Wilmington, North Carolina in epi 401.

[satrunrose]

On 11/18/2018 at 3:42 PM, rxpert14 said:

It seems I'm in the minority (as usual) in that I really liked Claire letting Jocasta know that she knew very little about Claire (or Jamie for that matter) based on spending about 2 days with them. I'm glad Claire defended herself and defended the decision she and Jamie made together to leave RR. Trying to guilt Claire into being the reason Jamie declined Jocasta's offer is a total Mackenzie move. I'm with Claire on this one.

I do wish Claire and Jocasta's relationship was less strained. While there were opposing opinions in the book, there was still an affection between them. 

I liked that Claire and Jacosta were both wrong (although I'd agree Jacosta more so than Claire). Jamie is a natural leader. Plus, he gets into enough illegal activities, even without Claire, that he isn't going to be happy as just the town printer. The thing is, though, Jamie is such a good leader because leads by inspiring a lot of trust and loyalty and gives the people he leads a lot of trust and loyalty in return. I'm thinking of the way he gets whipped in books 1 and 2, or helps with the harvest at Lallybroch, or the waterwheel incident. That's very different from the relationship he would have to have with the enslaved people at River Run. Even with a good 18th century lass, I just can't see Jamie being able to be that guy (and thank goodness for that!). 

[Kim0820]

I expected the transition for Ian from going back to Scotland versus staying in America to be a lot harder and involve attacks and kidnapping.  Glad it was that simple. 

How utterly convenient to wash up after a hurricane relatively near to where you have a relative living.  And how convenient that the 1970 festival was in NC right where Jamie and Claire were.  

At the very beginning of the season, it is clear there is a Native American Craig na Dune conveniently located, I will guess, in NC near Fraser's ridge.

I liked the tug-of-war going on at the festival.  That is very 1970.  

Claire going off when Jamie objected saying the mule would come back on its own - then he does but she does not - seriously?  Again?  Claire will never learn to defer to Jamie's 18th century experience and will keep disappearing, the last thing she should want to do to Jamie.  She doesn't learn from her own experiences.